WOMEN IN MILITARY

The role of women in the military has evolved over time and
continues to do so every decade. There are many ethical and moral
questions that are debated in this society regarding women in combat
roles. On both sides of the debate there are very legitimate points
made. As society becomes more liberal and less traditional, these
roles are greatly expanded and probably will not stop doing so until
they are equal to men in the military. Women have performed
successfully in specific cases throughout history and may very well
do so in the future. Conversely, the many physical and mental
differences in men and women will always prevent women from fully
being equal to men in some military specialties and missions.
Today women are playing an increasing and changing role in combat.
Debates on the limits placed on women and the roles they play in
todays Army are not new. Debates are fuelled by factors including
opinions on physical strength, how unit cohesion is affected in
combat, and the effects on overall combat readiness of the military.
Despite obvious gender differences, radical feminist continue to
pressure political leaders and demand the same job opportunities as
men. Then there is the media, which is the publics main source of
education about the current situations of the war. The media puts a
spin on the topics creating mixed facts and distorted realities about
women in combat.

Should women serve in combat Arms?

Women serving in the military in combat roles have proven
themselves effective for many years. However, until approximately
1945 they went without recognition for their service in combat. Should
women serve in a role that would place them in direct collation with
the enemy?
The issues addressed are all very legitimate points. Women have
been involved in war since 650 B.C. The dilemma with this topic
today is determining who is responsible for making the decision to
accept these risks and allow women to face the realities of combat.
The first issue facing society is the brutality of war. No one denies the
brutality of armed conflict. Soldiers who have served in past conflicts
have clearly testified to that fact. It has been noted that twentiethcentury warfare has resulted in the killing of a large number of

noncombatants, most of them women and children. This is referred to

as "collateral damage" and is considered an unavoidable byproduct
of combat. Additionally, rape is another realistic and practiced atrocity
in the realities of conflict. The United Nations has held conventions
discussing this issue several times, as it is a major concern for the
civilized world. A more specific, yet particularly more terrible form of
rape is called genocidal rape, which, as described in the UN
Convention in 1948, is a crime of genocide. Another concern is illness
that can result from exposure to combat. For instance, a disease that
was contracted by Vietnam Veterans consistently throughout the
conflict was malaria. In the Gulf War many Soldiers were inflicted with
what is now referred to as "Gulf War Syndrome" which was blamed
on exposure to chemical weapons. These ailments are not specific to
men or women and neither or more or less susceptible but in women,
their ability to have children or the risk of birth defect is probably
increased.

HISTORY
Throughout history, dating as far back as ancient Greece, a women's
role, if any, in combat was debated. The antifeminists believe the
women warrior destroys family and the fabric of our society and
decreases military readiness. They believe the genders are
"naturally" different. The radical feminists view the warrior as a
symbol of power for the governance and thus freedom from
patriarchy. Equal rights feminists see the warrior as evidence of
equality with man. The critical feminists think the women warrior
promotes martial and masculine values and allows women to be
militarized but not empowered. Four hundred years before the birth of
Christ, Plato's Republic identified many if the central issues of women
in combat. The defining characteristic, "thymos" or spiritedness, of a
warrior clan protecting the Just City was found in both genders. Plato
stated, "What has to do with war, must be assigned to women also,
and they must be used in the same ways." It had nothing to do with
equality or feminism, but what was considered the best defense and
just. Plato concluded, "Such a state could not exist however, until
philosophers became kings and kings became philosophers".
In opposition to Plato, Aristotle viewed women as "unfinished men"
who were not the equals of any man in any sphere. Surprisingly, the
Aristotelian view has been more commonly held in America than
Plato's view. In the past 36 years however, the Aristotelian view has
changed dramatically due to the women's movement. Aristotle also
stated that, "it is easier to hit on the truth than it is to persuade those
who are capable of aggrandizing themselves". Additionally, he notes,
"the inferior always seek equality and justice; those who dominate
them take no thought for it". Aristotle and Plato did agree that a
prerequisite to citizenship was a membership in the guardian class
(military). From the time of the Old Testament's description of
Deborah's leadership on the battlefield, Joan of Arc, Margaret Corbin
in the Revolutionary War, MAJ Marie T. Rossie in the Gulf War, and
finally, the many women in the recent war in Iraq, women have taken
up arms and fought.
Throughout many different periods in history, women have taken up
arms and fought, sometimes disguised as men. This was the only
way they would be permitted to fight. Women served in the guise of

men during the crusades of the 12th Century. Queen Eleanor of

Aquitaine, led an entire group of women dressed as men in the
Second Crusade. She was involved in guerilla warfare against
Portuguese occupiers. Women also continued to serve in American
wars disguised as men throughout our history. Deborah Sampson
Gannett, disguised herself as a man to join the Massachusetts
Regiment of the Revolutionary Army during the Revolutionary War.
Although she treated her own wounds twice, a doctor discovered her
gender while treating her third wound. Women continued this
disguising to fight in the Civil War as well. Most were never identified
until they were injured and required treatment. Once identified as
women they would be discharged.

ISSUES
The following is a list of issues at the center of the debate whether or not
gender integration lends to combat effectiveness. The debate centers more
on the physical characteristics of individual women rather than the
question of their overall contributions to teams and units.

Physical concerns
The Center for Military Readiness, an organization that seeks to limit
women's participation in the military, stated that Female soldiers
[are], on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less
upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is
essential for endurance.
In addition, women are two times more likely to receive leg injuries
and five times more prone to fractures as men. Aerobic capacity is
also lower. The average 20 to 30 year old woman has the aerobic
capacity of a 50-year-old man. The differences in pure strength come
as no surprise to the majority. These differences create a major
debate on whether we are promoting a weaker armed force.
Currently, women are not permitted to perform in many of the combat
roles such as infantry units, and special forces teams, however, the
nature of the war in the Middle East is being fought at 360 degrees,
meaning that the battle is not only on the front line with the female
Soldiers supporting from the rear. The battle is all around and women
are closer to the battle than ever before. Today, female Soldiers are
kicking down doors and taking incoming fire from the enemy. The
probability of hand-to-hand combat for women is at an all time high.
In addition, many question whether women have the physical
strength to lift and evacuate a wounded Soldier while under fire. This
issue is compounded when you take into account that Soldiers
routinely carry a weapon and equipment weighing in excess of 50
pounds. Most agree that emotionally, women are every bit as brave
and able to compete as men, however, in order for women to be
accepted into the military, standards have been reduced in the
training environments, especially in mixed-sex basic training units.

Most believe physical capabilities are critical and standards must be

maintained to prevent America from future vulnerability.

Psychological concerns
The public also questions the effects women have on unit cohesion in
combat. Male Soldiers often wonder if their female counterparts will
be able to carry their own weight without the help of male Soldiers.
They fear that the female Soldier may be more of a liability than an
asset in a real combat situation. Most also realize that a captured
female Soldier will more than likely be treated differently than a male
Soldier. Female Soldiers are certain to be sexually abused and
perhaps tortured. Therefore, it is the impression that the male
Soldiers will go out of their way to protect the female Soldier, causing
them to lose focus on the mission at hand and sacrificing their own
safety.
Another concern is the dynamics of sexual relationships, pregnancy,
and deployability. When mixed gender units are placed on
deployments for long periods of time romantic relationships are
bound to happen. This can create a major imbalance of unit cohesion
in the sense that Soldiers will again lose focus of the mission. This
may also affect marriages back home and other realms that
adversely affect the emotional well-being of a combat ready unit.
Jealousies, courtships, and favoritisms are bound to transpire
effecting fairness and discipline, causing unit morale to plummet.
Additionally, pregnancies also concern many experts. Some say that
emotional attitudes of women change once a romantic relationship is
established in a wartime environment. Some believe that many
women will deliberately become pregnant in order to escape combat.
This kills espirit de corps and leaves the unit even shorter manned
and a weaker unit.
In the British Army, which continues to bar women from serving in infantryrole units, all recruits joining to fill infantry vacancies partake in a separate
training program called the Combat Infantryman's Course.

To counter this thought, many feminist will argue that statistics show
pregnancies are few and have little bearing on military readiness.

According to a public survey, the majority feel that unit cohesion in

the military can best be maintained by simply utilizing women in areas
where they are best suited away from direct combat. Most Americans
believe women possess attributes and characteristics that are
invaluable to the military, however, military leaders must place its
personnel assets were they are most efficient and without
deteriorating morale, cohesion, and good order.
Radical Feminist
Although women are currently closer to direct contact with the enemy
than ever before, many radical feminist are still not satisfied. The
feminist goal is to establish a complete sexually integrated military
that is fit, trained and ready to engage, and fight the enemy in
combat. They intend to get women into every job category in the
armed forces including Special Forces units. The feminist argue that
women are serving proudly in hostile territory; they have been
casualties and prisoners, yet they are still serving proudly and living
up to their oath. Feminist state that todays battles are won more by
superiority in intelligence and technology as opposed to conflicts of
the past where hand-to-hand combat dominated. Women are proving
to function as well or better than men in many of these areas.
Feminist proclaim that there is absolutely no logical or sensible
reason for women to not be permitted in combat roles with the
technological warfare style of today. Regression for military women in
the 21st century is not an option.
Opponents state that opening all military occupations to women is
simply too dangerous. It places women too close to the possibility of
becoming prisoners of war with the probability of acts of sexual
molestation and rape. Combat slots simply cannot be open to women
and we are already pushing the limits. The boundaries between
combat zones and non-combat zones are becoming blurred. Allowing
men and women to compete for all military specialties should not be
an equal rights issue, but one of military effectiveness. One retired
General asked the question, has the single purpose of the Armed
forces changed from defending the nation by destroying the enemy to
simply providing employment opportunities for women?

Tactical concerns
In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and
Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in
the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in
close combat military operations since 1948. The reason for removing
female soldiers from the front lines was due less to the performance of
female soldiers and more due to the behavior of the male infantrymen after
witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control
over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective,
instinctual aggression, severely degrading the unit's combat effectiveness.
However, in 2001, subsequent to the publication of Grossman's book,
women did begin serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis.
There is now a male-female infantry battalion, the Caracal Battalion.
Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to
female soldiers. In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more
important than enemy casualties, every factor reducing combatants'
willingness to fight is considered.

Today, the evolving role of women in combat presents many

contradictive views. Women have a great deal to offer our military
and possess the technical skills and talents necessary for todays
high tech military.
There will always be women in the world that possess the physical
capability and fortitude to succeed in these positions. Despite this
there are other factors to consider. The issues argued today by
society are very complex and difficult. Some of these issues, for
instance, the "mother instinct" of women, in which their mateRal
loving and patience plays a big part in their decision making, might
impact there performance in the combat arms. It can be a very brutal
job that may be difficult for many women to confront. Additionally,
men will always have an overwhelming drive and instinct to pay
closer attention to women and there welfare. We are instinctively
protective of women and this may become a distractive behavior
during direct combat.