Equality In Military

1. In late 2015 Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter opened all positions in the armed forces to women.1 The purpose of this paper is to weigh the merits of this decision against its negative consequences. Specifically, this paper will demonstrate why, on balance, women should be allowed to fill combat roles in the United States (US) military.
2. Until recently, combat positions, roughly 10 percent of the military’s jobs, were closed to women.2 Opening these roles has many virtues. Immediately, the pool of potential recruits doubles and the odds of finding the best qualified candidates increase. Also, the decision sets an important precedent for gender equality. Despite improvements, in the years since 2001 women in the civilian sector continued to make about 20 percent less than men.3 Opening every military job to women at equal wages sets a positive example for civilian businesses. Opening combat roles to both genders also undermines a 1981 Supreme Court ruling which held that a male-only draft was not discriminatory so long as women were not
The decision to allow women into combat is not without its faults, however. The military risks decreasing unit effectiveness if it lowers physical standards in order to accommodate women.6 If standards are maintained at pre-decision levels, those women who survive the qualification process are likely to encounter discrimination in their new units.7 Undoubtedly, it will take time for the culture of combat units to adjust to the presence of females. Until it does, unit cohesion is likely to suffer. Finally, when these units enter combat, it is foreseeable that female members will face more personal risks if captured. Contemporary foes will likely treat female captives differently than male captives. Their asymmetric tactics will almost certainly extend to the treatment of US servicewomen in their control. In addition to the risk of execution, females may be trafficked, raped, and forced to bear offspring for their