Should Women be in Combat Roles?

1998, Canada and Sweden became the first countries to allow women in modern combat roles. Often men are capable of doing things that women aren't and visa versa, by mandating a certain number of women on each board, California is stating that they don't believe women are capable of earning a seat at the table themselves. To be able to let women in is to force boards to accept them.  A big question is should women be able to take combat roles? It is true that not every women is fit for being in combat roles or being for an example a firefighter but neither is every boy. Almost every woman  who is capable to be in a combat role and or any workforce. If they have completed a physical fitness course they are capable of being in any workforce that they are fit to be in. People should find out what they know with that person rather than experimenting and presenting research saying women aren't capable.Other people say that women should not be in combat roles because men and women have different mindsets and hormonal things.A number of arguments have been raised in defense of military policy that bans women from combat roles.The prospect of women in ground combat or on the front-line in the military has proven to be a controversial issue throughout decades of war. This controversy stems from criticisms such as women's physicality versus men's, the association of sexual-related situations within the military, and a history of failed gender-integration training. The bottom line, however, is that women should not be allowed in front-line or ground combat unless they are willing and capable of meeting the same standards of testing as men. Basic differences in the physicality of men and women are one of the key aspects of why a woman's combative role in the military is questioned.

If this is the case, then, with regards to lower physical standards in combat training, how is it safe to allow female soldiers into the same dangerous environment as men? The argument of lower standards in testing is only brought into question because women are being used in ground combat and on the front-line, despite the fact that it is the law that only men be put in these roles. Only a select few countries allow women in ground-combat situations, seen in the statement that Australia is the latest nation to lift all restrictions on the positions in which women can serve in the armed forces, joining Canada, New Zealand, and Israel (Gajewski, 2011). Many military officials have found ways to circumvent this law, and have placed women in these roles with the thoughts that it could be beneficial. The loopholes in this law should be patched for safety purposes and fought in a different manner if need be. If this is an issue that many are willing to overlook, then it should be also be possible for the law to change. Women who wish to be a part of ground combat and the front-line should have the right if they choose to do so, but only once they have reached equal physical standards as the men who share their same position. Intuition of Equality and Women's Rights are reasons that are used to argue for the side of women in combat, which basically states that women should be able to do what they please and are created equal to men.

There are many reason why people say that women should not be in combat roles. Physical ability is one of the cases, 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. The standards of physical fitness have been set to suit men, and women attempting to reach them will over-stretch themselves.  In addition, combat units engage in activities designed to suit men's capabilities. Women serving in integrated units will suffer higher injury rates as a result of this. Efficiency is another,  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. Also, morale and cohesion, having women serving in direct combat will hamper missions effectiveness by hurting unit morale and cohesion. Military readiness, pregnancy can affect the deployability of a unit when the unit has a disproportionate number of women understaffed. Tradition, 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. Harassment and resentment, of the presence of women in a hyper masculine military subculture would likely become a problem.Abuse by enemy,both male and female prisoners are at risk of torture and rape, but misogynistic societies may be more willing to abuse women prisoners.

Career advancement, Men and women are both given opportunities to join the arm, but with the understanding that different roles require different physical, emotional attributes. This should mean i turn that there are multiple routes to promotion so that women have equal opportunities without having to fight take art in combat operations.

  Other say women should be allowed to be in combat roles because they are able to do anything that men are able to do. My personal experience has been that the (principles) of leadership and teambuilding apply equally to women as to men. As long as you protect qualification standards and give no impression that anyone if getting a free ride, integration, while not without bumps, will be much less dramatic than people envision. ~Major Elanor Taylor, Canadian Military and the first women to lead an infantry company in combat. Ability vs gender, 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. Military readinesses, 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, 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.

Effectiveness. The blanket restriction for women limits the ability of commanders in theater to pick the most capable person for the job. Tradition, training will be required to facilitate the integration of women into combat units. Cultures change over time and the masculine subculture can evolve too. Many previously masculine professions have been successfully opened to women over the past century.Modern warfare and public support in the modern world of combat (Afghanistan, Iraq), all women serving in the military are exposed to front-line risks. Support for women serving in armed force has not wavered as warfare has changed, a clear sign that the necessity of women serving in combat is recognized. Cultural differences & demographic. 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 to have the best and most diplomatic soldiers working to end conflict quickly. Career Advancement, as combat duty is usually regarded as necessary for promotion to senior officer positions, denying female personnel this experience sexism. Women have to be give the same opportunities as men. In the army in order to have the same opportunities they have to be  exposed to the same risks.

Cite this page