Gender roles have played a huge part in society over the past 200 years and just recently the Pentagon has decided to begin voting to determine whether or not women will be able to fight in front line open combat. They question women's ability to take on the harsh jobs that come with joining the most serious branches of the military, the Army and the Marines. There has been a lot of progress in this area over the past fifty years, as women begin to participate in almost all military jobs in the Air Force and Navy, but the US government is hesitant to allow women to participate in the seemingly impossible tasks that come with joining the harshest branches of the armed forces. The argument of whether or not women should be able to do everything that men can do has been highly debated since the beginning of time but as we enter a progressive era, one should ask themselves why women aren't being allowed to hold the same front line positions as men can and if they were, how the military could play a vital role in their success as front line soldiers. 

When thinking about women in the military, one would typically think of nurses who help wounded soldiers and surgeons who save lives when one is severely injured but it is seldom that one pictures a woman fighting face to face against the enemy on the front line. I, personally, don't picture women on the front line, fighting for their lives and our freedom and that has a lot to do with the fact that you rarely see women fighting in open combat roles. In Sending Women to War Mark Thompson discusses the different positions that women can hold in the military and what divisions women are typically excluded from. In the Air Force and Navy, women are allowed to hold 98% of the jobs available and this has allowed women to hold 37% of the jobs available to them due to the fact that these branches do not experience as much hand to hand combat as the Army and the Marines. Soldiers in the Marines and Army do most of the fighting on the ground or front line, so the government is more cautious when it comes to picking individuals who are deemed capable of holding said jobs. It is no secret that training for these programs is intense. Many people quit before completing training, so it is logical that the government would be hesitant to let women hold such strenuous positions. However, many pose the question that if women are willing to fight and if we are in need of soldiers on the front line, why deny half of the population the right to participate?

Throughout history, women have played significant roles in war. It is not necessarily by fighting on the front line, but by helping prepare supplies and getting soldiers ready for departure. In both world wars, America utilized women and their skills by allowing them to work in factories to account for the loss of male workers. By using women to help keep the economy and country afloat, they became a large part of society and played a vital role in the war, even if their efforts did go unrecognized. After the war, the infamous image of "Rosie the Riveter" started to appear everywhere, encouraging women to become hardworking individuals that contributed to society and the war efforts. Women have played significant roles in different wars for years, even if most of their contributions were behind the scenes, illuminating the idea that women should be able to do whatever they feel necessary to help their country. Whether they show their support for the war efforts by providing supplies, or by fighting for their freedom with male soldiers by their side, women deserve the right to choose. 

Over the past few decades, women have made huge advancements in the roles they are able to play in the military, but many are still hesitant as to whether they can keep up with the high stake situations in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The main argument presented by people who believe women should not be in combat is that women are not physically strong enough and that men may not feel as comfortable in a unit with women as they would with all men. In "Women in Combat: Been There Done That" the author states, "women are physically different from men, and not every woman has the strength necessary for combat; but neither does every man. However, every man is currently allowed to compete for these jobs, while no woman is" (Bedell 1). This quote presents a great point, acknowledging that some women may not be physically fit enough to participate in strenuous jobs, but that is not to say that there isn't a group of women out there who is strong enough. Women, however,  do not have the opportunity to prove the naysayers wrong if they aren't ever given the chance. 

While I have focused heavily on the fact that women should be allowed to hold front line positions, there are many people who believe that women should not be able to hold these positions for many different and pertinent reasons. In an interview conducted by radio personality Robin Young, we hear from former Marine Chad Russell who discusses the reasons he thinks women could not perform effectively in open combat roles. When asked about why he is against women fighting in open combat roles he addresses the fact that he thinks it is more of an argument of functionality than anything else. He states, "I think females bring an equal value to the military in general, but where I think the difference is, it's about our functionality" (Russell). This interview discusses how women are outperformed in every category of training when compared to men and how the top five female soldiers are equal or below the bottom five male soldiers when looked at side by side. Chad Russell also talks about how people should not focus as heavily on providing equal opportunities for all but instead focus on how women not being able to perform as well could create a threat to national security. Lastly, Russell addresses the fact that women do in fact cause a distraction when placed in the same area as men when being deployed when he states, "We're young guys. We have a strong sexual drive and we are noticing them and going out of our way to notice them. So it does create a distraction" (Russell). 

While the argument of whether or not women are physically strong enough to fight is one that is very popular, it is very rare that you see people talking about what the military could do to accommodate women if they were given the chance to fight on the front line. In the article "Designing Military Systems for Women in Combat", the authors discuss the different things the military needs to do that will help women perform successfully when fighting while focusing on the health and safety of female soldiers. For example, all equipment used in combat today was designed with a male body type in mind so it is obvious that women would not be able to use this equipment as effectively as men do. It is very important that the military makes sure to design equipment that women can use properly and that does not put them at risk when they are fighting. The main differences that researchers have seen when comparing performances between men and women is that women typically have a harder time reaching and lifting equipment due to their overall smaller stature. Another thing women differed from when compared to men was spatial reasoning and the ability to judge distance. This study however, was highly situational due to the fact that different instructions were given in each test and different stimuli were used. That being said, it is clear to see that women need to be accommodated for when addressing the biological differences between men and women instead of just being denied due to the fact that they are outperformed in every aspect of military training. The military training implemented today was designed strictly with men in mind so it is obvious why women have a hard time performing as well as they should but by designing systems that are both difficult and still possible for both genders we are giving women the opportunity to perform as well as men do when given the fair chance. 

Now that we have seen a first hand account of a male Marine and his experiences with women in the military, we can now look at a female Marine who discusses how the discrimination in her branch affects her personally and how she addresses the idea of gender neutral open combat positions. In a video presented on TedTalk, Zoe Bedell discusses her time she spent serving her country and how the military continues to display discrimination against females, even today. During her time in Afghanistan, she ran what was called a "Female Engagement Team" and this team was responsible for conversing with men and women who worked in the area and gathering information about enemy activity. They were also responsible for clearing operations and development projects that pertained to women mostly. During Bedells time served she was not able to perform in any open combat operations due to the fact that the Supreme Court had not made a decision on whether or not women would be allowed to hold such positions. In 2012 she filed a lawsuit to the American Civil Liberties Union in a fight against the Department of Defense in hopes that they would lift the ban that excludes women from open combat units. A law has since passed lifting the ban, which leads us to ask the question; what else can the government do to protect the safety and equality of women who do hold these open combat roles now and how can the government continue to show support for these individuals?

In an article written by the Congressional Research Service, Kristy Kamarck analyzes the different ways that Congress can take action to ensure that women are treated with the same fairness that men are and that there are certain "gender-neutral standards" in place. She states that the government should implement laws that ensure no one is denied an assignment based on gender. Another law that will be put into place will make sure that tests to allow women to hold certain positions in the military are obtainable by both genders and not designed primarily for men. The law that is currently implemented allows women to fight in all front line combat roles but the training and requirements to be allowed to hold these roles is seemingly impossible due to the fact that they are focused mainly on men. The most important thing that Congress could do to ensure equal opportunity is to make sure that training and tests are altered to so that women can perform as well as men and are given equal opportunities to do so. This is so important because when looking at this argument people are most concerned with the fact that women cannot properly complete training due to lack of physical stamina and strength required to perform successfully.  By taking steps towards laws that allow equal opportunities, we can make sure that women are actually given the chance to perform in front line roles, rather than the Supreme Court just saying they are but not taking the proper steps to ensure equality. 

All this talk about whether women possess the strength required to finish proper training has been put to the test as the first two females in history have successfully completed Army ranger school, which is one of the most grueling training processes in the armed forces. Kristen Griest and Shaye Haver are the first two females to graduate from ranger school and when asked about their experiences they said that they were fighting for the future generations of women that would come after them. They both experienced trials when going through school but they both persevered in hopes that they could prove that women were capable of doing whatever they put their mind to. Both admitted to having doubts when they were not performing as well as they thought they would in training but as soon as they saw their fellow soldiers struggling as much as they were, they decided to persevere and do whatever it took to reach their goal. There were times when they had to start over during a certain leg of training because they did not meet their goal but they never gave up and this mindset is what allowed them to make history. When Lt. Michael Janowski was asked about how the women affected the atmosphere around him he stated, "When we were given resupply and you're given 2,000 rounds of machine gun ammo, the last thing you're caring about is whether or not your Ranger buddy is a man or a woman. Because you're not carrying all 2,000 rounds yourself" (Booker 1). We can see that women are fully capable of completing this training when given the chance and when it comes to women being a distraction for men, as long as they are trying their hardest to do what they have to do to stay alive, it makes no difference whether the person standing next to you is a man or a woman. While Haver and Griest are still not allowed to fight on the front line, they have made one step in the right direction when it comes to proving a woman's strength and capability when put to the test.

The debate of allowing women in the toughest military positions has sparked controversy for years, but as we begin to allow women to participate in more high stake roles, one may see that they are able to perform just as well as men, when given the proper training. Allowing women to fight in front line combat roles could potentially create thousands of new jobs and diminish the shortages for soldiers to fight in a war. While all of these laws are being enacted to allow women to become equal parts of all military branches, it is still vital that the government works continuously to make sure that women are being given the proper accommodations to allow them to succeed in these roles. It is easy to say that women are equal but as we see throughout all of history, statements of equality mean nothing until they are backed with unified action by the government and society as a whole. By giving women the same opportunities as men, the government is showing people that they believe in the strength and skills women possess and by allowing women to fight on the front line the government is declaring that they support equality in the military. 

