I have grown up in a very sexist world. Men being sexist towards women, women being sexist towards men.  The religion I was brought up in, for example, expects women to be solely care providers of children, and for them to stay home and take care of all the domestic work. The majority of men in the First Apostolic Lutheran church don’t expect their wives to get actual jobs in the work field, nor do they want them to. The men want to be seen as the providers or the “bread winners” of the family. In my opinion, those women are merely slaves to their husbands. Every time I told someone at church that I aspire to be an officer in the United States Navy, they gave me dirty looks, or tried to change the subject. But sexism towards women in the military is not only in the church I grew up in, it is nationwide. And although women are now allowed in combat, there are still so many arguments whether it should be permitted or not. I strongly support the fact that women and men should be treated equally in the military, no matter what level of difficulty the standards must be set to do so.

Women started serving in the military as early as the revolutionary war in 1775. Most went with their husbands and worked in the military camps as cooks and cleaners, but some went to the extreme level of disguising themselves as men and fighting beside their fellow soldiers. Even though women were not given recognition for their actions, they still fought for America. Women officially joined the military during World War I, joining the Army Nurse Corps under the Army Reorganization Act of 1901. In 1908, women could officially join the Navy with the Navy Nurse Corps. Even the women that did not join the military made a huge difference on the home front, where they kept up with factories and all other work while men were out fighting. They took over men’s jobs, sent relief to those fighting, and contributed to the workforce in many other ways that helped during World War l. 

In 1948, Congress passed the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act. Although this act allowed women to serve full time in the military, it enacted three major points that clearly defined females from males. It limited the number of women serving, knocking the number of women in the military down to two percent for enlisted and ten percent for officers. It put a limit on the rank that women could achieve, not allowing them to reach any promotion above lieutenant colonel or commander (Kamarck, 2). Thirdly, it limited the careers that women were able to have, and excluded them from many things such as serving in “aircraft engaged in combat and vessels engaged in, or likely to be engaged in combat missions” (Kamarck, 3). The Air Force argued that any flying over hostile territory exposed women to a risk of being captured. The Risk Rule of 1988 fully describes these policies on not allowing women on any combat affiliated military machine. The only ships that women were allowed to board in the Navy were hospital ships and transport ships. Interestingly enough, the act did not say anything about disallowing women from ground combat roles. But Congress believed that there was a required strength level that women did not, and could not reach. Congress slowly started to change the legislation, allowing more movement for women in the armed services. In 1967, the required strength issue, the ranking limitations, and the two-percentile rule (for enlisted women) were lifted. From then on women were allowed to first attend all military academies (Air Force Academy, Naval Academy, Coast Guard Academy, and West Point) in 1975. A switch was also made in 1978 that opened up more job opportunities for women as well. 

The Risk Rule of 1988 was also an excuse not to let women on non-combat ships or aircrafts. The rule proposed by the Department of Defense “excluded women from non-combat units or missions if the risks of exposure to direct combat, hostile fire or capture were equal to or greater than the risk in the units they supported” (“The Risk Rule,” 2009). The Risk Rule was revoked by the Secretary of Defense around 1994 and replaced with the Direct Ground Combat and Assignment Rule which Kamarck states that "Service members are eligible to be assigned to all positions for which they are qualified, except that women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground" (7). 

People immediately started to oppose this rule during the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to Kamarck, three women that were “assigned to Army’s 507th Maintenance Company which provided logistic support to ground units, and thus not a unit whose primary mission was to engage in direct combat on the ground” were held captive by enemy forces in Iraq (8). During their captivity, they were sexually assaulted, which increasingly caused chaos with those who were against this policy (8). The Army clearly went against the Direct Ground Combat and Assignment Rule by handing out Combat Action Badges to hundreds of Army females. Kamarck says that the Combat Action badge signifies that soldiers “have engaged the enemy, or were engaged by the enemy during combat operation,” which points us to believe that women were involved in direct ground combat (9). Nonetheless, those who wished to see women put back into their traditional, noncombat roles, were disappointed when the Direct Combat Exclusion Rule was repealed, and many new combat positions were opened up for women in 2013 (12). Kamarck says “On December 3, 2015, Secretary Carter ordered the military to open all combat jobs to women who meet the validated occupational standards with no exceptions” (14). From then on, plans were made to integrate women into all positions in the military. 

The first and foremost concern that many have against women in combat positions is the physical aspect. Daniel L. Davis, a retired Lt. Col. who served in the U.S. Army for twenty-one years, says that due to the physical differences between men and women, women will be put “at a disadvantage and put…in a danger greater than that faced by men in combat” (Davis).   Davis firmly believes that having women at a disadvantage in combat would then put men at a greater risk from having to cover themselves and their fellow females on the front lines. McGraw and her fellow authors write that “Upper-body strength in which women on average is 40-60% weaker than men’s upper-body strength...Lower body strength, in which women typically have 30-45% less than men do…” (McGraw et al, 9). To test the effectiveness of women in combat, there have been studies conducted to compare integrated units and all male units, and all the results concluded to prove that integrated units were slower than all male units to complete given tasks. Another downfall to the integrated unit was that women were getting injured more often than men. In McGraw’s, Koehlmoos’ and Ritchie’s article, they say “…the attrition rate from basic training for females climbed to 17%…to include musculoskeletal injuries…more likely to develop stress fractures” (9). 

Another popular argument is the possibility of romantic relationships between males and females in an integrated unit.  Anna Simons says “…couples form…factor in intense, intimate conditions and you can forget about adults being able to stay professional 24/7” (Simons). Simons also displays the fact that heterosexual men have the natural tendency to compete with other heterosexual men for the attention of females. She says that this would cause a large issue, because it would distract men in combat situations and take away their focus on the primary mission. Davis also says that the “…majority of armored crewmen, infantrymen, and artillerymen are…between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five…almost exactly with the height of male sexual desire,” (Davis) and although there will be consensual sexual relationships, there may also be men who force themselves upon women (Davis). 

McGraw and the others write that “Sexual assault impacts not only victims, but also the entire unit, as long-term consequences of sexual assault may disrupt functioning of victims, offenders, and bystanders; cause mission degradation…instigate unit-wide investigations…lead to potential long-term disability of the victim; and result in potential incarceration or discharge of the offender” (McGraw et al, 10). The military, especially combat, is a very fast moving environment that relies on every person in the unit. In this specific quote, the authors display that sexual assault disrupts units at every level. There’s a likely chance that the victim would be traumatized, which then leads to inefficient performance of his or her role. If the assault were to be put in the system as an unrestricted report, an investigation would be required, which could potentially slow down all those involved and the unit as a whole. Sexual assault not only affects the perpetrator and the victim, but the unit as well. On the front lines, units can’t take the risk to be slowed down. Sexual assault has been a well-known problem in the military without women in combat, and there is a belief that this problem would predominantly increase with the integration of women into combat.

Before recruits enter basic training, they raise their right hands and take an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. Along with the constitutional principles, the core democratic values make up the opportunistic American society that we have today. These values were put in place to allow all American citizens to reach their full potential without stepping outside of the law. To deny women the right to join combat is hypocritical against the fundamental values that were put in place hundreds of years ago.  

The core democratic values that prove women have the right to serve on the front lines are pursuit of happiness, justice, patriotism, and equality. On my brother’s fifth death anniversary, I got his writing tattooed on my arm that says “everyone should find happiness.” My brother committed suicide in January of 2012, and it left a mark on my whole family. I was depressed for a large portion of my earlier teenage years, and I never thought I would find happiness again. Being in the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps program and knowing that I will be able to serve this beautiful country has been one way in which I have found a way to be happy. Given, my happiness does not require me to pursue a combat role, but for some women it does. What if they are simply trying to find some happiness and meaning in their life? To take away the opportunity for women in combat would be taking away the opportunity of some women’s happiness.  

Patriotism is yet another Core Democratic Value that is being jeopardized by forbidding women from military combat roles. Patriotism is defined as “A personal display of love and devotion to our country, its values, and its principles” (“The Core Democratic Values”). In other words, patriotism is the ability to show one’s love for his or her country. For many women, just like for many men, that love is best displayed through fighting in combat. If women were denied a role in combat, they would also be denied a role in patriotism. Why would the United States exclude women who are willing to give up their own life for their country from combat? 

Justice and equality fit hand in hand with this policy. Justice is defined as the act that “All people should be treated fairly in getting advantages and disadvantages of our country. No group or person should be favored” (“Core Democratic Values Defined”). Plain and simple; no gender should be favored over the other. Men and women should be created equal in all situations.  Equality ties in with justice and is defined as “Everyone having the right to the same treatment regardless of race, sex, religion, heritage, or economic status” (“Core Democratic Values”). Regardless of sex means no matter if you were born a man or woman, you have the right to being treated the same and have the same opportunities. There should be no discrimination in the military in any case. 

Not only were women given the right to join combat from the United States constitutional principles and core democratic values, they also benefit combatant units in much different ways that have no relation with physicality. In Haring’s article, there are many different factors that women add to an integrated unit. Haring says that the research that was done found that a “group’s collective intelligence tends to increase as the percentage of women in the group increases” (Haring). Collective intelligence is important in any military organization because it allows for the best possible outcome in any situation. To enhance collective intelligence in a group, there must be open communication and the ability for everyone to express their ideas. Integrating women into combat makes for a better and more open communicative environment, therefore increasing collective intelligence. 

Being a feminist and an officer trainee, I will always support women in combat roles. Everyone has the right to reach their own potential, no matter what that may be. One thing I do not support with allowing women into combat is for the military to create a double standard. Cronk writes in her article that “…while ‘suggestions’ have been made to lower standards for female Marines to meet quotas, Mabus [former Secretary of the Navy] emphasized it’s ‘an unacceptable notion’ for every Marine, especially those women who choose to compete for those positions. ‘It’s unacceptable under the law, to me, and to every other senior leader in the Pentagon because it would endanger not only the safety of Marines, but the safety of our nation,’…” (Cronk).  Keeping gender neutral standards for all personnel in combat keeps combat readiness at its peak, and allows less opportunities for sexism to occur. Not only do men need to support their female counterparts, but they need to start viewing them as equal to men. 

To tag along with gender neutral standards issue, the Marine Corps has a segregated boot camp. This is naturally training females Marines to be slower, weaker, and less skilled than the male recruits. In “The Consequences of Gender Segregation in Marine Boot Camp,” Tomas writes that “From the moment female recruits enter Marine boot camp, they are trained to a lower standard…Poor health outcomes for military women are a great reason to address cohesion gaps…Segregation…breeds distrust, which hampers cohesion for military women at every stage of their career and guarantees mission failure. The change need for structural change…constitutes a performance mandate” (Thomas et al). For women to perform the same as men, it is required that they train with them. The USMC needs to stop segregating their boot camp into male and female sections in order for all personnel to have the same training opportunities for each and every mission to be carried out effectively. 

Due to many recent political and social events in the United States, women have right to believe that their rights are being threatened. Although women are in combat today, many people could influence it to go back to the way it was. Women and those supporting them have fought long and hard for this policy to be put in place, and losing it would be disheartening for those who put the work in. With each step and rule added to the military since World War l, women have been getting closer to being combined with men in combat. This policy not only affects women in the military, but their proud family members and dependents as well.
