Research argument on science and social issues

According to online polls, whether and how women should serve in combat is one of the top social issues of 2017 (“The Most Popular Social Issues of 2017”). One of the reasons why this social issue is currently trending is that as of January 1, 2016, the military began phasing in a new policy that opens ground combat positions for women. Over 200,000 new combat positions have been open since January 2016, but “relatively few women have been trained or deployed for these jobs yet,” revealing important structural, human resources, and leadership impediments to gender equality in the military (Patterson 1).

Historically, women have not served in the military other than in medical and support roles (Barry). Women have, however, served in combat roles globally within the past several generations. In fact, the list of countries in which women serve in official military combat roles now is astonishingly long and surprisingly diverse, from Eritrea to New Zealand. Even misogynistic cultures like that of Pakistan permit females to serve as fighter pilots (Fisher). In the United States, women have been serving indirectly in positions that are akin to combat, and have died in the line of duty (Patterson). Since Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), women have also been deployed as “fighter, bomber, attack, and helicopter pilots in all branches of the military, and aboard combat and support Navy and Coast Guard vessels,” (Klenke 38). Given that women already enjoy a strong presence on the front lines in the armed forces, it seems odd that there would be any controversy at all about the recent gender liberation of ground forces combat positions.

Yet it was amid great public and military sector outcry that in 2013, the United States lifted its ban on women serving in infantry, artillery, and other units defined as direct combat (Bumiller and Shanker). Military officials continue to decry gender equality in combat, with outlandish statements published in military journals stating, “Political correctness has no chance against Nature,” (Eden 46). Yet women are going to start serving in combat because the Pentagon has said so, and the question now is not about whether women should serve in combat, but how women can be trained to reach their highest potential in battle situations.
The pros and cons of women serving in direct combat are important to outline and understand in an objective fashion. Women have as of yet not been fully integrated into military combat units, as the Pentagon and each branch of the military works out the specific methods by which to integrate armed forces. The key issues surrounding the question of whether or not women should serve in combat missions include how to address training and skills development, how to alter core military organizational culture, how to maximize the potential of all soldiers in different types of combat scenarios, and how to address gender gaps in combat leadership.

Physical preparedness for combat is a primary issue in the debate over whether or not women would serve in front lines positions. As Barry points out, one of the main arguments presented against gender equality in combat positions is physical readiness. Barry points out, all armies do have greater physical fitness standards for training for combat. This is especially true for some armed forces, like the Marines. Some studies have shown that women cannot compete physically with their male counterparts one for one, with one study in the Marines showing that an all-male group “significantly outperformed the integrated group in almost every metric,” and that women were “slower and weaker,” (Klenke 42). Some sources point to the obvious biological differences between men and women to presume differences in combat readiness. “Anatomically speaking, men have broader shoulders and backs, and thicker necks.  Males are born with more testosterone, which enhances the body’s ability to build muscle.  This physical advantage helps males to handle the stresses of combat,” (Smith). Those who oppose any female participation in combat site two specific impediments related to physical prowess and training needs for maximum military preparedness (Thompson).

Eden claims that gender differences in ability are “deal breakers in combat,” which does make sense (43). Yet research does reveal that the physical strength argument reveals astonishing double standards. For one, not all men can compete at the highest level and many underperform a woman in peak performance. “Many women have the physical strength and stamina to engage in ground combat while many men do not,” (Klenke 44). Second, Klenke notes that women are often systematically excluded from training exercises that might have helped them to improve their performance—something that is also linked to the leadership and organizational culture problems with gender parity in the military.

Some of the gender differences in physical preparedness is related to training. As of yet, women do not receive the same type of basic training that might better prepare the most physically adept among them to serve in demanding combat roles. The American Marine Corps is only beginning to consider requiring females to complete pull-ups in order to ensure that more women have the capacity to serve in combat roles should they desire to do so (Seck). As a result, less than half of the women in the Marine Corps are able to complete three pullups (Seck). The problem seems to be too little training for women, or gender biased training, than it is innate ability. Creating more robust training and skills development for female soldiers on a combat track provide specific challenges for military personnel seeking best methods of creating a gender-neutral combat force. Some believe that “the small number versus the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integration do not make it a worthwhile move,” (Sisters in Arms). Because change can seem threatening, many military personnel do not want to reconsider ways of creating an inclusive force.

Current physical strength and training exercises designed to prepare soldiers for combat discriminate against women and showcase a culture of double standards. Because current strength and endurance tests are designed for men rather than women, aspiring female combatants might risk injury in training or ground execution (Sisters in Arms,). Poor training is the problem, not female soldiers. Women are biologically different from men and therefore do have different physical capacities to fight. Those capacities can still become assets on the ground, and as the military is set for full gender equality in the military, it is important to develop the right physical training programs to maximize the potential for all soldiers to serve where they are needed most and where they can perform at their best.

Voices strongly in favor of a gender-neutral combat force site several reasons why women should be allowed to serve in any role for which they are qualified. Because the nature of military combat has changed dramatically due to advancements in specific types of technologies, gender and sheer physical strength play a less significant role in some combat missions. Women already serve in specific tactical maneuvers including as fighter pilots. Even when the combat mission involves traditional physical force, gender may not be as important a concern as innate ability, training, and psychological strength. Some men may be better suited to combat roles that rely more on psychological than physical strength, just as some women may be better suited than some men to serve on the front lines. It is not necessary to lower standards and expectations to suit the lowest common denominator, but simply to adjust standards to meet the needs of each specific combat role. Thus, military jobs “should be based on performance, and those who can meet those standards should be able to participate,” (Iskra). Each combat role could also have its own set of standards, thus eliminating the fear that allowing women in combat would compromise physical readiness. Even when physical differences are accounted for, combat involves far more than a few set of skills, many of which a lot of men cannot perform either. Additionally, “systems are in place to ensure the inclusion of women does not compromise national defense…because unqualified women will self-select out of the service or will be unable to meet the physically demanding requirements,” (Dunn 1).

Core military culture will need to change when women were serving on the front lines. The military does already have women in leadership positions, but the introduction of women to combat roles does change strategies and tactics used on the ground. Moreover, the participation of women in combat units does dramatically alter the discourse in the military. Eden, for example, admits fear of political correctness as one reason for resistance to change. Military culture male dominated, and the welcoming of women will mean that units will experience temporary disruptions to cohesion (Klenke). These disruptions will be readily resolved via a top-down process of resolving outmoded communications styles in military culture, and to introduce new standards of interpersonal interactions in combat units. It may take time to alter honed misogynistic and androcentric discourse, but the more women serving in combat, the easier unit cohesion will become.

Organizational culture concerns can be perceived as either a pro or a con in the debate over whether women should be serving in combat roles. Arguments against women serving in combat generally prefer to maintain a status quo in military culture in which sexism and misogyny prevail. On the other hand, most young personnel in the armed forces regardless of gender believe that the current strategy and approach to gender needs to be revised in order to create a more cohesive and effective regimen (Putko & Johnson). As women become integrated into combat units, the organizational culture of each unit needs to reflect a more gender-neutral military organization as a whole. This will inevitably require more female leaders in all sectors of the military.
It would be difficult to change social norms and gender roles in the military or in the civilian sector, which is why many believe that women should not be allowed to serve on the front lines. Similar arguments had been used to exclude females from the political process. A conservative approach deems the inclusion of women in combat roles as being antithetical to the culture of the military. Thus, detractors claim, “having women serving in direct combat will hamper mission effectiveness by hurting unit morale and cohesion,” (Sisters in Arms). Evans also agrees that women endander the troops. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many men in the military may prefer to “maintain traditional gender roles,” may “act foolishly” to protect female troops (Sisters in Arms). Patriarchal norms about gender roles and stereotypes are problematic elements in all areas of society, and especially in the military. If traditional gender roles are deemed valid, then this argument could be tenable. Yet the military often purports to fight for freedom around the world, including the freedom of women to participate fully in the society.

This line of reasoning suggests that the military may not be training their male troops effectively for the psychological demands of teamwork and warfare. Likewise, some men may resent women fighting alongside them, and may also feel that females who perform better threaten their masculinity (Sisters in Arms). Smith also upholds the belief that women’s role is as head of household and as child bearers, and not as defenders of their nation. The notion that women would “distract” men is the identical one used to deny the rights of gays and lesbians to serve in the military; moreover, the “distraction” line of reasoning was also made to oppose women entering the workforce en mass after World War Two, a situation that would generally not be questioned today (Dunn).

Related to organizational culture issues, strengthening military leadership is one of the main methods of improving combat readiness. The primary goal of all militaries is to protect national security, and national security hinges on a cohesive armed forces. Good leadership is critical to a strong military. As more women serve in combat roles, more women will also be serving in top positions of power in the military. In fact, one of the most fruitful and positive repercussions of gender integration in combat positions will be the long-term effects on promoting women to leadership positions.
Furthermore, women already serve, and already die in the line of duty and in leadership roles. Women have “shared the risks from sniper fire, mortar attacks and hidden explosive devices,” (MacAskill). Allowing women to serve in combat is mainly a matter of recognizing what these soldiers already do and given them due credit and accolades. The “de facto combat roles” women occupy need to be honored and recognized (Smith). Many military experts likewise believe that the presence of women has no bearing on troop effectiveness, military preparedness, or any other core goal. The United Kingdom is currently debating a change in its allowance of women in combat and the Defense Secretary cites an empirical review showing that it is “clear that there\\'s no question mark over the cohesion of the unit, the overall effectiveness of the unit. Women can fight just as effectively as men,” (“Women may serve in close combat roles by 2016, says Fallon”).

Allowing women to serve in combat preserves the freedoms that American troops are sworn to defend. Women serving in combat would be serving alongside men, and maintaining troop cohesiveness and solidarity are keys to preparedness and effectiveness. Troop effectiveness is rooted in shared values. If women were to be permitted to serve on the front lines without restrictions, this would both reflect and encourage a positive shift in American values and culture. Changing gender roles and norms in a way thorough enough to ensure women serve in combat if they choose to do so shows that the military represents the dearest aspirations of the American psyche to preserve basic freedoms, rights, and liberties. Without combat experience, it is practically impossible for females to serve in the highest positions of power and leadership in the military regardless of years of tenured service.

Maximizing the potential of all soldiers is the goal of military training. It is therefore important to define combat when considering whether or not women should serve. The nature of warfare has changed significantly over the past several generations. Current military leaders may be working with the older model in which brute force is the only factor deeming a soldier worthy to serve in combat. However, modern warfare does not necessarily demand any gender-specific traits or talents. Whereas some elite units may represent few women due to special physical demands, they would at least not systematically exclude females. Instead, the grounds for admission into special units would be on ability alone. The positions that are open to women would require the same physical tests and rigorous standards, which is why the American Army has been gradually opening positions previously closed to women (Lopez & Henning).

For some, the question is not whether women should be allowed to serve in combat, but how. The methods by which women can be included in combat roles include allowing for gradual transitions in some sectors, altering the character, nature, and culture of military leadership, and acknowledging the key differences between different types of combat. Some types of combat do not rely on the physical features like upper body strength, which, although many women may have, their male comrades will demonstrate superior ability. In some cases, women will outperform men who are physically weak compared with their counterparts. Given the recent trend toward allowing women greater access to combat or quasi-combat roles, the current methodology is to help military leaders shift their leadership style to include less overt misogyny and make misogyny intolerable. The belief that women have no valid role in combat and should be systematically excluded is outmoded and counterproductive to the spirit of the military and to the spirit of the American ethos. Arguments in favor of women serving in combat are generally more logical in nature than those against women serving in combat (Iskra).