Women have been openly serving in the military since the Army allowed women to be nurses, in the last two years of World War I. Their position in the military has been steadily growing and their opportunities have been doing the same. With every major conflict the United States has participated in, women have increased their role, but not without opposition. In 2012, a motion was proposed to redact the combat exclusion policy which stated that women cannot serve in combat positions. This divided people on the topic and the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), Leon Panetta, gave all four branches of the armed forces until January 2016 to develop plans for female inclusion into combat roles. This sparked the current debate on whether women should fill these jobs.  It is my belief that women should be allowed entry into previously closed combat Military Occupational Specialties (MOS’s), so long as they are capable of meeting, if not exceeding the current standards and requirements for those jobs. 

When General Martin Dempsey sent a letter to Leon Panetta in 2012, he initiated the controversy that currently surrounds the topic. At the beginning, the people opposed to the motion voiced their opinions. Many did so using the medical implications and facts as support, stating that women are physically inferior to men and would be unable to perform their necessary duties. Some women contracted severe medical issues from the prolonged stress that combat produces. Captain Katie Petronio, an Officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, with extensive combat experience, stated in an interview that her time in combat caused her to become barren (YouTube, “Female Marine”). Petronio also discusses how as a female marine, it was more difficult to complete the same tasks as the men in a combat scenario. Petronio used the vast difference between the male and female physique to back up her claims that women should be banned from combat environments.

Shortly after the SECDEF went public with the gender-integration plan, many people opposed made their voice heard. In an article published by the New York Times, author Elisabeth Bumiller quotes retired General Jerry Boykin, an avid opponent in saying, “the people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment…living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions.” It was situations like these that created the medical complications that Petronio and other women in the military face. Part of Boykin and Petronio’s arguments are not only the medical implications, but the moral ones as well. They questioned why would someone want to encourage a woman to do something that could develop injuries that they were not aware of? Combat is a very dangerous place, and all military personnel go knowing the potential risks involved. However, women being encouraged to go, are not aware of the unusual affects combat can take on their bodies.

In response to Panetta’s orders, the United States Marine Corps requested that two studies be done to test the efficiency of women in combat units and any accommodations that need to be done for them. What the conclusion found lines up with Petronio’s interview, due to the difference in bone structure and muscle composition between men and women, all male units outperformed all co-ed units (NPR, 3). It states that “All-male squads, regardless of infantry MOS, were faster than the gender-integrated squads in each tactical movement” (3). In the study completed by the RAND Corporation, they determined that the USMC must be willing to spend a great deal of time and money on gender-integration, and continue to do so even though little to no women will sign for these jobs at the start (Schaefer, 146). Schaefer also states that it will take a long time for numbers to increase while the physical training (PT) requirements remain unchanged (142). Since January of 2016, when the military officially opened these jobs, a grand total of thirty-one women have signed contracts for combat MOS’s, and only one has successfully passed infantry training.  

The supporters of the gender-integration and the repealing of the combat exclusion rule feel just as strongly. Women have been openly serving in the military for a century, they share the same freedoms as all other Americans do. The war that our military is currently engaged in, is one where the enemy is a ghost, he does not wear a uniform and is willing to do whatever it takes to kill us. This has eliminated all “front lines,” and every job could be considered a combat MOS. Women have been filling the ranks of our military steadily for years and have been committed to these jobs that can be just as dangerous as an infantry position. The female personnel sign up knowing this, but the training for their jobs provides little to no extra combat or defensive training other than what they receive in boot camp. This is like giving a man a fishing pole but not teaching him to fish. Just as Strong states in her journal, “Despite previous bans on women in combat roles, many female service members during their deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan have experienced some type of combat during their deployment” (490). With this being the case, why purposefully keep women from learning the skills they need?  Strong also argues how almost the same percentage of male and female personnel have experienced any form of combat, with males at 81.7% and females at 73.4% (Strong, 490). When the criteria are tightened to more intense, direct contact with the enemy, females dropped to 8.8% while males were still at a high 29.1% (490). This difference is strictly due to the combat exclusion rule since men were the only ones allowed in combat MOS’s. The statistics would slowly begin to even out over time as more and more women enter their ranks.

Other critics of the gender integration plan believe that women should not be allowed entry in to combat positions because of the potential for severe mental trauma. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), has been becoming more frequent among military personnel over the past sixteen years. Many people believe that integrating women into combat roles will cause them to contract more severe cases of PTSD because they are not accustomed to such conditions. That is where they are mistaken, Strong studied the effects of combat on the mind of female personnel compared to male. What she found was that women handle PTSD and combat fatigue similar, if not better than men and the only variation between them is determined by the intensity of combat they experience (491). PTSD is a common and unfortunate side effect of modern combat, but the possibility of that should not exclude women from serving. 

Many supporters of the gender-integration believe that the standards of entry to these positions should be altered to accommodate women. These supporters are not wrong, if women wish to be in a certain MOS that was previously male only the requirements should remain unchanged. Under no circumstances should the standards be lowered to make passing easier. In a journal written by Lauren Privedera on this topic, she states, “An equal standard would not predict or ensure that the strongest member of a unit is male or female, but it would ensure that all members of that unit were able to execute their jobs competently” (117). When the PT standards for a certain MOS are lowered so more women will be successful, the overall effectiveness and capability of the unit drops considerably. This is because lowering standards permits more unqualified men and women to take those jobs.  

What Privedera does not understand is that the standards are what they are for a reason. The requirements for an infantryman have been proven effective over time. Altering them just raises the possibility for failure. The standards set currently are attainable by women; so far, three women have passed all phases of Army Ranger school, a very physically and mentally challenging course. One of which has also passed Infantry Officer school to become the first ever female infantry officer. Likewise, one female Marine recently graduated infantry school and thirty-one others are slotted to attempt too. These programs are some of the hardest our nation has to offer, and these women passing has shown that standards do not need altering. As the study done by the RAND corporation found, it will take a little time for more and more women to sign up for these positions (Schaefer, 125). As more and more women see others pass these schools they will understand it is possible, and the rate of graduates will increase exponentially. However; in order to pass these schools, women must learn how to adapt and overcome the situations they will be presented with that men will not. In combat, sanitation and personal hygiene are put on the back burner. This can lead to major medical complications for women who are put in these conditions. These issues can be easily avoided by taking time to maintain personal hygiene and being made aware of the consequences that could arise if not. 

I feel firm in my belief that women should be permitted in combat positions. They have proven that they are more than capable warriors and deserve the opportunity to serve their country how they see fit. It is an honorable profession and people’s patriotism should not be limited based on their gender. They should be given the opportunity to serve in the job they feel best suited for if they are capable of meeting it’s current standards. Altering these in any way brings to much risk to the integrity of the armed forces and their capabilities, especially currently where tensions between nations are constantly growing. Now more than ever, our military needs to be ready for any challenges that the future may bring. In order to do that, all our service members must be physically willing, qualified, and able to successfully carry out any mission that our nation asks of them. 

 
