Gender Roles In The Military

One controversial topic plaguing the United States is making the American people think twice about gender roles in the military. The integration of women into military combat is now the center of the military's next big changes in recent years. Many people readily agree that it is time to end the long held barrier against equality amongst the sexes. However, there are just as many people who disagree, claiming that women are not physically capable of carrying out the duties that are expected from a soldier or that the risk to women on the frontlines of combat is too great. Overall, women have the right to fight as they please, and the integration of women will help break down gender borders that are being held longer than necessary in our modern society. Women are physically and mentally capable of breaking down the long held gender walls in the United States military and are able to fight just as well as any man, despite what opposers believe.

One major point of the argument for the integration of women into the military is the mental and physical capabilities of women.

Many supporters of women being allowed in the military believe, “Women are fully capable of becoming troops, the only thing holding them back is the stereotype that they are not strong enough” (Teague, 2007, P.1). At least, that is what Teague claims. Throughout history, women are constantly being stereotyped as weak in will and physical strength. I believe that this is completely inaccurate. Often one can find women who are more physically gifted than men, which can turn this misconception on its head. On the same thought, one could say that men should not be in the military because not all men are strong. This is just a ridiculous notion built on prejudice and

stereotype.
Just as not all men are weak, not all women are weak. Physical ability is also not the only aspect that is important for a soldier to possess; mental strength is just as important. This belief is not just held to one person as Lynch also agrees by stating, “Non-physical attributes are also important” (Teague, 2007, P.6). Women, while they may or may not be physically on par with men, can be mentally equally or possibly superior to their male counterparts. Supporters claim that women being equal or superior mentally to their counterparts makes them a great asset to the military in times that require fast decision making, such as the front lines of combat.
Even in the past, women have contributed to the overall offense and defense of combat, while not being directly in combat. For example, women have saved the lives of soldiers as nurses, delivered intel as pilots, etc. Without women to fulfill these vital roles, many lives could have been lost and several battles could have been lost, which is why it is unprecedented for someone to believe that women are incapable of stepping up and fighting a more physical fight. In fact, women have been defying the gender roles set by the government for centuries. One article openly states, “The existence of soldier-women was no secret during or after the Civil War, The reading public, at least, was well aware that these women rejected Victorian social constraints, confining them to the domestic sphere” (Blanton, 1993, P.2). During the Civil War, women dressed as men and fought alongside them as equals. If women were capable of this in the past, why is the notion of them being capable of such feats now such an oddity? I believe that women are and have always been on equal grounds with males. Women have shown this and have earned the right to fight if they please. As one can so obviously see, the thought that women are weaker than men is a valid reason to deny them the right to fight is one full of misconceptions and sexism.
Despite the beliefs of supporters, there are those that argue that women’s physical strength is a strong point of concern. Teague states that oppositioners conclude, “...since the primary goal of the military is to win wars with the minimum possible loss of American life, it is more important to have capable soldiers than to have politically correct policy” (Teague, 2007, P.8). Those against the integration believe that women’s so called “weakness” will negatively affect the military and defeat the purpose of the military. If women do not possess the physical attributes that a soldier requires to effectively and efficiently carry out their duties, this makes the soldier as good as dead weight in the front line of combat. This is reasonable considering the weight of the equipment that soldiers carry on the battlefield and how strenuous their day to day activities can be. William Gregor, a military science professor, even says, “...the best-performing women can physically perform only as well as a middling man...which means that many female combat soldiers would not be able to carry out the same physical tasks as their male counterparts” (Teague, 2007, P. 9). This is even more evidence, scientific evidence in fact, to back the claims of opposers and give them a solid ground in which they can argue against the controversial topic. However, science based upon random women with varying physical strength is also not a given one hundred percent true. There is no evidence of the woman’s physical regime, if there is one at all. Just as men must train to become stronger, so must women. Basing the entire female population’s strength on a select few, this is nowhere near a reasonable point to base assumptions. Considering that some arguments about the physical aptness of women can be valid and understandable concerns, the opposers’ worries are definitely a topic that needs to be taken into consideration by Congress when regarding this topic.
The equal rights between the sexes is a recurring point brought up by supporters. Supporters are adamantly declaring, “They serve, they’re wounded and they die right next to each other. The time has come to recognize that reality” ( “Women in the Military Follow-Up: Pentagon Lifts Restrictions on Women in Combat”, 2013, P.1). The United States is built upon equality, not just between races but between the sexes as well. There is no difference between racism and sexism, both feel the pain of assumptions and discrimination because of their physical appearances. If the United States constitution is going to be truly held by Congress, then Congress needs to begin to consider women for this role in the military and open new doors for the American people. This action can bring around a new way of thought that, while not fully eradicating all discriminating thoughts, can open the eyes of those who once considered women incapable of being a man’s equal. Not only would this help the social aspect of America, this can help the economical state of the United States. By allowing women to fight in the military, the government will allow more opportunities for women to start a career and achieve a position of respect. One supporter even goes as far as to say, “Denying women the right to pursue whatever career they want to pursue in the military is a civil rights issue” (Teague, 2007, P.7). While opening new positions in the workforce can most definitely have positive effects, the continuing wall between the military and the female population can cause issues to arise about the civil rights of the female citizens. This can only create a deeper rift between the sexes and cause civil unrest amongst the people. The only harm being done to the government is the harm that is being inflicted by themselves. If the military really wants to fight for freedom and equal rights, why not fight for the freedom and equal rights of their fellow Americans that they so harshly disregard?
However, opposers completely disagree with the supporters claims of economic improvement that can be brought about by opening more roles for women in the military. Actually, one opposer says, “The military spends roughly $3 million to train a pilot...Any pilot absent for a significant amount of time..must be retrained at an additional cost that could reach as high as $250,000” (Teague, 2007, P.11). Basically, the critic is claiming that women who go on maternity leave can cost the military grand expenses. Not only will the woman be gone for the last month or so, she will not be able to work due to the conditions that soldiers must face in the military. These kind of expenditures can surely hurt the economy of the United States, especially in time of recessions when money tight. This means that changes will either have to be made to the standards of the military or that certain privileges will have to be allowed to women, which will not help with the equality between the sexes. Another problem that can occur with women going on maternity leave is the effect that the leave will have on the cohesion of the units. Critics believe, “This is a particularly troublesome issue in combat issues...because they depend heavily on developing trust and building bonds” (Teague, 2007,P.11). If a woman were to leave for pregnancy reasons, then a new recruit will have to be brought in to take their place. This will result in the other members of the unit having to adjust to the newcomer and the fact that their comrade is no longer there to serve with them. This can cause trust issues between the soldiers or miscommunications between newcomers and people who are already use to each other. This will only lead to a weaker military and less effective soldiers. At least, that is what critics believe. Blocking women from a career entirely because they could have children would be like denying a man the right to join the military because he has the chance of getting shot. That kind of behavior leads to one of the top concerns of the military.
The one aspect of this intense argument that both supporters and opposers can agree to is the danger to the women’s health. A plethora women in the military face the risk of sexual assault or harassment, not just from the enemy but their fellow soldiers as well. One reliable source says, “An estimated 116,600 members were sexually harassed in the past year: 22 percent of active-component women and 7 percent of active-component men” (Morral, Gore, & Schell, 2016). Sexual harassment is already a big problem in the military and adding women into the mix can create some negative consequences. The threat of physical and mental pain should confronted, instead of letting the threat exist as an excuse for not letting women join. Men face the same dangers of sexual harassment as women do, yet no one uses this as reason for why men should not join the military. However, sexual harassment is not the only danger to females in the military. Females also are more susceptible to having fractures caused by stress and face issues caused by menstrual cycles. An article states, “Women are clearly constructed differently than men physically, but many are able to function well in historically male roles” (McGraw,Koehlmoos, & Ritchie, 2016). I undeniably agree with this statement. Women may face more problems than men, but that is not an indicator that they should not be allowed into the military. This just means that women will have to possess more determination to achieve their career goals.
In conclusion, women possess the same rights as men and deserve to fight for their country as well, to block women out of the military because of a few misconceptions is completely ludicrous. Women should at least have the opportunity to show their true potential. Despite what opposers believe, I believe that women have the strength and will to fight as well as any man. Allowing women to join the military will only increase the value of equality in our country and allow more positivity to encase the citizens of the United States of America. In conclusion, women should be allowed to join the military because females have just as much to offer America as men. They should not be locked from serving as an equal just because of their gender.