Women in Combat: Physical, Cultural, and Leadership Issues
This paper examines the ongoing debate over women serving in direct military combat roles following the U.S. Pentagon's 2016 policy opening over 200,000 ground combat positions to women. Drawing on military studies, leadership research, and policy analysis, the paper evaluates key arguments for and against gender integration in combat units. It addresses physical fitness and training disparities, the need to reform entrenched military organizational culture, and the long-term leadership implications of including women in front-line roles. The paper argues that while biological differences exist, poor training design rather than innate ability is the primary barrier, and that gender-neutral standards based on performance offer the most effective path forward for a modern, cohesive armed forces.
- Introduction: Context for U.S. combat integration policy since 2016
- Physical Differences and Combat Readiness: Training gaps versus innate physical differences in women
- Organizational Culture and Unit Cohesion: How military culture must shift to accommodate integration
- Leadership and the Future of Gender Integration: Women in combat roles and military leadership pipelines
- Conclusion: Gender-neutral standards and the Soldier of 2020 vision
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper presents a balanced pro/con structure while ultimately advancing a clear, evidence-supported argument in favor of gender-neutral performance standards rather than blanket exclusion.
- It draws on a range of sources — military journals, policy documents, and news reporting — to ground claims in both empirical research and institutional context.
- The paper effectively connects individual-level issues (physical fitness, training) to systemic ones (organizational culture, leadership pipelines), giving the argument meaningful depth.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses refutation and concession effectively throughout. Rather than dismissing opposing arguments outright, it acknowledges the validity of concerns about physical differences or unit cohesion before systematically dismantling them with counterevidence — for example, noting that many men also fail to meet peak physical standards, and that "distraction" arguments mirror discredited arguments once used to exclude gays and lesbians from service.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a classic five-section argumentative structure: an introduction that contextualizes the policy shift, a body organized thematically across three major dimensions of the debate (physical, cultural, and leadership), and a conclusion that returns to the broader social significance of gender-neutral military policy. Each body section presents both sides before tilting toward the pro-integration position with supporting evidence.
Introduction
According to online polls, whether and how women should serve in combat is one of the top social issues of recent years. One of the reasons this issue has gained prominence is that as of January 1, 2016, the military began phasing in a new policy opening ground combat positions to women. Over 200,000 new combat positions have been available 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. The list of countries in which women serve in official military combat roles is astonishingly long and surprisingly diverse, from Eritrea to New Zealand. Even in cultures with strong traditional gender norms, such as Pakistan, females are permitted to serve as fighter pilots (Fisher). In the United States, women have been serving indirectly in positions akin to combat and have died in the line of duty (Patterson). Since Operation Enduring Freedom in 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 of the armed forces, it seems remarkable that there would be any controversy at all about the recent opening of ground 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 statements published in military journals claiming that "political correctness has no chance against Nature" (Eden 46). Women are, however, going to serve in combat because the Pentagon has directed it, and the question now is not 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 objectively. Women have not yet been fully integrated into military combat units, as the Pentagon and each branch of the military work out specific methods of integration. The key issues surrounding this question include how to address training and skills development, how to alter core military organizational culture, how to maximize the potential of all soldiers across different types of combat scenarios, and how to address gender gaps in combat leadership.
Works Cited
Barry, Ben. "Women in Combat." Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, vol. 55, no. 2, 2013, pp. 19–30.
Bumiller, Elisabeth, and Thom Shanker. "Pentagon Is Set to Lift Combat Ban for Women." The New York Times, 23 Jan. 2013.
Dunn, N. "Pro/Con: Do Women Belong on the Front Lines?" High School Falconer, Feb. 2013.
Eden, Jude. "Women in Combat: The Question of Standards." Military Review, March–April 2015.
Fisher, M. "Map: Which Countries Allow Women in Front-Line Combat Roles?" The Washington Post, 25 Jan. 2013.
Iskra, D. M. "Women in Combat: Is It Really That Big of a Deal?" Time, 6 Feb. 2013.
Klenke, Karin. "Women in Combat." International Leadership Journal, Summer 2016, pp. 38–55.
Lopez, C. T., and J. Henning. "Army Describes Plans for Integrating Women into Combat." U.S. Army, 2013.
MacAskill, E. "Women in Military Combat Is Nothing New, Just Not British." The Guardian, 19 Dec. 2014.
"The Most Popular Social Issues of 2017." I Side With.
Patterson, Thom. "Get Ready for More US Women in Combat." CNN, 11 Nov. 2016.
Putko, M. M., and D. V. Johnson. "Women in Combat Compendium." 2008.
Seck, H. H. "Need to Know." Marine Corps Times, 19 Jan. 2015.
Sisters in Arms. "Women in Combat Pros and Cons." 2009.
Smith, K. "Pro/Con: Should Women Be Allowed in Combat Roles?" Trnwired, 12 Feb. 2013.
Thompson, M. "The Cowardly Push to Get Women into Combat." Time, 25 July 2013.
"Women May Serve in Close Combat Roles by 2016, Says Fallon." BBC News, 2014.
Already a member? Log in
Unlock the rest of this paper
135,000+ research papers · AI writing tools · Plagiarism & AI detection
7-Day Pass
Does not renew
Get 7-Day PassMonthly
Renews at $12.99/month until canceled
Start MonthlyAnnual
Renews at $99/year until canceled
Start Annual- Unlimited AI writing tools
- Plagiarism and AI text detection tool
Plan details
Unlimited AI writing tools are for individual, non-automated use and are subject to our Terms of Service and abuse-prevention measures.
TextChecker scans: 3 during the 7-Day Pass, or 5 per month with Monthly and Annual.
Prices exclude applicable tax.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.