Argumentative Essay: Women In The Military

Women in the Armed Forces

One of the most controversial debates throughout history is about whether or not women should be allowed in the military, especially in combat positions. While there are drawbacks to having mixed-gender units, the advantages far outweigh the negative effects. Women are fully capable of serving their country in the Armed Forces, in spite of their differences from men.

Civilian society has had mixed views on women in the military for many years. Some people believe women have just as much right as men to serve in the military, assuming they meet the standards. For instance, a poll in July 2009 by New York Times and CBS News showed that more than half of the responses were in favor of putting women in positions where

they would be directly involved in ground fighting (Alvarez). Many civilians have had strong, intelligent wives, mothers, and sisters, and recognize their capability. However, other people think women are not physically or emotionally strong enough. They are of the opinion that “putting women into combat roles isn’t fair to the men who will be relying on them, and isn’t fair to the women who will find themselves at a deadly disadvantage” (Fredenberg). In fact, there are abundant examples of women who were not at all a handicap to their companions, and were a credit to their training, and to their comrades.
Other military personnel are also divided. Since the military has always been traditionally male, there are some who are tentative to allow women into such a male-dominated area. In an article in the Marine Gazette on September 2014, Marine Corps captain Lauren Serrano stated that, “acknowledging that women are different than men is a hard truth that plays an enormous role in this discussion” (Fredenberg). There is no question that women and men are dissimilar, but for some, these discrepancies indicate that women are out of place in the military. Nonetheless, women are valued by some members as hardworking, dedicated individuals. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Michael A. Baumann, who commanded 30 enlisted women and six female officers, discovered that the women dealt with the strain of their duties the same as the men did, and said he had complete trust and confidence in them (Alvarez). Baumann may have had his concerns in the beginning, but he learned that women can be assets to the Armed Forces. These women fight to uphold the honor of their country, and in accepting them, the military gains valuable soldiers.
For opponents of allowing women into the military, one of the main concerns is that the military will be less effective if women are allowed to enlist. Some complain that women are unable to meet the harsh standards set for men, and that the solution has been to lower requirements for both genders (Fredenberg). This is a reasonable concern, because nobody wants to sacrifice the potency of the military in order to resolve a social issue. However, enlisted women have shown themselves to be committed and capable, not pernicious. Army Colonel Burt K. Thompson says that “women have ended the debate over their role by their performance” (Myers). Rather than threatening the efficacy of the Armed Forces, women are performing their jobs well, and invigorating the military. While this is a valid concern from a hypothetical standpoint, in reality it cannot hold up to the many firsthand reports of skillful female combatants.
Historically, women have been very important to the Armed Forces; nonetheless, they have not received much recognition for their efforts. They have served as nurses and other battlefield positions for hundreds of years, but are still thought to be unable to handle battlefield conditions. Sophronia Bucklin, a nurse after the Civil War battle of Cold Harbor, described the battlefield as “a scene to appall the stoutest of hearts,” and said the men were “wet with the dews of night, disfigured with powder and dirt, with blood oozing from their torn flesh and worms literally covering the festering wounds–dying with thirst, starving for food, unable to attend to nature’s wants, groaning in delirious fever, praying to die” (De Pauw 158). For someone to balk at this description is not feminine weakness, it is being human. These women braved situations that many men would shy away from being a part of, but are labeled as the weaker sex. Others described the battles of Manassas, Antietam, and Gettysburg as having “the odor of decaying horseflesh and the sight of heads and limbs of human corpses sticking out of shallow graves” (De Pauw 157). These gruesome sights are something that the general public could never understand, nor hope to comprehend. Despite all this, these women worked hard to make a difference in the way that was available for them, while proving their dependability, dedication, and bravery. Today’s military women show the same fortitude as these women in the Civil War, and have been able to perform invaluable military duties that they have only been able to do because of their gender. Most notable are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where women have been incredibly valuable because they can search and interact with Iraqi and Afghan women, which culture dictates that men cannot do (Alvarez). People are able to do many things, but no one can overcome cultural constraints in any short period of time. If the military had been only male, they would not have been able to interact with the Iraqi or Afghan women, and would therefore have been in more danger. Having female soldiers with them eliminated a threat while at the same time giving the soldiers the advantage of being able to interact with the local population. Accordingly, it is instances like these truly show the merit of female soldiers.
In the recent past, women have faced many political issues in their struggle to be able to serve their country.

In the mid-1900’s, when women were first being integrated into the military, some were denied recognition for the work that they did because they were women and therefore not technically in the military. In one case, Army Captain Linda Bray and her soldiers were involved in a gunfight in Panama that lasted for several hours and resulted in a “trove of weaponry and intelligence,” and no casualties, but none of the fifteen women under her command were considered to have been in combat, because “the Army, the Pentagon, and Congress said they couldn’t be” (Francke 49-51). Captain Bray commanded a mixed-gender group of soldiers to an incredible victory, and none of them were injured in the process, but they were not allowed to receive credit for their efforts. Had the expedition been led by a male commander, these valiant soldiers would have been honored for their victory. In additions, women have also had restrictions put on their military service so they would not be in power over men. In the 1950’s, women could not make up more than 2% of Air Force members, because some male soldiers feared that too many women would join (Holm 122). Because the men wanted to feel like a powerful majority, they planned to exclude a huge number of willing, qualified volunteers. They even discouraged women from joining in the first place, so that they might not even have to enforce the new rule. There were also restrictions that prevented women becoming high-ranking policy or decision makers; when they were allowed, it was usually only for “women’s matters,” and they had no real authority (Holm 122). The military tried to give the impression of being open, fair, and unprejudiced by having women in control, but in truth, the women were powerless to make decisions or effect change. Another failed attempt to seem aboveboard was the creation of special women’s groups. Holm

explains that these groups were given names such as the Women in the Air Force, Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps, Women Airforce Service Pilots, and Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service. De Pauw restates the same idea, saying, “Special names gave the impression that the women were somehow separate from the “real” services” (251). The male soldiers and leaders were reluctant to allow women, and even when they did, the women had no real authority, and sometimes no function. Recently, women in the military have been not only fighting for their country, but for equal rights as well.
Female soldiers also face social issues because of their gender. Society still sometimes considers defending a country to be men’s work, and thinks women are unable to compare. Some think that women will not react in a crisis, and are psychologically unable to stand up to war (Fredenberg). On the contrary, there are many cases of women saving the lives of the men they fight with, and being able to hold their own.
In Iraq, Specialist Veronica Alfaro was driving a convoy that was attacked. She grabbed a medical kit, sprinted to a stalled civilian truck, and gave medical attention to the badly wounded driver. For her heroism, she received a Bronze Star for valor, and had previously earned a combat action badge. (Alvarez)
In this case, Specialist Alfaro not only fought bravely, but had the chance to save one of her comrades. Without hesitation, she risked her life for the sake of her fellow soldier. And yet, for some reason, women are thought to be incapable of thinking quickly in combat situations. Indeed, there have been many instances, past and present, where a battle or war could not have been won, or even fought, without women.
Throughout the course of history, women have successfully fought in many battles alongside, and sometimes without, men. However, women’s accomplishments in combat tend to be skated over or seen as being inconsequential. Sociologist M. C. Devilbiss calls this the “yes, but phenomenon,” in recognition of the phrases that are most commonly used, such as, “Yes, but, these were defensive combat roles, not offensive ones,” or “Yes, but that was combat support not a direct combat role,” or “Yes, but that was not a real war” (De Pauw 2). There are some people who would rather imagine excuses for why women are still inferior to men, despite women’s growing involvement and success, in historically male roles. In some places, society still has an aversion to military women, and this is one of the more common struggles they face when they are not on duty.
In spite of all this, there have been many situations in which women were just as able as men to fight for their country. For centuries, women have been known to take up arms to defend their homes and families while their male family members were away. In the early fifth century, Spartan warriors attacked Argos, and after defeating the Argive army, marched on the city. The Argive women armed themselves with ceremonial weapons from the temples and defeated the Spartan army after heavy fighting (De Pauw 59). These women had no men to fight for them, but they proved that they did not need them. They defended their city from an army that had killed every one of the superior male soldiers, and they did it without having real weapons to fight with. In modern times, military women are just as tenacious and steadfast as these women were hundreds of years ago.
Women obviously cannot be as good as men in every aspect of their lives, because they are not men. Biologically, “an average fit man will weigh about 23 percent more, have 50 percent more muscle mass, and carry 10 percent less body fat than an average fit woman. Pound for pound, men have thicker skulls, bigger, stronger necks, hearts that are 17 percent larger, and bones that are both bigger and denser” (Fredenberg). In spite of these differences, women can still be invaluable assets to the military. They have demonstrated that their gender does not make them a detriment to their comrades. In the words of Barton C. Hacker, “Women, sometimes in great numbers have always played military roles. … Without women, armies would rarely have functioned as well, might even have failed to function at all” (De Pauw 303). Even when they were not in direct combat roles, women still proved their worth to the war effort. At the same time, just because they are useful in non-combat roles does not mean they should be prohibited from participating in direct combat.
In summary, while women are no doubt different than men, they have the same reserves of courage and fortitude that make them just as able to fight in the military. History proves that they can be as adept and skillful as men, and just as important to the formidability of the Armed Forces.