Gender Integration in the Military: Should Women be allowed in Military Combat? From ancient times, women have participated in fighting their countries' enemies sometimes as foot soldiers, queens, and sometimes having to disguise themselves as men. However, many societies have always felt disinclined to admit women in front line military combat. In the U.S. For instance, women make up more than 15% of the military, but the debate on whether women should be further integrated into military services rages on. Lorry Fenner, a former senior intelligence officer and Vice Wing Commander for over 4000 men and women, and Marie De Young, a former captain in the U.S. Army reserves (2001), put the debate into perspective. They state that the debate has always centered on women's access to combat positions, their physical and emotional fitness, and the societal implications of their participation in military combat. They further explain that vehement arguments are focused on two areas: the society's response to women as combat casualties, combatants and prisoners of war; and the presumption that integrating women into military services will compromise military effectiveness and readiness and eventually, damage national security. It is, therefore, imperative to examine the issue of women in military combat particularly because it will help in determining ways of improving military effectiveness and national security.

Proponents of women in combat usually take a feminist approach and argue that women have always been used as cooks, nurses, and matrons in combat, while they have continually proven that they can serve in the same capacity as male combatants. Skaine (2011), a sociologist and author of multiple books on this issue, states that in past centuries, women could only follow women into battle if they were dressed as men, which encouraged the undermining of women in combat. They also view the debate as a fight for democratic political philosophy, where women are denied their rights, obligations, and privileges as citizens. The opponents, on the other hand assert that the challenges women face in combat, such as harassment, pregnancies, rape and assault continue to imperil discipline, good order and unit effectiveness in combat. Moreover, women have continually failed physical tests that would allow them in combat and they also do not have the aggression required in the military. Therefore, they argue that the physical standards of the military cannot be compromised just to expand access for women.

The fact, however, remains that opposing the full inclusion of women in military combat would mean reversing the gains they have already achieved in the military and the nation at large. Thus, women should be allowed in military combat and they should also be provided with gender sensitive training to ensure they contribute towards military effectiveness. This text evaluates why women should be further integrated into military services. It starts with a look into the history of women in the military in the U.S. And compares it with other nations. It goes ahead to take a detailed look at the arguments for and against inclusion of women in military combat and it also examines the religious perspective, then makes a conclusion.

Historical patterns of women in military combat in the U.S.

Devilbiss (1990), a former U.S. Army officer with two years of active duty who has also had eight years experience as an enlisted woman in the Air National guard, provides a comprehensive history of women in the U.S. armed forces. She explains that in the 18th and 19th centuries, women's utilization was for combat support functions like laundering, cooking, camp maintenance, and supplying ammunition in the battle field. The major categories of their military participation were as "women of the army, those enlisted as regular troops fighting with male continentals, and those serving as irregular fighters affiliated with local militia companies" (Devilbiss, 1990 p. 1). During this time, the women only served with, and not in, the armed forces because they could not hold military ranks. Despite the armed forces' gratitude for the support of women during warfare, however, they were still not considered as an integral part of the military organization. At the end of the war, in 1965, the Army went back to using enlisted male nurses, and all the females were sent home.

At the beginning of the 20th century, both the Navy and the Army faced a shortage of personnel in critical skill areas (Devilbiss, 1990). The first women were then enlisted in the army in the rankings of clerks, fingerprint experts, translators and radio electricians....

By World War II, a total of 350,000 women served in the military in administrative and medical roles. However, unlike most of its allies, the U.S. still declined to use women in combat, a decision whose repercussions were felt throughout the 20th century. Thereafter, ideological breakthroughs allowed women to wear uniforms and have military ranks, so long as their numbers and roles were limited. In 1948, the Integration Act established a permanent role for women in the military, where they could no longer be utilized during wars and then dismissed. It also set boundaries, which included separate promotion lists for men and women, a 2% ceiling on the number of women in active duty and a one woman line colonel for each service. Since then, the role of women in the military continues evolving amidst constant struggles for power. Women were officially banned from serving in combat in 1994 by the Department of Defense, but the ban was removed in 2013. Three women went down in history as the first to complete the U.S. Marine Corps combat training in 2013, although they are still not allowed to serve in infantry units until they can prove they are physically fit to do so. Currently, the Navy Seal and the Army Ranger Battalions are planning to integrate women fully - by 2016.
A comparison with Great Britain, Israel and Canada

The significant role played by women in the military is one of the unique aspects of the Israeli society. Skaine (1999) explains that unlike the U.S. military, service in Israel is compulsory, and in fact, women have been conscripted by law since 1949. In 2000, the Israeli Military Service Law was amended to give equal right to men and women serving in the military. The first female pilots were introduced in 2001, and it is recognized as one of the countries that have opened their fighting ranks to women. However, despite their huge contribution, reports from Israel indicate the country is still disinclined to allow women to active combat citing the dangers of women falling into the hands of the enemy. Canada, on the other hand, allows women to join combat. The Associated Press (2013), which compares the U.S. And Canada in regard to allowing women in combat, explains that Canada's breakthrough came in 1989 when the Humans Rights commission ordered the admission of women in all combat roles, except aboard submarines, a ban that fell three years later.

During World War II, Great Britain was conscripting both men and women and at the same time using both for combat roles. They were mostly used in Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS) in protected units so that "their living condition could be monitored and they could be protected from capture" (Devilbiss, 1990 p.7). However, the women were discouraged from taking an active role in combat. As of 2014, British women are still not allowed to serve in front line infantry roles.

The arguments for allowing women in military combat

Denn (2014) gives an example of Cadet Madaline Kenyon, who completed a West Point indoor course to test the strength and agility of female cadets in 2 minutes and 26 seconds; scoring what is the equivalent of an A plus in the men's score and setting a new female record. This proves that with proper training, women can serve in the military in the same capacity as men. On the argument that women may compromise military standards, Fenner (2001) asserts that accommodating age and the physical condition of service members has never interfered with the effectiveness of the military, and neither should gender integration.

The capturing of women as prisoners during the pacific theatre during World War II did not interfere with the effectiveness of the troop, which proves that ambitious and dedicated women have the emotional courage required to deal with the brutalities of war. The question of the use of women in combat roles was brought forth by the decline in the number of men eligible in the military. This problem persists to date, and the military will have to rely increasingly on women in order to improve national security.

Zeigler and Gunderson (2005) opine that those who oppose gender integration rely on outdated ideologies and cultural stereotypes, rather than looking at the achievement of women over the years. Fenner (2001) also states that these outmoded ideologies fail to account for changes in social, economic and global political realities, and yet the same realities are altering the conditions and contexts of military effectiveness and national security. Moreover, the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizens encourage the integration of women in military…