Women in the U.S. Military.
March 12, 2013
Women have been on the front lines for a long time but now it’s official: Women are cleared for combat roles in the military. What does this mean for our armed services, women warriors, and veterans of both sexes? Read more here: New York Times: Policy catches up with reality. One of the biggest risks to women in the military has been other service members. Women in the military are 180 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by fellow service members than to have died in combat while deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Read more here: Huffington Post: Military Sexual Assault Epidemic Continues.
14 Comments
leave one →
CJS-360 Diversity Issues 
I think that women should be allowed to hold any position in the military that men are able to hold, as long as they are able to past the same standarized test that men have to pass. I have read of on this topic a little more and even though they are able to be put in combat roles, there are still over 200 roles or positions that they are unable to hold. I personally think that this is a way to make the military look like it is all about equal opportunity, even though they are still limiting what they are able to do.
If women are committed to doing things that men are doing, is it okay for women to be sexually assaulted in the military? Is it wrong to chose the path that they have chosen, or can it be prevented from being sexually assaulted? Women are proud to do things that are dangerous and having the chance to do it, they would take any chance to make that difference. Both men and women are in combat at the moment of wars, but is it wrong for women to fight? What are they suggestions?
As an individual (male) who is currently serving in the military, I am excited to see more opportunities opening to women. Many women have historically and are currently being exposed to combat roles and are proving they are just a capable as their male counterparts in combat. Positions such as medics, military police, mechanics and armourer’s have contributed to their prior engagement in combat roles.
I do believe that many may feel concern over physical and psychological expectations and standards are at risk of modification to cater toward women in eligibility for combat centered Military Occupational Specialties. Lowering any standard for any group for acceptance, whether it be sex or any other factor, detracts from the overall capability of that unit. As long as everyone meets the same standard, proving they can complete the job/mission, I believe many would be much more accepting. With that being said, I believe few would argue that a bandage or a bullet from a woman or a gay male is any different than anyone else. The function is the focus.
Logistically, a great challenge may be looming in deviation from traditional sexual orientation and gender based unit roles. Military policies in sex based segregation to attempt to prevent behavior such as sexual assaults would be strained to say the least if current policies hold their course. Males and females are segregated in housing, bathing and restroom facilities currently. If you add other categories such as gay male, straight male, lesbian female, straight female, transsexual… the requirements for separate facilities just skyrocketed. Likewise, in forward deployed units, resources may be extremely limited and the capability of ensuring compliance with these regulations may be next to impossible to fulfill. Some of our NATO military partners have intermingled facilities with relatively little issue. Will the U.S. Armed Forced move toward this direction also?
I agree with your comments, you covered much of the same concerns and support I have for this development.
While agree with the author when she states there is similarities to DADT and the ban on women in combat. However, I believe they are two completely different issues. I served on active duty, in a combat unit with several gay men. I believe that I served with more than I even realize. I never witnessed one negative repercussion of gays serving in these spots. To suggest they are any less capable of performing the job than their straight counterparts is unacceptable. I also never witnessed any degradation of unit cohesion as a result of their participation.
The issue with women in combat roles is one of physical capability. I proudly served overseas with several females. Today, in a reserve capacity, I serve in a medical unit where men are the minority. I have nothing but respect and admiration for all of my fellow soldiers. However, there is a large difference between a medical unit and one that engages in immediate combat operations.
I believe that the biggest fear right now is a degradation in physical standards as you discussed. The author speaks of “fair” standards. While it is a rather arbitrary term, I agree that women should be presented with the same fair standards as men have been for years. As it stands now, physical fitness standards are not the same for men and women in the military – this disparity has not produced any extreme problems to this point and I’m not advocating a change in them. What should not change, however, are the physical standards for combat units. I’ve met women who could operate at a high level and men who could not.
For those types of occupations and units that require advanced physical abilities, there should be no change. These specialty units perform different tasks than do general support units. If females can perform at these levels, then they deserve to serve in the roles.
There is the additional issue of unit cohesion that I will not even touch on because it is infinitely more subjective than physical requirements. I only raise it because it is neccesary for those who have not experienced a military environment to be aware of how dynamic of an issue this is. It is not simply a matter of “fairness” or physical-attributes.
Generalizations and ignorance will negatively affect the military.
I think it’s been something like 20-30 years. Formerly, women were usually given positions away from the front lines, but this has changed, and continues to change just as society itself does regarding issues like this. One thing worth mentioning; Men between 18 and 25 are required to register for the draft, which, if activated, could mean they’d be required to serve. Women are not required to do this and a 1980 court ruling promoted by the National Organization for Women and the ACLU was unsuccessful in abetting this discrimination.
During the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War Vietnamese militia units contained women. Chinese People’s Army transportation units contained women. A nasty and brutal escalation happened where both sides routinely raped, tortured and murdered the female POWs that they captured. It was not pretty, but it happened and we should be aware of it.
I do not think that the issue of women fighting in the combat zone should be a prolong one, because women have already been fighting and dying in combat roles. The decision to allow women in ground-combat roles is a welcome development. According to the military statistics, more than 800 women have been wounded in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than 150 have been killed. So, women who are brave and are ready to give their all to the service of this great country, should not be deprived. If they are able to go and pass through the necessary training for combat roles, why should anyone say no? Prentice Hall in his book, Investigating Difference, says that “gendered organizational logic continues to shape the culture and the structure of occupations that are either prototypically male or female. There are ways to change the conservative bias of gedered occupations, one way is to increase women’s presence in male-dominated occupations- a solution that reflects the aim of affirmative action policies, which assume that women are just like men if only they are given the opportunity”.Finally, women who are willing and ready to take up the task in combat roles should be given the opportunity to use their skills in serving and defending the nation.
I’m glad to see that women are cleared for combat. Like Patrick said, they should be able to pass the standardized fitness test that the males have to pass. I know a few women in the army and they wanted to be out on the front lines doing infantry but were never able to. They are out of the service now, but I know they are glad to see this change for the women who want to fight just like they did. There are many advantages of having women in combat and it is great that we have even more advantages. There are still jobs in the military that they will not let women do, but I feel that this is the first step for change in making the military equal.
For so long women have been condemned as “weak” too sensitive, and only a caregiver. Now women are coming up and writing their own legacy as fighters, bread winners, and not being judge always by their gender but by their actions. Women deserve to fight in any war or combat period. I am happy to see women come up in this new world and fight along a man an is looked at as their equal because their fighting for the same cause.
Woman should be able to fight in combat as long as they meet all the standards that a male has to meet. I feel if they want to be treated equal than the standards should truly be standard. Like stated by Patrick there are still numerous positions that females are not allowed into but if they want to be in combat let them be. Other countries have allowed females to be in combat for years I feel not allowing them to be in ours makes ours less weaker and less diverse.
I am very happy that women have been cleared for combat. I think that women should be held to the same form of standards physically and mentally to be able to do so. I don’t see how being a woman, or gay or lesbian for that matter, should have anything to do with ones ability to be a good soldier and fight for our country. I do however know a few guys that were in the military and completly disagree based on their experiences with some of the women they encountered in Iraq. As swingler27 said, women are often viewed as weak and sensitive, but those aren’t the women that are probably trying to get on the front lines either. I agree with Patrick also that this is just a ploy by the Military to make it seem more equal across the board, because with all of the positions that women are still unable to hold-it doesn’t seem very equal. I found it appalling that women were 180 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than killed in combat; people should be more worried about this statistic than whether or not a woman should be allowed to fight.
I also feel like it should be equal rights as far as women being in combat, but they should have to pass the same tests as the males. I believe women should be able to hold same positions as males yet there are still several positions that women are unable to obtain. I do not believe removing women from the service will prevent sexual assaults. I think internally there needs to be more surveillance to prevent these horrific acts on our service women.
First, I have been raised in a military family. The one person I am most proud of however is my Grandma. She stands a whole, four feet eleven inches tall, and retired at a rank in the United States Army most people can never achieve. She was offered a position as a General and she turned it down so she could retire however she was the Commander of the entire Army Reserve program. My father had an employee who was shipped over to Afghanistan at the bottom of his papers was my Grandma’s signature.
I firmly believe that women should be able to serve in any role and capacity that men serve in however I feel there needs to be some strict guidelines for both the men and women. I believe that the issue regarding men who sexually assault women in the military needs to be addressed. It should be an automatic life sentence in Military Prison if any member of the miliitary sexually assaults another. All of the people in the military are fighting for the same team, to accomplish the same mission. They all need to work together to accomplish that mission despite what gender, sexual orientation, race, or background they have.
On the other hand, women also have certain hygene issues and other medical concerns that men do not face. These can easily be overcome however there has not been enough time or resources dedicated to working through those issues. However if women were allowed to serve in combat positions as they are now, than the military should find ways to overcome these obsticles.
There are people who believe that women are not strong enough, mentally capable enough, or physically able enough to perform the duties of men in a combat position. The standards that are set for the military should not be lowered for any person no matter what the reasoning is. All members of the Armed Forces should be held to the highest standards upon being admitted because of what is at stake if they Armed Forces fail.
For those people who say that women are not as capable as men they are sadly mistaken. There are strong women just as there are strong men and there are weak women just as there are weak men. It doesn’t make you any more or less capable of being able to fight in a combat position if you biologically are a male or a female. I understand that the chemicals in the brain and the behaviors among males and females differ however those are all issues that can be worked with.
I work for two sepearte law enforcement agencies as a civilian, I work as an EMT, and I work as a Security Officer. With all of the people I have met through work and all of the situations I have encountered, I honestly would feel safer with one of my female partners backing me on a call than some of the men officers that would back me. I firmly believe if the woman can meet the standards and perform to the level that is expected in the United States Armed Forces than god bless them and thank them for their service.
Denny
We have to make a safer environment for these women in the military. Obviously, war has inherent risks but there has to be steps taken to increase safety. I would like to comment on the fact that in the military some woman cannot hold certain positions. Now, I am uncertain what these positions are so if someone wants to jump in to let me know that’d be awesome. But I will make an assumption here. Regarding the war today in the middle east, women are regarded as sub-human under Sharia law in those countries ruled by Islam. It would be terrible to have a woman work as an interrogator, trainer, negotiator, or any other job that requires face to face contact with people who wholeheartedly hate women. I am in favor of keeping these jobs men only because woman literally cannot accomplish the goal no matter what. Fighting an enemy who condones female castration, Taqiyya (deceit), rape cases requiring male testimonies, female heirs getting half of male counterparts, women’s’ rights violations, opposition to women’s education; the list goes on. Because this extreme ideology breeds intolerance to women, women should be placed in roles where they are not subjected to this hostility.
I think it is great that women are being cleared for combat roles in the military. It’s important that everyone is treated equal. Women should be able to hold any role if they are able to pass all of the same tests that men have to pass. Although there are still many roles that women are unable to take on, it is nice to see that women are getting cleared for roles. It shows growth, and brings hope that maybe someday women will be cleared for any and all roles in the military.
Patrick brings up a good point about how allowing women to be cleared for combat roles may be a way to make the military look like they care about equal opportunities. This makes a lot of sense, because there are still MANY roles women are not allowed to hold. I feel as long as someone meets the standards for the role (testing-wise) they should be accepted for that role, male or female.