Women in Military Combat: Arguments For and Against Integration

Introduction

From ancient times, women have participated in fighting their countries' enemies — sometimes as foot soldiers, sometimes as queens, and sometimes having to disguise themselves as men. However, many societies have always felt disinclined to admit women to front-line military combat. In the U.S., for instance, women make up more than 15% of the military, but the debate over whether women should be further integrated into military services continues. Lorry Fenner, a former senior intelligence officer and Vice Wing Commander overseeing more than 4,000 men and women, and Marie De Young, a former captain in the U.S. Army Reserves (2001), put the debate into perspective. They explain that it 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 note that the most vehement arguments focus on two areas: society's response to women as combat casualties, combatants, and prisoners of war; and the concern that integrating women into military services will compromise military effectiveness and readiness and, ultimately, damage national security.

Proponents of women in combat typically take a feminist approach, arguing that women have long been used as cooks, nurses, and matrons in combat while continuously proving they can serve in the same capacity as male combatants. Women's participation in the military has evolved considerably over the past century, yet barriers to full combat integration remain. Skaine (2011), a sociologist and author of multiple books on this issue, states that in past centuries women could only follow armies into battle if dressed as men, which perpetuated the undermining of women in combat. Proponents also view the debate as a matter of democratic political philosophy, arguing that women are denied their rights, obligations, and privileges as citizens when excluded from combat. Opponents, on the other hand, assert that the challenges women face in combat — including harassment, pregnancies, rape, and assault — continue to imperil discipline, good order, and unit effectiveness. They further argue that women have consistently failed physical tests that would qualify them for combat and lack the aggression the military requires, and that physical standards cannot be compromised simply to expand women's access.

The fact remains, however, that opposing the full inclusion of women in military combat would mean reversing gains they have already achieved in both the military and society at large. Women should be allowed in military combat and should be provided with gender-sensitive training to ensure they contribute to military effectiveness. This paper evaluates why women should be further integrated into military services. It begins with a look at the history of women in the U.S. military and compares it with experiences in other nations, then examines in detail the arguments for and against inclusion of women in military combat, addresses the religious perspective, and closes with 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 and eight years of 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 primarily for combat support functions such as laundering, cooking, camp maintenance, and supplying ammunition on the battlefield. 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 period, women served with, but not in, the armed forces, because they could not hold military ranks. Despite the armed forces' gratitude for the support of women during warfare, they were still not considered an integral part of the military organization. At the end of the war in 1865, the Army returned to using enlisted male nurses, and all female personnel were sent home.

At the beginning of the 20th century, both the Navy and the Army faced shortages of personnel in critical skill areas (Devilbiss, 1990). Women were first enlisted in the Army in roles such as 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 hold military ranks, provided their numbers and roles remained limited.

In 1948, the Women's Armed Services Integration Act established a permanent role for women in the military, so that they could no longer be utilized during wars and then dismissed when the conflict ended. It also set boundaries, including separate promotion lists for men and women, a 2% ceiling on the number of women in active duty, and a one-woman line colonel position per service branch. Since then, the role of women in the military has continued to evolve amid ongoing struggles over policy and power. Women were officially banned from serving in combat in 1994 by the Department of Defense, but that ban was lifted in 2013. That same year, three women made history as the first to complete U.S. Marine Corps combat training, though they remained barred from serving in infantry units until they could demonstrate the requisite physical fitness. At the time of writing, the Navy SEALs and the Army Ranger Battalions were planning to fully integrate women by 2016.

A Comparison with Great Britain, Israel, and Canada

The significant role played by women in the military is one of the distinctive aspects of Israeli society. Skaine (1999) explains that, unlike the U.S. military, service in Israel is compulsory, and women have been conscripted by law since 1949. In 2000, the Israeli Military Service Law was amended to grant equal rights to men and women serving in the military, and the first female pilots were introduced in 2001. Israel is recognized as one of the countries that has opened its fighting ranks to women. Nevertheless, reports indicate the country remains reluctant to assign women to active combat, citing the dangers of women falling into enemy hands.

Canada, by contrast, allows women to join combat units. The Associated Press (2013) notes that Canada's breakthrough came in 1989, when the Human Rights Commission ordered the admission of women to all combat roles except aboard submarines — a restriction that was lifted three years later. During World War II, Great Britain conscripted both men and women and deployed both in combat-related roles, mostly in the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS) in protected units so that "their living conditions could be monitored and they could be protected from capture" (Devilbiss, 1990, p. 7). Even so, women were discouraged from taking an active role in direct combat. As of 2014, British women were still not permitted to serve in front-line infantry roles.

Arguments for Allowing Women in Military Combat

Denn (2014) cites the example of a cadet who completed a West Point indoor course testing strength and agility in 2 minutes and 26 seconds — scoring the equivalent of an A-plus on the men's scale and setting a new female record. This demonstrates that with proper training, women can serve in the military in the same capacity as men. On the concern that women may compromise military standards, Fenner (2001) asserts that accommodating age and the physical condition of service members has never interfered with military effectiveness, and neither should gender integration.

The capture of women as prisoners during the Pacific theatre in World War II did not interfere with the effectiveness of the troops, demonstrating that dedicated women possess the emotional courage required to endure the brutalities of war. The question of using women in combat roles was also prompted by a decline in the number of men eligible for military service — a problem that persists today, meaning the military will have to rely increasingly on women to maintain national security.

Zeigler and Gunderson (2005) argue that those who oppose gender integration rely on outdated ideologies and cultural stereotypes rather than examining women's actual achievements over the years. Fenner (2001) adds that these outmoded ideologies fail to account for changes in social, economic, and global political realities — realities that are themselves altering the conditions and contexts of military effectiveness and national security. Furthermore, the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizenship support the integration of women in military services, since women who enjoy the benefits of a free society should bear an equal obligation to protect it if they choose to do so. As Fenner and De Young (2001) state, "all members of the society should participate in the protection according to their ability rather than membership that is defined biologically" (p. 4). Banning women from serving as combatants is also discriminatory in a concrete sense, as it limits their opportunities for promotion within the military.

Conclusion

Over the years, women have proven that with the right training, they can do much more than take on supportive roles in the military, and that they can be as emotionally and physically fit as male combatants. Therefore, stereotypes, cultural ideologies, and emotional arguments that prevent women from taking an active role in combat should no longer be given decisive weight. With respect to religion, women should discern their own convictions before committing to military service. Rather than judging women who are prepared to defend their country, religious institutions should appreciate and raise awareness of their significant contributions. Many combatants have served in military forces with both spiritual maturity and great distinction.

In agreement with the proponents of integration, denying women further access to combat can be equated with discrimination, anti-feminism, and a denial of their rights as full citizens — rights that allow both men and women to participate in the defense of their nation. Moreover, the claim that women will interfere with military effectiveness is unsubstantiated, particularly because what the military stands to gain from including women in combat far outweighs any short-term adjustments. Women will increase the pool of available military personnel and bring their talents, intelligence, and skills to bear for the benefit of the nation, thereby enhancing both military effectiveness and national security. Women should therefore be allowed in military combat and provided with gender-sensitive training to ensure they contribute fully to that effectiveness.