Etana Frequency
WOMEN EMPOWERMENT OR MILITARY EFFICIENCY?
AN ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RECENT US POLICY LIFTING THE BAN AGAINST WOMEN IN COMBAT ZONES
Etana Fides
Introduction
History has always defined war fighting to have an inclination towards being a "males only" activity with laws and policy established to reflect and maintain that exclusivity. And yet, women have always been of service in and out of the warzones, even if "unofficially." The last fifty years have produced significant changes in both the nature of war and in the determination of who is "officially" eligible to participate in times of war. Advances in technology of the weaponry and the diminsihed desire of men to serve in the military together with the evolution …show more content…
and emancipation of societal roles resulted to the emergence of women as the pivotal components driving that change. For example, the manpower needed for the launching of a volunteering workforce for the military relied heavily on the participation of women who were willing to provide the time, energy and effort needed to meet the essential requirements in maintaining the military readiness and strength (Alliance of National Defense, 2010).
Women and War have never been fully considered to be compatible with each other. In fact, if one would look closely into these two words, besides having the same first letter, these two have a wide array of differences from each other. And more often than not, these two, 'women ' and 'war ' have been considered two words sitting on the opposite side of the spectrum. The former suggests childrearing, caring and softness, and thus creation. While the latter even if only three in letter leaves behind at the back of the mind a dark picture, a graver impact such as destruction. As such, in this context, it does not really make much sense to change the 'and ' to an 'in ' and let it be "Women in War".
On Jan. 24, the Pentagon announced that the ban on women in combat arms Military Occupational Specialties, such as infantry and artillery personnel, scouts, tankers, cavalry and more, will be lifted. Even though the traditional combat arms MOSs have, until now, been open only to men, the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have put women in the U.S. military in combat like never before. Because of the guerrilla insurgency in those countries (which created a severe lack of U.S. combat troops and redefined roles) women in non-combat arms MOSs such as military police, truck drivers, civil affairs, military intelligence and more have found themselves in heavy fighting—being ambushed on convoys, attacked on bases, and even directly participating in military offensives alongside combat arms troops.
Thus, the purpose of this study is to analyze barriers to women in the military as to why they have been unrecognized and are being unrecognized in other places and as such provide reasons to open all fields and all opportunities to women in today’s military. There are other important factors to be considered such as the efficiency in war and combat and even the perceived "biological inferiority" of women. And this study aims to refute all the given arguments or if not provide a better stance as to why allowing women to combat is still the better choice at the end of the day.
Debates regarding this issue are continuously ongoing even if the law allowing this policy has already been passed at least in the United States. It is important that we note then that since most of the resources acquired contained specific examples from the United States, limitations of this study include military women in the Philippines or in any part of the globe which haven 't created a specific study regarding this topic. Considering the fact of cultural diversity and relativism, it is important to consider the experiences of other regions in the world so as to be more comprehensive in the launching of this issue pivotal to a universal women 's rights. There should have been more concrete examples coming from our own country so as to provide a more relevant and more grounded picture of the observed mental and physical consequences of women in combat around us. This will give us a working model of the current status of our military women serving the nation today and determine if the policy of allowing them to join combat in times of war would also be applicable in our own country as well.
Empirical Literature
Counter Arguments
Captain Katie Petronio, a US Marine Corps, who served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq once said: There are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration? (2010)
Military combat is obvously no walk in the park. It is a serious business where lives and the security of the state is at state. It does not care about political correctness. It is a brutal, nasty business, unimaginably different from the nonviolent civilian life that most people experience. In a myriad of ways - physical, psychological, social - this maelstrom is best-suited for men and all-male units. Women have been serving our military with distinction for decades, and no one should ever underestimate their courage or patriotism. But then, there are a multitude of factors that should have been analyzed and examined throroughly before taking any path regarding this issue. In the scholarly article, "Physical-Strength Rationales for De Jure Exclusion of Women from Military Combat Positions" written by Maia B. Goodell, while the majority of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to which women are just not physically suited. Women will always be biologically inferior to men, whether we like it or not. The standards of physical fitness have been set to suit men, because combat is hardwired more compatible with a male 's brain rather than female 's. As such, women who are attempting to reach them will over-stretch themselves and be required to perform tasks they can not really "normally" do. In addition, she also stated:
The most dramatic differences involved carrying large, heavy objects. For example, in a two-person carry of a loaded (approximately 190 pounds) stretcher up and down an inclined ladder, 81% of the women and 4% of the men failed to complete the task on time. Likewise, in a two-person carry of a 147-pound P250 fire pump (a large, gasolinepowered engine in a cubical frame) down ladders quickly, 90% of the women and 36% of the men failed to finish on time. About one-quarter of the women, and few or no men, failed five tasks involving moving through doors and scuttles.121 The larger, rating-specific study confirmedthat selecting the most muscularly demanding tasks from the most demanding Navy ratings, and translating the requirements to an armstrength test, “excluded most or all women but few men.” (2010)
Some women will be able to meet the required standards, but most will not. While integration of women into combat is possible for those qualified, the small number versus the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integration do not make it a worthwhile move.Combat units engage in activities designed to suit men’s capabilities. Women serving in integrated units will suffer not only struggling with their biological make-up but also facing higher injury rates as a result of this.
"Mortality in Female War Veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom" written by Dr. Jessica Cross and other medical doctors specializing on bone surgery, found out that combat-wounded service members, mostly women, are the ones suffering more battle injuries than men. It also appeared that casualty death rate appeared higher for women. This is a rather depressing discovery in the sense that we are risking the lives of many mothers, wives and daughters in the battlefield which may or may not (as it turns out) come home to their repective families. And as such, would bring a negative impact as well to them i.e a mother to her child. This would bring a haunting picture of a "motherless family" unto the mind. And would most probably create a series of unwanted consequences for the family involved such as a perceived lack of guidance once you lose a mother or a partner in life when you lose a wife. Furthermore, Dawne Vogt and other researchers ' in their article, "Gender Differences in Combat-Related Stressors and Their Association with Post-deployment Mental Health in a Nationally Representative Sample of U.S. OEF/OIF Veterans" discussed how even when women reported slightly less exposure than men to most combat-related stressors, they had higher exposure to other stressors (i.e., prior life stress, deployment, sexual harassment). This consequently affects the military readiness of a unit. Allowing women into combat will lessen the military 's fighting ability and introduce battlefield problems that do not need to exist i.e pregnancy, sexual harassment and death of good military men due to chivalry. As men and women are still human by nature and can feel the "urges", which is normal although completely unacceptable and inappropriate in the situation that they are in, affects and hamper mission effectiveness by hurting unit cohesion. The romantic relationships, although totally uncalled for, will tend to form and develop, once men and women are allowed to interact. Either when break-ups happen or not, this in turn, would most definitely affect the professionality in the military even if in the first place, life out of the combat zone should really be separated from the life in it. If not romantic tie though, harassment and resentment of the presence of women in a hyper masculine military subculture would absolutely become a problem. Furthermore, the pregnancies that could occur from such uncalled for acts, can affect the deployability of a unit when the unit has a disproportionate number of women or is understaffed. Finally, men, especially those likely to enlist, maintain traditional gender roles. In some situations, men are may act foolishly to protect women in their combat units. And this is becomes a problem in the sense that we are risking to lose more good men in the battlefield by allowing women. Lastly, in the "Psychosocial Effects of Trauma on Military Women Serving in the National Guard and Reserves" written by Victoria Osborne and other scholars discussed how women involved in all aspects of the United States Armed Forces face mental health needs that are unique from women in the general population. Military women are increasingly experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder, substance misuse, and sexual violence. Both male and female prisoners are at risk of torture and rape, but misogynistic societies may be more willing to abuse woman prisoners. As such, this brings again to the surface the risk of losing mothers, wives and daughters, this time, not only physically, but also mentally which is an equally harder burden to resolve once it happens.
Pro-Arguments
Major Eleanor Taylor, a Canadian Military personnel and the first woman to lead an infantry company in combat once said: My personal experience has been that the principles of leadership and team building apply equally to women as to men. As long as you protect qualification standards and give no impression that anyone is getting a free ride, integration, while not without bumps, will be much less dramatic than people envision. (2010)
Change was long overdue. It is about time to finally take down the barriers to full equality by allowing women soldiers to serve in combat roles. Female soldiers and Marines have been doing more of this anyway even before, without official recognition. Besides, women can serve in these units capably. In fact, they can provide an advantage by interrogating or searching female suspects in ways that would create more problems if done by male soldiers. Furthermore, today 's military is all-volunteer anyway. No woman will be forced to do anything she does not want to. But those who want to serve their country and put their lives on the front lines should not be held back by their gender. The Alliance for National Defense created a position paper motioning a revision of the definition of Direct Ground Combat (DGC) to reflect the reality on the ground and in the interest of national defense.
The Army and Marine Corps policy on collocation should be rescinded. Women should be considered for military assignments and duties based on the training, experience, leadership potential and characteristics required to accomplish the mission and the specific requirements/tasks of the job. Performance standards for military jobs should be based on the scientifically developed and empirically verified elements of the job’s tasks and not based on personal opinion. As long as an applicant is qualified for a position, one’s gender is arbitrary. It is easy to recruit and deploy women who are in better shape than many men sent into combat. It is possible to calibrate recruitment and training standards to women. Extra pre-training for muscle building can also be used to reduce female injury rates. In modern high technology battlefield technical expertise and decision-making skills are increasingly more valuable than simple brute strength. And women in terms of this, are biologically better than than men. We must always recognize the fact that women are more effective in some circumstances than men. Allowing women to serve doubles the talent pool for delicate and sensitive jobs that require interpersonal skills not every soldier has. Having a wider personnel base allows militaries …show more content…
to have the best and most diplomatic soldiers working to end conflict quickly. Allowing a mixed gender force keeps the military strong. The all-volunteer forces are severely troubled by falling retention and recruitment rates. Widening the applicant pool for all jobs guarantees more willing recruits.
"Breaking through the “Brass” Ceiling: Elite Military Women’s Strategies for Success" a dissertation written by Dr. Darlene Marie Iskra, discusses how people who rise to the top of any organization must have a dedication and determination that distinguishes them from their co-workers. White men historically have held these positions due to discriminatory practices by employers, protectionist legislation, and social constructs about their leadership capabilities and motivation. And we must already learn through these examples by now and not apply this by adhering to the norm of gender roles. Women have already broken through the "brass ceiling” and became General and Flag Officers.
There should be no more barricades hampering other women from doing the same as well. The blanket restriction for women limits the ability of commanders to pick the most capable person for the job. And the job is a job by abilities and not a job by gender. As such, women must given the opportunity to maximize their potentials in or out of the battlefield. Furthermore, as combat duty is usually regarded as necessary for promotion to senior officer positions, denying female personnel this experience ensures that the ones on top will more often than not be males. This further entrenches the culture of sexism which should not really be a case anymore since we are no longer living in the middle ages. Women have to be given the same opportunities as men in the army in order to have the same opportunities. Although doing so, they have to be exposed to the same risks as men, no coercion will be done in the first place and as such, we must not remove from them the choice to be a combatant just because they 're "women".
Stephenie Booth-Kewley and other military psychiatrists in the "Predictors of psychiatric disorders in combat veterans" studied about how military leadership and unit cohesion affects the mental health of the soldiers regardless of gender. There is some evidence that positive attitudes toward leadership have a beneficial effect on the mental health of combat deployed military personnel. There are perceptions that good leadership are associated with greater satisfaction with the military, higher morale and cohesion, and other positive outcomes. On this note, we provide an argument that unit cohesion is not necessarily impeded by women entering the barracks together with men.
Regarding this issue, McSally states that:
Cohesion between all males can also be impeded by a number of other elements—i.e., an individual’s lack of ability to do his job or carry his weight, selfishness, racist attitudes, lack of integrity, favoritism, or a variety of other dynamics that could degrade the team. However, none of these elements are inevitable and the right leadership climate can identify and eliminate the primary causes of degraded cohesion: double standards and behavior that “degrades the good order and discipline in the armed forces.” The reality is that there are challenges in bringing a group of any human beings—male or female—together to form a cohesive and effective team. Add in the stresses of combat training and life-threatening situations and the challenges increase. Unit leadership must create a climate where every person is respected as a team member with equal opportunity, responsibility and accountability. (2007)
Good leadership also involves a good foresight to how certain things will go and as such, a creation of proper preventive and contingent measures. There is a thrust that with good leadership, there shall be good results. Women are not the root cause of the problem. There is a need to dig deeper through the issues of pregnancy, sexual harrassment and death of chivalrous men. How do we prevent such things from happening? Do we really prevent them by hampering the rights of women from being in the battlefield? Or do we prevent them better by forwarding a culture of responsibility and good leadership? For example, if we think about it carefully, women, who choose to become active combat soldiers, are unlikely to shirk their duty by becoming pregnant after a call-up as these women have willingly joined the army and know fully the obligations of acquiring such position. But even if they do so engage in sexual misconduct after choosing to be active combatants, good leadership skills can easily prevent this from happening by doing necessary measures such as segregating men and women from each other so as to clear away this "urges" in the first place. Sexual harrassment on the other hand, could be circumvented by inculcating clear-cut discipline and respect within the soldiers. Besides, by allowing women in the military we are in fact raising more awareness regarding this issue and providing sufficient standards not to engage in such crime. Lastly, regarding the death of chivalrous men, we can look at it as deaths not really because their co-combatants are females who need their protection but more so they realize that these females are their comrades more than anything else. If we think about it, this does not really differ when a male soldier dies for his male comrade. We can look at it from the perspective that the military has inculcated into its members a sense of camaraderie and selflessness transcending even life itself. "Women in the Military: Should combat roles be fully opened to women?" by the CQ Researcher provides a grounding that throughout history, women have participated in wars, frequently as victims but often by supporting troops with farm or industrial labor on the home front. And in smaller numbers but persistently through time women have served as spies, saboteurs and armed combatants, especially when military manpower was in short supply. When wars end, however, women’s involvement often is written out of the history books as too minimal to matter. It also discusses the controversy swirling around the under-the-table recruitment of Army and Marine women into some ground-combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan — which is contrary to official military policy — as well as the Navy’s plans to add women to submarine crews.
Women have been often left out for recognition throughout history. It does not exceed the count of hand the women who were really famous for something before, more so, women of the military. But they existed. Women who stood for something, who contributed and left the world with something. Women who fought for their country and died. They existed. But they were not really recognized that much. Thus, a discriminating policy such as not permitting women in combat zones is contributing further to this injustice.
Furthermore, since there is a decrease in the number of men joining the military, the participation of women is indeed a state-saving phenomenon and a clear sign that the necessity of women serving in combat is present. But then since it is not really acceptable for women to be present in combat zones, most of their recruitment is technically "illegal". And as such, they become unofficial warriors and casualties at the same time. This lack of recognition is once again an unfair action towards their volunteerism and patriotism. And this must not be the system as to how a country serves its soldiers. Selflessness must be returned with due recognition.
Lastly but definitely not the least, "Legal Impediments to Service: Women in the Military and The Rule of Law" by Linda Murnane and "Women in Combat: Is the Current Policy Obsolete?" by Martha McSally are both working on the paradigm that the recent banning has not been lifted yet. As such, they both examine the barriers in law present to service by women in the United States military. Murnane assesses the meaning of the term “Rule of Law,” as the legal exclusions barring women from service, establishing barriers to equality and creating a type of legal glass ceiling to preclude promotion, all fall within the Rule of Law in the United States. McSally discusses how the policy of not allowing women to combat in the actual war zone is in actuality not really happening for a long time now. As such it is nothing but right to give the long due recognition needed by the female soldiers. She describes the current state of warfare and how it is in need of more recruits to be able to become more stable and stronger. As such she sees women as a possible pool of additional military power and support. Both article looks at the remaining barriers to women in the military and provides reasons and justifications to open all fields and all opportunities to women in today’s military.
Theoretical Literature
The theoretical framework to be used in this line of study would be feminism.
Feminism is a wide spectrum of movements and ideologies whose ends include the definition, formation and assurance of equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women like in education and employment. Feminism is an attempt to develop a comprehensive account of the subordination of women, including its supposes essence and origin.
According to Dr. Scott Plunkett, feminism has six major assumptions:
1. Women are
oppressed.
2. Must focus on the centrality, normality and importance of women;s experience
3. Gender is socially constructed
4. The analyses of gender should include the larger socio-culture context
5. Social change and methodological approaches should be value committed.
6. Women need to succeed and change the oppression.
This attempts to suggest that feminism aims to describe women’s oppression and to explain its causes and consequences, and to prescribe strategies for women’s liberation. It aims to understand the power differential between men and women. It also seeks to understand women’s oppression—how it evolved, how it changes over time, how it is related to other forms of oppression. And lastly, how to overcome this oppression
This theory helps reveal the invalidity of the claim that women are physically inferior creatures to men and as such would not be an asset in combat zones. Just take, for example, the women who participate in the CrossFit competition each year. They compete in high-intensity weight lifting and conditioning events such as sprinting, rowing, jumping, climbing, tire flipping and carrying heavy objects. Or take, for another example, all female Olympic athletes, female professional sports athletes, female weight-lifting competitors, female law enforcement officers, etcetera. Clearly, they prove that women are more than capable of performing physical activities at very high levels. So why might some people consider it okay for women to display their physical talents on a sports field for recreation and competitive purposes, but not in combat on a battlefield? This only proves how society has contructed gender roles to be. Physical combat is already "gender normed." Women have historically been excluded - not on the basis of size and strength - but on the basis of gender.
Discussion and Implications
The main focus of this paper would be proving that US did the right thing by lifting its ban regarding women in combat zones. As such the question formulated was, "Why is the claim regarding an inferior military performance and efficiency once women are allowed into combat zones, invalid?"
George Will, a columnist, created sentiments saying: "The question is, will we change the physical fitness requirements so that we don 't have a 'disparate impact? ' Are we going to 'gender norm ' the requirements?" Remarkably, his statements are similar to the growing concern of numerous citics who feverishly oppose women in combat right next to their male counterparts. "Physical strength" and "gynecological/biological needs" are the typical main reasons as to why women, according to them, cannot absolutely perform tasks equal to those of men. As such, their argument is that women, if not produce a disparate, inferior performance on the battlefield which will endanger the lives of fellow combatants, will definitely weaken military cohesion, jeopardize military strategy and execution and be a major cause of other uncalled for problems. However, this line of reasoning is not only a sexist "If we lose in a war, it 's all the girls ' fault" answer, but more of an excuse formulated by the critics in order to distract people from the deeply embedded patriarchal reasons that the military has probably unknowingly upheld since its inception. For if we think about it carefully, if physical strength or physical stature is really the driving issue behind much of this criticism, we should then expect many men of small stature or weaker physique to be denied entry into combat zones, as well. However, we see that that is not the case. In fact, many US Marines will tell you that it is not the person 's size that determines his real strength but rather his training, conditioning and analytic skill. These are the real testers of military capability. With that said, even though men may tend to have more upper-body strength than women on average, it would be a mistake to say that women don 't possess more than enough upper body strength to adequately perform combat tasks. So, in regard to the Marine Corps Combat Fitness Test (CFT), there is no reason that women couldn 't meet the male standard requirements, let alone the female standard requirements. In fact, the physical challenge of the CFT pales in comparison to that of professional female athletes ' physical training across an array of sports and activities. And women have always passed the requirements in such rigorous trainings. So why not the military combat zones? Essentially, there are two main patriarchal reasons for the opposition to women being permitted in frontline combat zones. First is the issue of gender roles, but particularly, women 's role in society. Women are generally viewed as physically subordinate to men. This is the superficial reason why women are not allowed to be positioned in the frontline combat zone in the military. But empirical evidences such as capability of women to compete with men in sports do not support this reason. Opposition to women being in frontline combat zones is actually triggered by the gender and societal role of women in this restrictive patriarchal society. Traditionally, women were the primary caretakers of children in the home and were expected to be feminine, such as having dainty appearances and being submissive. Although capable, women were still expected to be dependent upon men physically and economically. Social institutions particularly the military viewed women traditionally. Women should only perform domestic tasks and reproduce dominant social norms at home. In a certain sense, women needed to be "protected" so that they could continue to socialize their children in accordance with dominant economic, gender and racial interests. Ironically, even though women 's roles have indeed changed over time, whereby women now can contribute to sustaining patriarchal and capitalist power in newly constructed capacities, still, only men are allowed to serve in military combat because such is the social constructed reality systematized to be. As such, the notion that women aren 't suited for combat stems not from a natural or biological standpoint but from a socially constructed, restrictive patriarchal framework. It 's an extraordinarily narrow frame which limits and defines women, as well as men, only in relation to suiting its own interests. Secondly, aside from women 's gender roles, there is also the patriarchal issue of trustworthiness. Could a woman or a female body actually be trusted to carry out important patriarchal interests in the form of military missions? And can a woman be trusted to do so as well as a man? Those in the media who subscribe to this patriarchal constructed reality and who can define reality only in the traditional terms within which they were socialized will absolutely not trust a woman to carry out a "man 's job," so to speak. Ironically however, even though women 's roles have indeed changed over time, there are those critics who cannot see the bigger picture (perhaps because they 've been socialized to view reality through a very narrow scope in the first place) whereby women now can contribute to sustaining patriarchal (and maybe more importantly capitalist) power in newly constructed capacities. In which case, the Department of Defense didn 't necessarily lift this ban in the name of genuine equality, but perhaps the underlying motivation was to say, "Why not now use previously excluded people to further enhance particular, dominant interests." Along those lines, critics of this decision may want to reconsider their stance. Let 's not be distracted by rhetoric about reduced fitness requirements and physical strength. That acts as a means to shift focus away from the real issues at hand: dominant social structure and dominant social interests. There exists an interplay between the dominant systems of patriarchy, capitalism and white supremacy. Most of us are socialized not to recognize these large-level structures, and that is no coincidence. Because these systems are social constructs - as opposed to ossified or crystallized systems - their nature is malleable or changeable, and, thus, vulnerable. Their invisibility acts as another means to maintain specific social order and inequality. However, we can use instances such as the issue concerning women in combat to really look at the underlying causes of inequality and begin to expose, understand, and challenge the systems of domination that aim to accelerate inequality. From there, who knows what types of expanded self-definition we can come up with in a reality less bound to restrictive and delusive frameworks.
This study would enhance political science as a discipline as it aims to become more comprehensive and comparative. It sees both sides of the equation and determines which one has the greater value. The state is historically and traditionally viewed to be patriarchal, as such, now its relations and dynamics have more reasons to be analyzed carefully through the lens of power, class, social and economic groups.This study also lays out state 's instruments for subordination of women, structuration and influence of gender roles and relations, and refutes all of the acclaims founded on negative bias. As such it aims to challenge future studies to be more value-judgemental and weigh two contradicting things throroughly to find out which one is heavier and more important. It also aims to further comparative research. It focuses on politics constructing gendered subjects, and the many ways in which gender constructs politics. It also discusses the ways in which gender issues such as ‘women’s inequality’ are constructed in policy debates and decision-making.
Limitations of this study include its limitation in the area of coverage which is only in the United States. It is also quite emotionally charged but not really to a point of being biased. Other people might see it as being partial since the researcher is a female, but the researcher hopes readers would based on facts written in the study and not on assumptions and prejudgements. The researcher sincerely suggests that future research and studies to be made regarding this topic be more accomodating of other facts and data coming from other countries as it is important to see how things are going on in other places as well. It is important to be able to reach out and view how women 's rights are developing or degrading in other countries so that appropriate action could be taken. Inequality in the treatment of women should not be an issue only dealt with in the United States but more so in other countries, most especially in countries where they are treated as "man 's property" and "second-class citizens". Women 's rights is a global issue and as such, future studies must aim to be more comprehensive in terms of its area coverage.
Conclusion The recent lifting of the ban on women in front-line combat situations in the United States has earned a varied number of response from different people from all walks of life. Some vie for it as a policy not only already timely but proper and just, while others see it as a big mistake. McSally states:
The United States is engaged in a long-term Global War on Terrorism. To fight this war, America must field the most capable and flexible military force possible. Some think that military readiness and increased roles for women in the military are mutually exclusive objectives. On the contrary, the evidence indicates these objectives are mutually reinforcing. If the goal is to field the most capable force, a policy that excludes the majority of the population from even being considered to serve in over 200,000 military positions is inefficient and only decreases military flexibility. Like previous prohibitions against women flying combat aircraft or serving on combat vessels, the ground combat exclusion policy was shaped by antiquated views regarding the “proper” role of women.
The ground combat exclusion itself suffers from obsolescence. Modern warfare is no longer linear; combat occurs in a 360-degree battlefield around all combat and combat support forces. Women soldiers are at risk of being injured, captured, or killed and are displaying incredible skill and courage in combat situations. The Army is transforming into a modular fighting system where restrictions on assignment of women limit flexibility. The Army is also increasing its end strength and continues to lower standards to fill its recruitment quotas. Given these realities, the military needs to recruit from one hundred percent of the population for positions that each is best qualified to fill. Common arguments against women serving in ground combat are not sufficient to exclude all women from being considered for combat roles. Some women have the physical strength to fill ground combat assignments, just as some men do not. Assessing recruits as individuals can provide the most capable and flexible fighting force. Women do not, by their mere presence, diminish cohesion in a warfighting unit. And the American public is willing to have women serve in any role in the All- Volunteer Force for which they are qualified. (2007)
Women have shown great courage in service to their country despite restrictions in their military roles. Slowly but surely, laws and policies not only in the US should change to open more and more positions to women as they prove their worth and as cultural views evolve. The US military is now at another historic crossroads: The time has come to rescind the obsolete and counterproductive ground combat exclusion policy. At the same time, a comprehensive reengineering of gender-related policy is essential to attain maximum combat effectiveness. Effectiveness is degraded when women and men are accessed, evaluated, inculcated, conditioned, trained, and assigned differently because of gender. In order to integrate men and women as equal warriors on the most effective combat team, people need to end some holdover policies that were founded in years when military women held more traditionally “female” positions. Double standards that favor or demean women must be identified and eliminated. A modified ethos is necessary where men and women serve under equal expectations, respect, and accountability—where both women and men place service and ultimate victory first and demure the notion of disparate prerogatives based on gender norms.
To fight the long war ahead, and to promote women empowerment, it is not only America--who needs a groundbreaking yet long due policy that assigns both men and women to positions for which they are qualified, with no limiting exclusions based on physical and intellectual capabilities, leadership skills, and aptitude--but more of the world.
References:
Alliance for National Defense. (2005). Women in Combat. Retrieved from: hhttp://www.4militarywomen.org/Women_in_Combat.htm
Booth-Kewley, S. et al. (2013): Predictors of psychiatric disorders in combat veterans. BMC Psychiatry 2013 13:130.
Cross, J. et al. (2011): Mortality in Female War Veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons. Volume 469, Number 7, July 2011.
CQ Researcher (2009). Women in the Military: Should combat roles be fully opened to women?. Volume 19, Number 40 pages 957-980.
Goodell, M. (2010). Physical-Strength Rationales for De Jure Exclusion of Women from Military Combat Positions. From the Selected Works of Maia B. Goodell.
Iskra, D. (2007): Breaking through the “Brass” Ceiling: Elite Military Women’s Strategies for Success. Dissertation. Department of Sociology. McSally, M. (2007): Women in Combat: Is the Current Policy Obsolete? Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy. Volume 14:1011 2007.
Murnane, L. (2007). Legal Impediments to Service: Women in the Military and The Rule of Law. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy. Volume 14:1061 2007.
National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics (2011). America’s Women Veterans: Military Service History and VA Benefit Utilization Statistics. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Osborne, V., Gage, L. & Rolbiecki, A. (2012): Psychosocial Effects of Trauma on Military Women Serving in the National Guard and Reserves. Advances in Social Work Vol. 13 No. 1 (Spring 2012), 166-184.
Vogt, D. et al. (2011): Gender Differences in Combat-Related Stressors and Their Association with Post-deployment Mental Health in a Nationally Representative Sample of U.S. OEF/OIF Veterans. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2011, Vol. 120, No. 4, 797–806.
AN ANALYSIS REGARDING THE RECENT US POLICY LIFTING THE BAN AGAINST WOMEN IN COMBAT ZONES
Etana Fides
Introduction
History has always defined war fighting to have an inclination towards being a "males only" activity with laws and policy established to reflect and maintain that exclusivity. And yet, women have always been of service in and out of the warzones, even if "unofficially." The last fifty years have produced significant changes in both the nature of war and in the determination of who is "officially" eligible to participate in times of war. Advances in technology of the weaponry and the diminsihed desire of men to serve in the military together with the evolution …show more content…
and emancipation of societal roles resulted to the emergence of women as the pivotal components driving that change. For example, the manpower needed for the launching of a volunteering workforce for the military relied heavily on the participation of women who were willing to provide the time, energy and effort needed to meet the essential requirements in maintaining the military readiness and strength (Alliance of National Defense, 2010).
Women and War have never been fully considered to be compatible with each other. In fact, if one would look closely into these two words, besides having the same first letter, these two have a wide array of differences from each other. And more often than not, these two, 'women ' and 'war ' have been considered two words sitting on the opposite side of the spectrum. The former suggests childrearing, caring and softness, and thus creation. While the latter even if only three in letter leaves behind at the back of the mind a dark picture, a graver impact such as destruction. As such, in this context, it does not really make much sense to change the 'and ' to an 'in ' and let it be "Women in War".
On Jan. 24, the Pentagon announced that the ban on women in combat arms Military Occupational Specialties, such as infantry and artillery personnel, scouts, tankers, cavalry and more, will be lifted. Even though the traditional combat arms MOSs have, until now, been open only to men, the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have put women in the U.S. military in combat like never before. Because of the guerrilla insurgency in those countries (which created a severe lack of U.S. combat troops and redefined roles) women in non-combat arms MOSs such as military police, truck drivers, civil affairs, military intelligence and more have found themselves in heavy fighting—being ambushed on convoys, attacked on bases, and even directly participating in military offensives alongside combat arms troops.
Thus, the purpose of this study is to analyze barriers to women in the military as to why they have been unrecognized and are being unrecognized in other places and as such provide reasons to open all fields and all opportunities to women in today’s military. There are other important factors to be considered such as the efficiency in war and combat and even the perceived "biological inferiority" of women. And this study aims to refute all the given arguments or if not provide a better stance as to why allowing women to combat is still the better choice at the end of the day.
Debates regarding this issue are continuously ongoing even if the law allowing this policy has already been passed at least in the United States. It is important that we note then that since most of the resources acquired contained specific examples from the United States, limitations of this study include military women in the Philippines or in any part of the globe which haven 't created a specific study regarding this topic. Considering the fact of cultural diversity and relativism, it is important to consider the experiences of other regions in the world so as to be more comprehensive in the launching of this issue pivotal to a universal women 's rights. There should have been more concrete examples coming from our own country so as to provide a more relevant and more grounded picture of the observed mental and physical consequences of women in combat around us. This will give us a working model of the current status of our military women serving the nation today and determine if the policy of allowing them to join combat in times of war would also be applicable in our own country as well.
Empirical Literature
Counter Arguments
Captain Katie Petronio, a US Marine Corps, who served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq once said: There are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration? (2010)
Military combat is obvously no walk in the park. It is a serious business where lives and the security of the state is at state. It does not care about political correctness. It is a brutal, nasty business, unimaginably different from the nonviolent civilian life that most people experience. In a myriad of ways - physical, psychological, social - this maelstrom is best-suited for men and all-male units. Women have been serving our military with distinction for decades, and no one should ever underestimate their courage or patriotism. But then, there are a multitude of factors that should have been analyzed and examined throroughly before taking any path regarding this issue. In the scholarly article, "Physical-Strength Rationales for De Jure Exclusion of Women from Military Combat Positions" written by Maia B. Goodell, while the majority of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to which women are just not physically suited. Women will always be biologically inferior to men, whether we like it or not. The standards of physical fitness have been set to suit men, because combat is hardwired more compatible with a male 's brain rather than female 's. As such, women who are attempting to reach them will over-stretch themselves and be required to perform tasks they can not really "normally" do. In addition, she also stated:
The most dramatic differences involved carrying large, heavy objects. For example, in a two-person carry of a loaded (approximately 190 pounds) stretcher up and down an inclined ladder, 81% of the women and 4% of the men failed to complete the task on time. Likewise, in a two-person carry of a 147-pound P250 fire pump (a large, gasolinepowered engine in a cubical frame) down ladders quickly, 90% of the women and 36% of the men failed to finish on time. About one-quarter of the women, and few or no men, failed five tasks involving moving through doors and scuttles.121 The larger, rating-specific study confirmedthat selecting the most muscularly demanding tasks from the most demanding Navy ratings, and translating the requirements to an armstrength test, “excluded most or all women but few men.” (2010)
Some women will be able to meet the required standards, but most will not. While integration of women into combat is possible for those qualified, the small number versus the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integration do not make it a worthwhile move.Combat units engage in activities designed to suit men’s capabilities. Women serving in integrated units will suffer not only struggling with their biological make-up but also facing higher injury rates as a result of this.
"Mortality in Female War Veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom" written by Dr. Jessica Cross and other medical doctors specializing on bone surgery, found out that combat-wounded service members, mostly women, are the ones suffering more battle injuries than men. It also appeared that casualty death rate appeared higher for women. This is a rather depressing discovery in the sense that we are risking the lives of many mothers, wives and daughters in the battlefield which may or may not (as it turns out) come home to their repective families. And as such, would bring a negative impact as well to them i.e a mother to her child. This would bring a haunting picture of a "motherless family" unto the mind. And would most probably create a series of unwanted consequences for the family involved such as a perceived lack of guidance once you lose a mother or a partner in life when you lose a wife. Furthermore, Dawne Vogt and other researchers ' in their article, "Gender Differences in Combat-Related Stressors and Their Association with Post-deployment Mental Health in a Nationally Representative Sample of U.S. OEF/OIF Veterans" discussed how even when women reported slightly less exposure than men to most combat-related stressors, they had higher exposure to other stressors (i.e., prior life stress, deployment, sexual harassment). This consequently affects the military readiness of a unit. Allowing women into combat will lessen the military 's fighting ability and introduce battlefield problems that do not need to exist i.e pregnancy, sexual harassment and death of good military men due to chivalry. As men and women are still human by nature and can feel the "urges", which is normal although completely unacceptable and inappropriate in the situation that they are in, affects and hamper mission effectiveness by hurting unit cohesion. The romantic relationships, although totally uncalled for, will tend to form and develop, once men and women are allowed to interact. Either when break-ups happen or not, this in turn, would most definitely affect the professionality in the military even if in the first place, life out of the combat zone should really be separated from the life in it. If not romantic tie though, harassment and resentment of the presence of women in a hyper masculine military subculture would absolutely become a problem. Furthermore, the pregnancies that could occur from such uncalled for acts, can affect the deployability of a unit when the unit has a disproportionate number of women or is understaffed. Finally, men, especially those likely to enlist, maintain traditional gender roles. In some situations, men are may act foolishly to protect women in their combat units. And this is becomes a problem in the sense that we are risking to lose more good men in the battlefield by allowing women. Lastly, in the "Psychosocial Effects of Trauma on Military Women Serving in the National Guard and Reserves" written by Victoria Osborne and other scholars discussed how women involved in all aspects of the United States Armed Forces face mental health needs that are unique from women in the general population. Military women are increasingly experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder, substance misuse, and sexual violence. Both male and female prisoners are at risk of torture and rape, but misogynistic societies may be more willing to abuse woman prisoners. As such, this brings again to the surface the risk of losing mothers, wives and daughters, this time, not only physically, but also mentally which is an equally harder burden to resolve once it happens.
Pro-Arguments
Major Eleanor Taylor, a Canadian Military personnel and the first woman to lead an infantry company in combat once said: My personal experience has been that the principles of leadership and team building apply equally to women as to men. As long as you protect qualification standards and give no impression that anyone is getting a free ride, integration, while not without bumps, will be much less dramatic than people envision. (2010)
Change was long overdue. It is about time to finally take down the barriers to full equality by allowing women soldiers to serve in combat roles. Female soldiers and Marines have been doing more of this anyway even before, without official recognition. Besides, women can serve in these units capably. In fact, they can provide an advantage by interrogating or searching female suspects in ways that would create more problems if done by male soldiers. Furthermore, today 's military is all-volunteer anyway. No woman will be forced to do anything she does not want to. But those who want to serve their country and put their lives on the front lines should not be held back by their gender. The Alliance for National Defense created a position paper motioning a revision of the definition of Direct Ground Combat (DGC) to reflect the reality on the ground and in the interest of national defense.
The Army and Marine Corps policy on collocation should be rescinded. Women should be considered for military assignments and duties based on the training, experience, leadership potential and characteristics required to accomplish the mission and the specific requirements/tasks of the job. Performance standards for military jobs should be based on the scientifically developed and empirically verified elements of the job’s tasks and not based on personal opinion. As long as an applicant is qualified for a position, one’s gender is arbitrary. It is easy to recruit and deploy women who are in better shape than many men sent into combat. It is possible to calibrate recruitment and training standards to women. Extra pre-training for muscle building can also be used to reduce female injury rates. In modern high technology battlefield technical expertise and decision-making skills are increasingly more valuable than simple brute strength. And women in terms of this, are biologically better than than men. We must always recognize the fact that women are more effective in some circumstances than men. Allowing women to serve doubles the talent pool for delicate and sensitive jobs that require interpersonal skills not every soldier has. Having a wider personnel base allows militaries …show more content…
to have the best and most diplomatic soldiers working to end conflict quickly. Allowing a mixed gender force keeps the military strong. The all-volunteer forces are severely troubled by falling retention and recruitment rates. Widening the applicant pool for all jobs guarantees more willing recruits.
"Breaking through the “Brass” Ceiling: Elite Military Women’s Strategies for Success" a dissertation written by Dr. Darlene Marie Iskra, discusses how people who rise to the top of any organization must have a dedication and determination that distinguishes them from their co-workers. White men historically have held these positions due to discriminatory practices by employers, protectionist legislation, and social constructs about their leadership capabilities and motivation. And we must already learn through these examples by now and not apply this by adhering to the norm of gender roles. Women have already broken through the "brass ceiling” and became General and Flag Officers.
There should be no more barricades hampering other women from doing the same as well. The blanket restriction for women limits the ability of commanders to pick the most capable person for the job. And the job is a job by abilities and not a job by gender. As such, women must given the opportunity to maximize their potentials in or out of the battlefield. Furthermore, as combat duty is usually regarded as necessary for promotion to senior officer positions, denying female personnel this experience ensures that the ones on top will more often than not be males. This further entrenches the culture of sexism which should not really be a case anymore since we are no longer living in the middle ages. Women have to be given the same opportunities as men in the army in order to have the same opportunities. Although doing so, they have to be exposed to the same risks as men, no coercion will be done in the first place and as such, we must not remove from them the choice to be a combatant just because they 're "women".
Stephenie Booth-Kewley and other military psychiatrists in the "Predictors of psychiatric disorders in combat veterans" studied about how military leadership and unit cohesion affects the mental health of the soldiers regardless of gender. There is some evidence that positive attitudes toward leadership have a beneficial effect on the mental health of combat deployed military personnel. There are perceptions that good leadership are associated with greater satisfaction with the military, higher morale and cohesion, and other positive outcomes. On this note, we provide an argument that unit cohesion is not necessarily impeded by women entering the barracks together with men.
Regarding this issue, McSally states that:
Cohesion between all males can also be impeded by a number of other elements—i.e., an individual’s lack of ability to do his job or carry his weight, selfishness, racist attitudes, lack of integrity, favoritism, or a variety of other dynamics that could degrade the team. However, none of these elements are inevitable and the right leadership climate can identify and eliminate the primary causes of degraded cohesion: double standards and behavior that “degrades the good order and discipline in the armed forces.” The reality is that there are challenges in bringing a group of any human beings—male or female—together to form a cohesive and effective team. Add in the stresses of combat training and life-threatening situations and the challenges increase. Unit leadership must create a climate where every person is respected as a team member with equal opportunity, responsibility and accountability. (2007)
Good leadership also involves a good foresight to how certain things will go and as such, a creation of proper preventive and contingent measures. There is a thrust that with good leadership, there shall be good results. Women are not the root cause of the problem. There is a need to dig deeper through the issues of pregnancy, sexual harrassment and death of chivalrous men. How do we prevent such things from happening? Do we really prevent them by hampering the rights of women from being in the battlefield? Or do we prevent them better by forwarding a culture of responsibility and good leadership? For example, if we think about it carefully, women, who choose to become active combat soldiers, are unlikely to shirk their duty by becoming pregnant after a call-up as these women have willingly joined the army and know fully the obligations of acquiring such position. But even if they do so engage in sexual misconduct after choosing to be active combatants, good leadership skills can easily prevent this from happening by doing necessary measures such as segregating men and women from each other so as to clear away this "urges" in the first place. Sexual harrassment on the other hand, could be circumvented by inculcating clear-cut discipline and respect within the soldiers. Besides, by allowing women in the military we are in fact raising more awareness regarding this issue and providing sufficient standards not to engage in such crime. Lastly, regarding the death of chivalrous men, we can look at it as deaths not really because their co-combatants are females who need their protection but more so they realize that these females are their comrades more than anything else. If we think about it, this does not really differ when a male soldier dies for his male comrade. We can look at it from the perspective that the military has inculcated into its members a sense of camaraderie and selflessness transcending even life itself. "Women in the Military: Should combat roles be fully opened to women?" by the CQ Researcher provides a grounding that throughout history, women have participated in wars, frequently as victims but often by supporting troops with farm or industrial labor on the home front. And in smaller numbers but persistently through time women have served as spies, saboteurs and armed combatants, especially when military manpower was in short supply. When wars end, however, women’s involvement often is written out of the history books as too minimal to matter. It also discusses the controversy swirling around the under-the-table recruitment of Army and Marine women into some ground-combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan — which is contrary to official military policy — as well as the Navy’s plans to add women to submarine crews.
Women have been often left out for recognition throughout history. It does not exceed the count of hand the women who were really famous for something before, more so, women of the military. But they existed. Women who stood for something, who contributed and left the world with something. Women who fought for their country and died. They existed. But they were not really recognized that much. Thus, a discriminating policy such as not permitting women in combat zones is contributing further to this injustice.
Furthermore, since there is a decrease in the number of men joining the military, the participation of women is indeed a state-saving phenomenon and a clear sign that the necessity of women serving in combat is present. But then since it is not really acceptable for women to be present in combat zones, most of their recruitment is technically "illegal". And as such, they become unofficial warriors and casualties at the same time. This lack of recognition is once again an unfair action towards their volunteerism and patriotism. And this must not be the system as to how a country serves its soldiers. Selflessness must be returned with due recognition.
Lastly but definitely not the least, "Legal Impediments to Service: Women in the Military and The Rule of Law" by Linda Murnane and "Women in Combat: Is the Current Policy Obsolete?" by Martha McSally are both working on the paradigm that the recent banning has not been lifted yet. As such, they both examine the barriers in law present to service by women in the United States military. Murnane assesses the meaning of the term “Rule of Law,” as the legal exclusions barring women from service, establishing barriers to equality and creating a type of legal glass ceiling to preclude promotion, all fall within the Rule of Law in the United States. McSally discusses how the policy of not allowing women to combat in the actual war zone is in actuality not really happening for a long time now. As such it is nothing but right to give the long due recognition needed by the female soldiers. She describes the current state of warfare and how it is in need of more recruits to be able to become more stable and stronger. As such she sees women as a possible pool of additional military power and support. Both article looks at the remaining barriers to women in the military and provides reasons and justifications to open all fields and all opportunities to women in today’s military.
Theoretical Literature
The theoretical framework to be used in this line of study would be feminism.
Feminism is a wide spectrum of movements and ideologies whose ends include the definition, formation and assurance of equal political, economic, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women like in education and employment. Feminism is an attempt to develop a comprehensive account of the subordination of women, including its supposes essence and origin.
According to Dr. Scott Plunkett, feminism has six major assumptions:
1. Women are
oppressed.
2. Must focus on the centrality, normality and importance of women;s experience
3. Gender is socially constructed
4. The analyses of gender should include the larger socio-culture context
5. Social change and methodological approaches should be value committed.
6. Women need to succeed and change the oppression.
This attempts to suggest that feminism aims to describe women’s oppression and to explain its causes and consequences, and to prescribe strategies for women’s liberation. It aims to understand the power differential between men and women. It also seeks to understand women’s oppression—how it evolved, how it changes over time, how it is related to other forms of oppression. And lastly, how to overcome this oppression
This theory helps reveal the invalidity of the claim that women are physically inferior creatures to men and as such would not be an asset in combat zones. Just take, for example, the women who participate in the CrossFit competition each year. They compete in high-intensity weight lifting and conditioning events such as sprinting, rowing, jumping, climbing, tire flipping and carrying heavy objects. Or take, for another example, all female Olympic athletes, female professional sports athletes, female weight-lifting competitors, female law enforcement officers, etcetera. Clearly, they prove that women are more than capable of performing physical activities at very high levels. So why might some people consider it okay for women to display their physical talents on a sports field for recreation and competitive purposes, but not in combat on a battlefield? This only proves how society has contructed gender roles to be. Physical combat is already "gender normed." Women have historically been excluded - not on the basis of size and strength - but on the basis of gender.
Discussion and Implications
The main focus of this paper would be proving that US did the right thing by lifting its ban regarding women in combat zones. As such the question formulated was, "Why is the claim regarding an inferior military performance and efficiency once women are allowed into combat zones, invalid?"
George Will, a columnist, created sentiments saying: "The question is, will we change the physical fitness requirements so that we don 't have a 'disparate impact? ' Are we going to 'gender norm ' the requirements?" Remarkably, his statements are similar to the growing concern of numerous citics who feverishly oppose women in combat right next to their male counterparts. "Physical strength" and "gynecological/biological needs" are the typical main reasons as to why women, according to them, cannot absolutely perform tasks equal to those of men. As such, their argument is that women, if not produce a disparate, inferior performance on the battlefield which will endanger the lives of fellow combatants, will definitely weaken military cohesion, jeopardize military strategy and execution and be a major cause of other uncalled for problems. However, this line of reasoning is not only a sexist "If we lose in a war, it 's all the girls ' fault" answer, but more of an excuse formulated by the critics in order to distract people from the deeply embedded patriarchal reasons that the military has probably unknowingly upheld since its inception. For if we think about it carefully, if physical strength or physical stature is really the driving issue behind much of this criticism, we should then expect many men of small stature or weaker physique to be denied entry into combat zones, as well. However, we see that that is not the case. In fact, many US Marines will tell you that it is not the person 's size that determines his real strength but rather his training, conditioning and analytic skill. These are the real testers of military capability. With that said, even though men may tend to have more upper-body strength than women on average, it would be a mistake to say that women don 't possess more than enough upper body strength to adequately perform combat tasks. So, in regard to the Marine Corps Combat Fitness Test (CFT), there is no reason that women couldn 't meet the male standard requirements, let alone the female standard requirements. In fact, the physical challenge of the CFT pales in comparison to that of professional female athletes ' physical training across an array of sports and activities. And women have always passed the requirements in such rigorous trainings. So why not the military combat zones? Essentially, there are two main patriarchal reasons for the opposition to women being permitted in frontline combat zones. First is the issue of gender roles, but particularly, women 's role in society. Women are generally viewed as physically subordinate to men. This is the superficial reason why women are not allowed to be positioned in the frontline combat zone in the military. But empirical evidences such as capability of women to compete with men in sports do not support this reason. Opposition to women being in frontline combat zones is actually triggered by the gender and societal role of women in this restrictive patriarchal society. Traditionally, women were the primary caretakers of children in the home and were expected to be feminine, such as having dainty appearances and being submissive. Although capable, women were still expected to be dependent upon men physically and economically. Social institutions particularly the military viewed women traditionally. Women should only perform domestic tasks and reproduce dominant social norms at home. In a certain sense, women needed to be "protected" so that they could continue to socialize their children in accordance with dominant economic, gender and racial interests. Ironically, even though women 's roles have indeed changed over time, whereby women now can contribute to sustaining patriarchal and capitalist power in newly constructed capacities, still, only men are allowed to serve in military combat because such is the social constructed reality systematized to be. As such, the notion that women aren 't suited for combat stems not from a natural or biological standpoint but from a socially constructed, restrictive patriarchal framework. It 's an extraordinarily narrow frame which limits and defines women, as well as men, only in relation to suiting its own interests. Secondly, aside from women 's gender roles, there is also the patriarchal issue of trustworthiness. Could a woman or a female body actually be trusted to carry out important patriarchal interests in the form of military missions? And can a woman be trusted to do so as well as a man? Those in the media who subscribe to this patriarchal constructed reality and who can define reality only in the traditional terms within which they were socialized will absolutely not trust a woman to carry out a "man 's job," so to speak. Ironically however, even though women 's roles have indeed changed over time, there are those critics who cannot see the bigger picture (perhaps because they 've been socialized to view reality through a very narrow scope in the first place) whereby women now can contribute to sustaining patriarchal (and maybe more importantly capitalist) power in newly constructed capacities. In which case, the Department of Defense didn 't necessarily lift this ban in the name of genuine equality, but perhaps the underlying motivation was to say, "Why not now use previously excluded people to further enhance particular, dominant interests." Along those lines, critics of this decision may want to reconsider their stance. Let 's not be distracted by rhetoric about reduced fitness requirements and physical strength. That acts as a means to shift focus away from the real issues at hand: dominant social structure and dominant social interests. There exists an interplay between the dominant systems of patriarchy, capitalism and white supremacy. Most of us are socialized not to recognize these large-level structures, and that is no coincidence. Because these systems are social constructs - as opposed to ossified or crystallized systems - their nature is malleable or changeable, and, thus, vulnerable. Their invisibility acts as another means to maintain specific social order and inequality. However, we can use instances such as the issue concerning women in combat to really look at the underlying causes of inequality and begin to expose, understand, and challenge the systems of domination that aim to accelerate inequality. From there, who knows what types of expanded self-definition we can come up with in a reality less bound to restrictive and delusive frameworks.
This study would enhance political science as a discipline as it aims to become more comprehensive and comparative. It sees both sides of the equation and determines which one has the greater value. The state is historically and traditionally viewed to be patriarchal, as such, now its relations and dynamics have more reasons to be analyzed carefully through the lens of power, class, social and economic groups.This study also lays out state 's instruments for subordination of women, structuration and influence of gender roles and relations, and refutes all of the acclaims founded on negative bias. As such it aims to challenge future studies to be more value-judgemental and weigh two contradicting things throroughly to find out which one is heavier and more important. It also aims to further comparative research. It focuses on politics constructing gendered subjects, and the many ways in which gender constructs politics. It also discusses the ways in which gender issues such as ‘women’s inequality’ are constructed in policy debates and decision-making.
Limitations of this study include its limitation in the area of coverage which is only in the United States. It is also quite emotionally charged but not really to a point of being biased. Other people might see it as being partial since the researcher is a female, but the researcher hopes readers would based on facts written in the study and not on assumptions and prejudgements. The researcher sincerely suggests that future research and studies to be made regarding this topic be more accomodating of other facts and data coming from other countries as it is important to see how things are going on in other places as well. It is important to be able to reach out and view how women 's rights are developing or degrading in other countries so that appropriate action could be taken. Inequality in the treatment of women should not be an issue only dealt with in the United States but more so in other countries, most especially in countries where they are treated as "man 's property" and "second-class citizens". Women 's rights is a global issue and as such, future studies must aim to be more comprehensive in terms of its area coverage.
Conclusion The recent lifting of the ban on women in front-line combat situations in the United States has earned a varied number of response from different people from all walks of life. Some vie for it as a policy not only already timely but proper and just, while others see it as a big mistake. McSally states:
The United States is engaged in a long-term Global War on Terrorism. To fight this war, America must field the most capable and flexible military force possible. Some think that military readiness and increased roles for women in the military are mutually exclusive objectives. On the contrary, the evidence indicates these objectives are mutually reinforcing. If the goal is to field the most capable force, a policy that excludes the majority of the population from even being considered to serve in over 200,000 military positions is inefficient and only decreases military flexibility. Like previous prohibitions against women flying combat aircraft or serving on combat vessels, the ground combat exclusion policy was shaped by antiquated views regarding the “proper” role of women.
The ground combat exclusion itself suffers from obsolescence. Modern warfare is no longer linear; combat occurs in a 360-degree battlefield around all combat and combat support forces. Women soldiers are at risk of being injured, captured, or killed and are displaying incredible skill and courage in combat situations. The Army is transforming into a modular fighting system where restrictions on assignment of women limit flexibility. The Army is also increasing its end strength and continues to lower standards to fill its recruitment quotas. Given these realities, the military needs to recruit from one hundred percent of the population for positions that each is best qualified to fill. Common arguments against women serving in ground combat are not sufficient to exclude all women from being considered for combat roles. Some women have the physical strength to fill ground combat assignments, just as some men do not. Assessing recruits as individuals can provide the most capable and flexible fighting force. Women do not, by their mere presence, diminish cohesion in a warfighting unit. And the American public is willing to have women serve in any role in the All- Volunteer Force for which they are qualified. (2007)
Women have shown great courage in service to their country despite restrictions in their military roles. Slowly but surely, laws and policies not only in the US should change to open more and more positions to women as they prove their worth and as cultural views evolve. The US military is now at another historic crossroads: The time has come to rescind the obsolete and counterproductive ground combat exclusion policy. At the same time, a comprehensive reengineering of gender-related policy is essential to attain maximum combat effectiveness. Effectiveness is degraded when women and men are accessed, evaluated, inculcated, conditioned, trained, and assigned differently because of gender. In order to integrate men and women as equal warriors on the most effective combat team, people need to end some holdover policies that were founded in years when military women held more traditionally “female” positions. Double standards that favor or demean women must be identified and eliminated. A modified ethos is necessary where men and women serve under equal expectations, respect, and accountability—where both women and men place service and ultimate victory first and demure the notion of disparate prerogatives based on gender norms.
To fight the long war ahead, and to promote women empowerment, it is not only America--who needs a groundbreaking yet long due policy that assigns both men and women to positions for which they are qualified, with no limiting exclusions based on physical and intellectual capabilities, leadership skills, and aptitude--but more of the world.
References:
Alliance for National Defense. (2005). Women in Combat. Retrieved from: hhttp://www.4militarywomen.org/Women_in_Combat.htm
Booth-Kewley, S. et al. (2013): Predictors of psychiatric disorders in combat veterans. BMC Psychiatry 2013 13:130.
Cross, J. et al. (2011): Mortality in Female War Veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons. Volume 469, Number 7, July 2011.
CQ Researcher (2009). Women in the Military: Should combat roles be fully opened to women?. Volume 19, Number 40 pages 957-980.
Goodell, M. (2010). Physical-Strength Rationales for De Jure Exclusion of Women from Military Combat Positions. From the Selected Works of Maia B. Goodell.
Iskra, D. (2007): Breaking through the “Brass” Ceiling: Elite Military Women’s Strategies for Success. Dissertation. Department of Sociology. McSally, M. (2007): Women in Combat: Is the Current Policy Obsolete? Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy. Volume 14:1011 2007.
Murnane, L. (2007). Legal Impediments to Service: Women in the Military and The Rule of Law. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy. Volume 14:1061 2007.
National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics (2011). America’s Women Veterans: Military Service History and VA Benefit Utilization Statistics. National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
Osborne, V., Gage, L. & Rolbiecki, A. (2012): Psychosocial Effects of Trauma on Military Women Serving in the National Guard and Reserves. Advances in Social Work Vol. 13 No. 1 (Spring 2012), 166-184.
Vogt, D. et al. (2011): Gender Differences in Combat-Related Stressors and Their Association with Post-deployment Mental Health in a Nationally Representative Sample of U.S. OEF/OIF Veterans. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2011, Vol. 120, No. 4, 797–806.