Excluding women from frontline combat is essentially sexist. Regardless of the many substantial contributions women have made to the United States military from the American Revolutionary war to the contemporary Iraq and Afghanistan wars, it has long been a sanctuary of masculinity, which consequently, has resulted in the organization’s steadfast resistance against women’s direct martial participation. The opponents of women frontline combat argue that females are unable to execute the required responsibilities of battle based on gender and gender role stereotypes. Such opinions are comprised of the assumption that women are physically and psychologically weaker than men are, require supplementary accommodations, and are more vulnerable to sexual abuse. Thus, much of the resistance to women joining the military in combat roles is derived from the traditional, discriminatory belief that men should protect women from harm. The concept that women are physically and emotionally weaker than men, and therefore should not serve in combat, ignores the often-grueling physical training involved in military training. For both male and female enlistees, training, fitness and psychological exams are part of is part of army life. Both sexes are required to pass physical fitness exams, and discipline is an expectation for all who consider serving in the military. Furthermore, frequently aligned with strength is the allegation of psychological weakness, bringing with it the masculine tagged word, bravery. This argument suggests that women, because of their supposed lack of masculine bravery, are unable to perform the basic function of infantry—to kill the enemy—and are disinclined to serve voluntarily in combat roles. However, a... ... middle of paper ... ... much like it has in civilian culture. However, as women continue to prove themselves on or near the battlefield, the established military chauvinistic traditions will fade, as it has with the recent Army and Marine Corps policy change that opened several near-frontline occupations previously denied to women. Though the timetable on this significant modification of the established military framework is difficult to gauge, and it is doubtful it will change soon. Works Cited BBC News, "US military to ease curbs on women in combat roles.” Last modified February 9, 2012. Accessed March 28, 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16975751. Hillman, Elizabeth. “The Female Shape of the All-Volunteer Force.” Women's America: Refocusing the Past. Edited by Linda K. Kerber, Jane Sherron De Hart, and Cornelia Hughes. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011
The military is trying to find new ways to recognize the fact that women now fight in the country’s wars. In 2011 the Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended that the Department of Defense remove all combat restrictions on women. Although many jobs have been opened for women in the military, there is still 7.3 percent of jobs that are closed to them. On February 9, 2012, George Little announced that the Department of Defense would continue to reduce the restrictions that were put on women’s roles. The argument that “women are not physically fit for combat” is the most common and well-researched justification for their exclusion from fighting units. It has been proven if women go through proper training and necessary adaptations, they can complete the same physical tasks as any man. Though there seem to be many reasons from the exclusion of women in the military, the main ones have appeared to be that they do not have the strength to go through combat, would be a distraction to the men, and that they would interrupt male bonding and group
The purpose of Carol Cohn’s article “Women in War” is to explain why women have been kept out of the subject of war although they have played many vital roles. Cohn argues, that because of the gender coding of characteristics, institutions such as the military have been established in such a way that not only rejects characteristics of femininity but also preserves masculinity. Cohn employs logic, fact and the reasoning of experts in their own respective fields to answer why there is such a separation between the military and women.
With society’s past and present it is apparent that women are still not equal even if they have the title. Men are observably stronger and have a different mentality in situations than women. This is not to say that women should not be in the military but they should have the choice that way they can accept the responsibility and train themselves mentally and physically to achieve the responsibility and respect needed to fight for our country.
Since the resolution of World War II, the United States has been involved in over fifteen extensive military wars. Recent wars between Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought over several issues which affect women in both the United States and the other nations. While the military is often thought of a male dominated institution, women are present and affected all throughout the system as soldiers, caretakers, partners, and victims. Transnational feminists often fight against war due to the vulnerability that is placed on women during times of war. Despite often being overlooked, there is no doubt that women are heavily included in the devastating consequences of war.
... The General Accounting Office concluded in a hearing on May 8th 1999 that combat inclusion is the greatest impediment to women attaining higher military rank. Until qualified women are given access to assignments that are central to the militaries mission, they will be marginalized. Sexual harassment is a huge problem
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).
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 Defense Department is taking another historic step forward by opening up the remaining 10 percent of military positions, including combat roles, to women. As Commander in Chief, I know that this change, like others before it, will again make our military even stronger. (Rhodan)
...nto a situation of high testosterone, women are not considered to be a threat. Military research now however, has shown that women have the physical stamina to endure battle and do not disrupt the cohesion in the male units and can also be mentally tough without breaking when under fire. Women are not only discriminated against in the military, they are also discriminated against in Philosophy, religion, and Popular Culture.
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...
This paper has thus far outlined how not only the United States’, but militaries in general, are inherently gendered and favor men and masculinity. These structures have been used in the past and today to keep women out of the military and/or out of combat positions. Even though Secretary Carter opened up all combat positions in the U.S. Armed Forces to women in December 2015, there are still gendered mechanisms in the military preventing women from achieving equality with their male counterparts, in more ways than one. This paper will now address just one of these current effects, arguing that the gendered military institutions are preventing women from the ability to register for the draft.
The participation of women in the military has been an issue of great controversy for both the public and the military fraternity. Throughout the decades, men and women have worked in the military under “equal but different” physical fitness standards. Different grading scales for the men and women were introduced, following the realization by the military that these two genders have different physical qualities (Union Resource Center 2015). Women have been provided with the opportunity to pursue military combat roles such as infantry, but special operations and other ground combat roles that require too much physical involvement and a higher level of performance are still off limits. Despite being allowed to occupy some of the same combat
Landers, Robert K. "Should women be allowed into combat?" Congressional Quarterly Inc. 13 Oct., Vol. 2, No. 14, pp. 570-582
Schroeder, Patricia. “The Combat Exclusion Law Should Be Repealed.” Women in the Military (1991). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. University of South Alabama Library. 13 July 2006 .