Women have been involved in combat for longer than many individuals realize. For centuries they have been the backbone and the support behind the troops of many nations. Women have undergone dangerous missions and been placed into life-threatening circumstances quite often. Unfortunately their role has always been seen as supportive, never as combatants. The role of women in combat is changing from passive support to active participant.
There are concerns that go beyond the leaderships qualities that may or may not have
anything to do with the inclusion of women into active combat roles. In a letter written to
National Order of Women, Toledo Chapter of Records (2016) the view that women are far
weaker and cannot handle the rigorous physical and psychological effects of combat is
addressed. The missive goes on to state that women could not possibly withstand the pressures of
neither warfare nor the mental conditions of those around them should matters turn violent. It is an old concern that surrounds any women ever put into harm’s way amidst the company of men, but it is still an issue that exists in the armed forces to this day.
Given that men and women are very different when compared by gender-specific differences, it is pointing out the obvious to state that women in the field will have different health concerns than men. There has yet to be a change in policy made to accommodate women in a combat zone according to McGraw, Koehlmoos, and Ritchie (2016), but as women become more prevalent on the front lines it will need to be addressed. McGraw, Koehlmoos, and Ritchie (2016, have also stated that from a historical standpoint, women’s health in the military has been poorly understood and left as a responsibility of those women who opted to serve. In the modern era the military is being forced to develop new techniques to better care for their female combatants.
There are many reasons why females should be allowed to enter the combat zone. One very well-observed fact is that women are seen to be much more efficient peacekeepers than men. This idea still stems from stereotypical ideals that paint women as less aggressive and more diplomatic than men, but it is a refreshingly new perspective that argues for the inclusion of women into combat. According to Heinecken (227-248), the act of diffusing a situation is seen as favorable in light of several engagements concerning civilians that might have been handled differently if an individual who was able to look beyond the mere facts of the situation was involved. Women do bring a new and different perspective to warfare despite receiving the same training as men.
Including women in the infantry and other areas of combat where they are up close and
face to face with the enemy has met much opposition since its inception. The common beliefs
that emerge during any debates about this matter tend to lean towards women being weaker both
physically and psychologically than men. Many would argue against this point, but it has long
since become a stereotype that has labeled women in the military. Currently that stereotype has been challenged and almost overcome, but it is still a large hurdle that has yet to be fully cleared.
Traditionally women are believed to be passive participants in war, supporting their men rather than joining them on the battlefield. Despite their lack of involvement until the current day though women have still felt the effects of war. They have been killed, tortured, raped, and subjected to just as many horrors as men, if not more. Lorentzen and Turpin (1998) go on to state that women are still a vital part of any war as their participation has always insured that men are able to fight. Without food, clothing, and other forms of support men would have been less efficient and far less prepared for combat.
Women are also believed to be far better peacekeepers than men, though this is also based upon the gender stereotype that has been in place for many years. The idea that women are more logical and can develop new and innovative ways around a problem is hardly indicative of the gender as a whole. Various studies that have involved men and women have deduced that men tend to look at solutions rather than methods when attempting to solve a problem. Women are seen as possible peacemakers largely because of gender stereotyping that still exists in the military today.
It is a stereotypical outlook upon women’s role in warfare, but one that has been
prevalent for many years. Not until 2015 (Fitriani, Cooper, Matthews 2016) were women
allowed to enter ground close combat, a role that had been reserved solely for men until that
point. Despite the ability of women to accept and withstand the pressures of combat many still
feel that this subject and the placement of women on the front lines are unacceptable. To date
however the practices is still moving forward as more women are being allowed to fight for their
country alongside men, instead of behind them as support.
The decision of the USA to include women in the ranks of the infantry is also beginning
their women to serve in the front ranks. Historically such a thing has never been done, as women
are more often kept far away from combat, serving in roles that do not allow them to put boots
on the ground alongside their male counterparts. As time has gone by though more and more
women have been taking over traditional, male-dominated roles. As gender stereotypes begin to
fade and lose their veracity in determining who can advance and who cannot, the role of women in combat is becoming far less restrictive.
Biologically many women are at a distinct disadvantage as the average woman is not as strong as the average man. According to a study written by Heinecken (227-248), there are several instances during which a woman would be thought incapable of handling equipment, physical stress, and the emotional toll that can be experienced during actual combat. Such an impediment is not the only basis for women to have been restricted from the front line and should not be. However, there are other issues that have come to light during this debate both before and after the decision to include women into front line combat.
One of the strongest beliefs that speaks against women being included in combat as stated
huge difference in any unit. Many consider a woman high risk when it comes to serving on the
front line for several reasons. Among those are the biological differences that exist between men
and women. There is also the inherent need for men to protect women, which could be a
detriment to a squad or regiment, and could lead to preferential treatment which could damage
the integrity of the unit. Many such arguments have been brought to light after President Obama issued his decree (Fitriani, Cooper, Matthews 2016) that women would be allowed to serve on the front lines.
Lorentzen and Turpin (1998) reveal that women have always been a part of warfare. Without taking into account where their place in the conflict has been, they have been impacted by war in some way with each and every conflict that has ever been experienced by America. Their roles have always been the necessary and needed support of the troops, those who stand behind the front lines and mend wounds, take care of injured soldiers, and otherwise keep the war machine running by performing stereotypical roles that have for a long time been considered “women’s work”.
According to Klenke (68), women in the military are becoming more and more involved with every conflict as they have proven their worth many times over. Despite the genetic shortcomings written by Lorenzten and Turpin (1998) that many women experience in terms of overall strength and endurance, women are just as capable as men of pulling their own weight on the battlefield. While detractors would claim that women would only hamper a unit’s ability to operate in the field, many women have been proving that they are able to keep up with men in the modern age.
Throughout the many years that women have played a supportive role to the troops it has
always been deduced that women cannot survive in a man’s world. In truth they might be
able to bring a fresh perspective to warfare. Their ideas and new insights might help to
revolutionize the battlefield anew. Women are deserving of the chance to fight and die for their
country just as men do. The manner in which they do this should not be hampered by gender, but instead by the demand for physical fitness and endurance that can make or break any soldier.
Works Cited
Fitriani, Randolf, Cooper, G.S., & Matthews, Ron. “Women in Ground Close Combat.” The
RUSI Journal 161.1 (2016).
Heinecken, Lindy. “Are Women ‘Really’ Making a Unique Contribution to Peacekeeping?”
Klenke, Karin. “Women in Combat: Contexts, Management, and Mortality Salience-Implications
for Women’s Leadership.” International Leadership Journal 8.2 (2016): 38-67.
Lorentzen, Lois Ann & Turpin, Jennifer E. The Woman and War Reader. New York: New York
McGraw, Kate, PhD; Koehlmoos, Tracy Perez, PhD; & Ritchie, Elspeth Cam, MD. “Women in
Combat: Framing the Issues of Health and Health Research for America's Servicewomen.” Military Medicine 181.15 (2016).
“Women in Combat?” National Organization of Women, Toledo Chapter Records 7 (2016).
