Female Soldiers Need Specialized Protective Body Armor
In today’s ever changing world, people who serve in the United States military face extreme danger. Danger is eminent for both men and women when deployed abroad. For women the threat is even more apparent because protective vests were designed for a man’s body. Over a decade into the war against the Taliban, women’s protective gear is finally being developed. Some think perhaps a little too late, considering women have been deployed since the very start of the war.
The major issue women faced with the standard issued protective body armor was the fact that they had breasts and hips. Women’s bodies are often much smaller than their male counterparts. The issues gear would often weigh them down and inhibit body movement. When someone is in the field body movement is the most important function a solder has. “Sgt. Bobbie Crawford, who is 5 feet 6 inches and weighs just over 100 pounds, said she struggled to maneuver wearing body armor when she served in Afghanistan in 2010 as part of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division.” Gear designed for men made it hard for women to get in and out of patrol vehicles, use their weapons, and even simple movements like crouch down. Crawford said, “It rubbed on my hips and limited my mobility…You definitely had to find a lot of workarounds, you had to learn to become creative.” How is that fair for women, having to alter either their bodies or gear to make it work. A temporary fix does not solve the problem. In 2012 there was new hard armor plate and soft armor being designed for women, however now in 2013, very little has been resolved.
Woman being allowed in combat is a fairly new occurrence. Women were typically banned fro...
... middle of paper ...
...re are soft armor and specialized vests being tested for women, but that’s not enough. Women need the same protection men have. Hard armor plates designed for a woman’s body is the only way. It is estimated by 2025, the army will be comprised of women. These women will be facing a much higher risk as they are now beginning to expand into combat ready positions. It seems very foolish of the government to allow these women to take greater dangers when there is not even proper protective gear for them. “Our female soldiers should be provided the same level of protection as their male counterparts and the 2013 NDAA language for the first time directs the development of gender-specific body armor to ensure that this life saving technology properly fits and protects all of our service members.” The concern is not only for comfort, but the ultimate safety of our soldiers.
Women should be allowed in combat roles in the armed forces because they are just as capable as men. To begin, women such as Shaye Haver and Kristen Griest, graduates of the Fort Benning Ranger School, have shown that they can meet the same physical requirements as men. Nevertheless, these women still weren’t allowed to serve in combat positions despite the rigorous training they completed that involved grueling obstacles they had to complete all while carrying 100-pound gear. Does that make any sense to you? It didn’t to me and it certainly didn’t to women like Sgt. Patricia A. Bradford who said “If you have to be able to lift a certain amount of weight in order to do a certain job, then the weight is not going to know whether you’re male or female.” (Women at Arms: On the Ground.). In fact, in some instances women have proved to be even more
Women should not go into hand-to-hand combat because of all that heavy protective gear weighing their bodies down. The protective gear is extremely heavy and is not the kind of gear a woman should wear. The protective gear is made for men who have upper body strength and is able to carry it on their backs across the battlefield. If a woman tried to sprint across the battlefield with all of that extremely heavy gear latched onto her back, she wouldn’t make it. Women also have a lower aerobic capacity than men. Just imagine if women had to run with heavy gear on and was extremely exhausted from running. Only one or two women can do that, but most women cannot. Men on the other hand have a much higher aerobic capacity than women. Men can run without getting exhausted easily and they have enough strength to carry all of the heavy gear on their backs. The better the soldiers are, the higher chance the team has of winning.
The most recent debate questions a women’s engagement in combat. What distinguishes some positions as being acceptable while others are not? Who has the authority to approve exceptions, and what exceptions have been made? On May 13, 2011, a bill placed before the House of Representatives addressed the issues to “repeal the ground combat exclusion policy for female members” (HR 1928).
"Update: Women in the Military." Issues and Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 29 May 2007. Web.
The Veteran’s screening program stated that 1 in 4 women have experienced MST (2015) within their time in service. This shows that there is an epidemic within our nation’s ranks. There should be no reason why our women in uniform go through such a traumatizing event. Our women in armor signed to defend our country. They did not sign, thinking they would have to be on guard while resting at the home
Women have been in the military, or associated with combat for decades. “The most famous example of the ability of a woman to not only be involved in combat but to lead forces is that of Joan of Arc's legendary battles leading the French army when she was just a teenager.”(Gerber 1) Women have been involved in espionage and even posed as male soldiers during the Civil War. Conflicts such as, WWI, WWII, Panama, and as recent as our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan women have served with distinction in many ways. In our most recent conflict, over 100 military women have given the ultimate sacrifice. Today with changes in our society and the global environment in which we live two controversial arguments arise concerning women in combat. Basically the debate whether or not women should be allowed to participate in direct combat or not. As our society and cultural beliefs change so does what we except as social norms. Both sides of this argument bring many reasons for and against allowing women to participate in direct combat. Taking into account both views of this controversy it will show, that not only a social change has occurred, but the dynamics of the battlefield has in fact already placed female service members into direct combat.
During WWII, the initial acceptance of woman in the military was controversial because they were deciding whether just needed more people, whether they should be an official part of the services, and whether they could perform the jobs. Most people were concerned that women would obstruct the view of American culture because they would be considered “masculine”. By 1944, women proved to be effective in helping during the war. Some were even trained to shoot guns next to the men. In 1994 the DOD (Department of Defense) created a policy that prevented women from combat with their male colleagues. They also could not be assigned to units below the brigade level, whose number one objective is combat on ground. Over the years women have showed that they are physically, mentally, and emotionally able to keep up with men in the military.
The gender integration in the military has always faced questions of social acceptance, weather society can accept how women will be qualified and respected in the military as today. As of today, the decision has been made and allowed women to fill about 220,000 jobs that are now limited to men which includes infantry, armor, reconnaissance and some special operations units. The recruitment numbers of women have been increasing since than which reflects the importance of severing as role model for future women to join infantry and other ground combat jobs which they have been prohibited from. Women have extensively served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, but discrimination still continues till today. The military requirements are physical tests and standards such as long deployments aboard ships, exceptions for infantry which male units perform better than women. Women’s acknowledgement has not really changed which stated by Carter “ He said there are “physical differences on average” between men and women and that “thus far, we’ve only seen small numbers of women qualify to meet our high physical standards” for some units “ (Bradner, p. 3).There are not many exceptions for women fulfilling the needs to open opportunity jobs in the military but with little hope which men inhale the endurance and strength that are not viewed towards
Like with any modern point of contention, it is important to understand the history. Since as early as the revolutionary war, women have been active participants in the U.S. military. From nursing soldiers to cross-dressing and actually fighting, women have played a crucial
Private Taibtha Allen "took careful aim with her MK-19 grenade launcher, then fired off four rounds. Down range, the carcass of an old tank exploded in flash and fury: four direct hits" (Janofsky A10). A first for enlisted women, t he shooting of live ammunition from heavy weapons during combat training represents overcoming another obstacle limiting women's roles in the military. While women are integrated into boot camps, they are not allowed to serve front line combat roles. Op ponents argue that women should not be allowed in combat roles because they are not subject to the same physical training standard as men, and women do not possess the physical strength to be effective in combat roles. Based on these assumptions, opponen ts's claim that women are unable to enhance their units and this ineffectiveness endangers national security. Furthermore, opponents argue that the public is not ready to accept women in combat and if women were allowed, it would promote the idea that vi olence against women is acceptable. However the overall issue of allowing women into combat roles should be based on equality. If women in the Military meet the same standards as men, they should be treated equally and provided the same opportunities as men to serve in combat roles (Janofsky A10).
Ruby, J. (2005, November 1). Women in Combat Roles: Is That the Question?. Off Our Backs,35, 36.
The story of America’s military woman can be traced to the birth of our nation. During the American Revolutionary War, the 18th and 19th centuries, where women served informally as nurses, seamstresses, cooks, and even as spies and were subject to Army’s rules of Conduct. Though not in uniform, these women shared soldier’s hardships including inadequate housing and little compensation. Women have formally been part of the U.S Armed Forces since the Inception of the Army Nurse Corps in 1901. In 1973 the transition to the All-Volunteer Force marked a dramatic increase in the opportunities available for women to serve in the military. As of September 30, 2009, the total number of active duty women in the U.S was 203, 375, and women made up 14.3 percent of the U.s armed forces (Robinson). Women are a crucial role in c...
Across the history, women Suffer from luck of their right. Culture and civilization was not respect women and put them in the lower layer in their social pyramid. Kill them were they alive, while other give them a life with a lot of misery and obstacle, which is the same thing or killing them better than these life . At the few previous centuries, the world growth and become more opening. people understanding that they are needing women in a lot of job outside their home as men. Sadly, when we came to combat sector, we stop thinking logically. It is men major one hundred percent . If we look to the book (1001 things everyone should know about women's history) which written by Constance Jones (2000) we can find that only 88013 women among history had the ability to take part in military by give a variety of services. Some country actually these day try to make it happen. For instance the first country was allowed women in military was Norway around 1985. Then, it followed by thirteen other countries. It still small percentage compared with the world. It is the right of women to join army and take part in combat, because they are capable as men in adapting with situation. Also, they have equally amount in cerebration and they have the right to decide their own destiny.
One of the most important factors that shows how women are not as effective as men in combat situations is the obvious fact that they perform on different physical levels. Other important points are the fact that women are much more susceptible to injury than men. These factors could weigh heavily for th...
Some people will argue that the physical differences between men and women are substantial enough to dismiss women from infantry. In the Army, women do not have to score as high as the men on the physical fitness test, further backing the argument about physical strength. Women, on average, have less upper-body strength, less muscle mass, and a lighter skeleton, which could lead to an increased risk of structural injury (Owens). If women were assigned to the front lines, they may not be capable of doing the physically demanding jobs such as handling Howitzer munitions (Owens). There is a feeling of a double standard because men are held to higher physical fitness requirements than women.