Women are not only limited in number in their fields, but they are also limited as to the fields they can fill. Most militaries still limit the occupations that allow women to occupy. For the most part, women are excluded from all combat and some combat-related fields. Traditional observation on women assumes that they do not want to be involved in combat, nor are they in a position to handle such occupations. Most people believe that men are more physically and emotionally suited for roles in combat. Suggestions of women participation in combat fields have variation cross-culturally, and have transformed over time, but universally, there is still much contention on the issue. Reality or facts do not necessarily support these considerations. Despite the intentions of women to be in combat roles, most of them are currently still exposed to combat and all of its related tasks of terror, without associated benefit.
Critics of combat constraint in most places in various countries assert that with modern warfare, there is a limited distinction that involves combatant and noncombatant soldiers, both types are killed in battle without consideration, and therefore, it is absurd to believe that the military can protect women by restricting them from combat positions. This lack of distinction on the part of ‘enemy’ and technology is particularly apparent in the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where most women have been killed or are captured while serving in positions listed as a noncombatant (Sadler et al., 2004).
Apart from restrictions in job opportunities and in equivalent representations in higher ranks, women additionally suffer from social restrictions. During women’s participation in the World War II, male soldiers spread a series of slanderous rumors of the women serving in the military, depicting them as women of loose morals and weak character, and as women who were prone to be pregnant out of wedlock (Hacker, 1981). These rumors lowered women morale and in some instances caused significant emotional distress. At a time when slandering of women’s reputation was as dangerous and harmful, this was dangerous and discouraged women from joining the military.
Efforts to contract these prejudice led militaries to instate conduct and appearance codes for women who joined the military. These rules included restricting female soldier interaction with their male counterparts. As time progressed so too have the social restrictions placed on women. Women are no longer as restricted in their socialization with male colleagues, but an unhealthy social environment remains where military women live and work. Women in early 21 century militaries have to handle harassments and cruel double standards.
Beginning from World War I, military psychiatrists said that in order for women to obtain full participation in the military; men would have to rise above their prejudices about women and their roles. Almost 100 years after this initial observation and recommendation for change, women still serve beside men who are taught and encouraged to see their female counterparts not as peers, but rather as inferior or otherwise unsuited for military services. Therefore, for change to take effect and women to be in a position to leave up to the standards of men in the military, these changes have to be observed and ensured since everyone needs a chance to prove their abilities and not to be judged for who they are in person.
References
Sadler, A. G., Booth, B. M., Mengeling, M. A., & Doebbeling, B. N. (2004). Life span and repeated violence against women during military service: Effects on health status and outpatient utilization. Journal of Women's Health, 13(7), 799-811.
Hacker, B. C. (1981). Women and military institutions in early modern Europe: A reconnaissance. Signs, 6(4), 643-671.
