Physical Equality In Combat Roles

Secretary Mr. Panetta’s decision to repeal the DOD policy preventing women from serving in direct ground combat units opened Pandora’s Box on the debate of whether or not women should be allowed to serve in specialties previously opened to males only. The narrative regarding the women serving in direct ground combat arms specialties was immediately high jacked by those sympathetic to women who have served in combat on a “nonlinear” battlefield, where there were no distinguishable front and rear lines. Additionally, many have rallied behind those women who have been able to demonstrate superior physical abilities, such as the two women soldiers that recently completed Ranger School. I would submit that neither accomplishment demonstrates that these women or women in general are the “best-qualified and most capable” to serve in direct ground combat arms specialties. This issue is not about what women should be allowed to do, it’s really about what are they capable of doing. The bias is not institutional, the bias is physiological.

In terms of modern-day combat, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive."(Messay, 3) Some argue that it is a women 's right to be in combat, but anyone will agree that equal opportunity does not play part in combat. "Feminists and their supporters want to gender-neutralize the military be incrementally ditching common sense policies. This latest study, which claims that women can be trained to be like men, contributes to this misguided ideology, weakens the force structure at its core, and puts America 's military personnel in peril." continues Lt. Col. Maginnis. (Messay, 3) When we try to force and shove women into dangerous situations, we are ignoring their rights instead of protecting them. The dropout rate for women is higher than for men. Leading the dropout rates are white women with an average rate of 43%, followed by black women at 33% and Hispanic women with 31% (Park). This can be directly pointed to the physical demands that a women faced in basic training.

Profoundly influenced by two post-9/11 protracted wars that highlighted the expanded role of women in combat, civilian leaders have opted to pursue a gender neutral military apparently on the grounds that integrating women in direct ground combat arms roles is both essential and prudent. Central to the rhetoric is that women are not only qualified, but that they bring a wealth of diverse talents that they should be able to apply across all disciplines within the Armed Forces and in turn, be afforded the opportunity to ascend to more senior ranks. However, policy makers are deliberately ignoring decades of medical research and evidence that strongly counter the logic of such a decision and brings into question their motives. The purpose of this paper is to synthesize and present the extensive body of evidence that exists counter to the rationality of pursuing a fully integrated, gender neutral military. This research paper uses a qualitative approach to argue that integrating women in the Marine Corps’ infantry will degrade readiness, deplete a talented pool of women from the total force, and impact the overall combat effectiveness of the Marine Corps. After presenting a brief background of how we arrived at the present date decision and debate, this paper will enumerate the impacts of physiological differences between genders. Next, the paper will then lay out the cumulative impacts that the difference in physical strength and endurance have on attrition and readiness

According to the article, women do not have the physiological conditions required to perform certain types of activities. Those who defend this idea say, for example, that in close combat women have a clear disadvantage and that certain weapons are too heavy for them. But this argument runs out of focus if we look at cases such as Israel, where the presence of female staff has gone from 60% to 92% of the specialties in the military career as a result of a conscious effort to adapt equipment and uniforms to the female physiognomy (BBC, The Female Soldiers Serving in Israel’s Army). Similarly, the stereotype of men's physical superiority falls into the face of the gradual female colonization in professions such as mining and cargo transportation;

Women and war have always been considered to have little in common. As the gentle sex, women are traditionally associated with the care and creation of life rather than with its destruction. However, over the past twenty years, women have increasingly served, and continue to serve, with valor and integrity in the Unites States Armed Forces (Kamarack, 2015). Although women have successfully proved themselves in the military, they should be restricted from entering into direct combat because they are less physically fit than their male counterparts, create animosity on front lines, and undermine cohesion within a military unit.

Women have been fighting alongside men on battlefields for centuries upon centuries, giving their greatest fight to lead their team to victory. Although women are given this opportunity, direct ground combat amongst women remains against the law till this very day, allowing a gender to define what a female can, or cannot do. The human race continues to evolve every day, yet a simple discriminatory law that decides what a woman’s capabilities are without being aware of just how empowering that specific woman is is the same as it first was. Despite the idea that women do not meet certain requirements in order to take place in combat units, women continue to provide an endless amount of support to men on battlefields, bringing a completely

While acknowledging the existence of studies showing the inferiority of women’s performance in combat conditions compared to men’s, Denn holds an almost dismissive attitude toward such evidence. He instead argues: “The success of women’s integration into combat units will depend on how quickly and enthusiastically officers and enlisted soldiers embrace it. Many servicemen resist the idea, citing studies that suggest the inclusion of women in combat would imperil unit effectiveness, good order, and discipline.” Thus, Denn suggests that the barriers to women’s success in combat lie not with the women’s physical capabilities but rather with those who oppose the idea of servicewomen in combat. However, a Marine Corps study conducted over a period of one year refutes Denn’s claims. “The Marines created a battalion of 100 female and 300 male volunteers. During the past year, they trained…taking part in realistic combat exercises. All-male squads, the study

Women in Combat Becca Rhoades Mifflin County High School   Women in Combat Even though many people stereotype women being in combat, it isn’t fair that you are stopping someone from doing what they love to do. Women can do things the same way as men and it will open more job opportunities for women. Women should have the same rights as anyone else. Would a man want to stand there and be victimized because he is a male?

As a result, allowing women in these units will lower the physical standard. They made this claim not because it has been proving, but based on gender differences. Also, the population sample they use to make such claim is very minuscule. This claim derogates women, and contradicts the Equal Opportunity (EO) program the armed forces have been determinedly implemented. I believe that any women should allow to have any job in the USA armed forces as long she is qualified. Furthermore, receiving equitable training as the men counterpart, and qualifying before assign to a units will eliminate any modification to the physical standard. Above all, due high technology battlefield technical expertise and decision-making skills are more valuable than simple brute

Women in the military are never asked to go on the front line of war for the same reason. While most may volunteer, society frowned upon a woman in adverse siltation. The role of women in the military, particularly in combat, is controversial and it is only recently that women have begun to be given a more prominent role in contemporary armed forces. As increasing numbers of countries begin to expand the role of women in their militaries, the debate continues today in 2018. The military has a lot of so called dangerous positions open to women but have restrictions which will knowingly disqualify a women because of physical demands that women cannot meet such as with special forces positions like armor and infantry.

Until recently men and women have had distinct roles in the military. With males getting more leadership roles, as well as certain combat roles mainly because of the physical demand for these roles. When the war in Afghanistan started however women started being put on the front-lines more often even if that was not their typical role in the military. Men and women fought side by side on the frontlines demonstrating support for the argument that women can work and excel in the same roles as men simply by being forced into these roles when not assigned as their primary role.

Many on each side of the issue cite the alleged physical and mental differences between males and females, the effect of the presence of the opposite sex on the battlefield, and the traditional view of male soldiers as arguments both for and against women being employed as soldiers under combat situations. Since very few countries employ a fully integrated military, there are few references available to prove or disprove the arguments. Although women are recruited to serve in the military in most countries, only a few countries permit women to fill active combat roles.

When it comes to combat assignments and the needs of the military, men take precedence over all other considerations, including career prospects of female service members. Female military members have been encouraged to pursue opportunities and career enhancement within the armed forces, which limit them only to the needs and good of the service due to women being not as “similarly situated” as their male counterparts when it comes to strength or aggressiveness, and are not able to handle combat situations.

The final reason is that lowering standards to accommodate gender equality will lead to a weaker military. A weaker military will threaten our status as a dominant power and potentially open our country up to further terrorist attacks. The military has a history of lowering the bar for women. The West Point military academy admits that its physical standards are far easier for women, whereas the Army's Airborne School used to deny it but now publishes standards showing just that. We also know that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey put an impossible burden on the military to show that if physical training standards are so high that they're keeping women out, "does it really have to be that high?" That would be like forcing a professional

In striving to be as physically fit as male colleagues, many women hurt themselves and thus limiting their military roles all together. “But it’s flatly rooted in the fact women biologically are not able to perform physically to the same level as men.” (Davis) “The standards of physical fitness have been best suit to men, and women attempting to reach them [men’s physical fitness] will over-stretch themselves.” (IDEA) These two sources both convey that women do not have the physical standards as men and in trying to reach the biologically impossible standards, women often out do themselves. Although women might not be as strong physically, they do offer strong mental capabilities and are more effective in some circumstances. One source claims: “If women can meet the standards as men. They should be allowed to serve in the infantry.” (Michaels, Brook and Welch) Meaning that if women can withstand the biological factors, then they should be capable of serving in the front-lines. Another source states: “There is no issue with a women’s intellectual quality or value as a human being.” (Davis) This author is claiming that there is no reason why women should not be able to serve in the military and that women, as a whole unit, should be valued as human beings that have the opportunity to serve in combat roles if they