FREE ESSAY ON WOMEN IN THE MILITARY

WOMEN IN THE MILITARY

Tamara Gamboni-Short 1
ENGL 111
Meg Pennington
October 2, 2000
Women in the Military: Combat Roles 
When I think about women in combat, I think about the days of the Revolutionary War,
women helping their husbands to load cannons or I think about the army nurses who played
vital roles overseas during the Vietnam conflict. I also think about women Helicopter
pilots providing air support to our soldiers and sailors during Operation Desert Storm.
Twenty years ago when I enlisted into the Army I never even considered that I would be
expected to serve in an actual combat role nor did I join the army to be able to
experience any combat situation other than training. Thesis
However, today there are several advocates of the Equal Rights Amendment who believe that
women in the military should be allowed to serve this country in combat roles. Although I
have heard numerous debates on television and read about them in newspaper articles, I
have yet to hear an enlisted women verbalize her desire to serve as an "Infantrywomen" or
an Armored Tank Crewmember". It seems to me that the only people 
Gamboni-Short 2
fighting for more combat roles for women in the military are women who are not in the
military.
Women do not belong in the combat zones during military conflicts. It disrupts the
overall moral and personal readiness of the unit. To prove this I will offer statistics,
opinions, and statements from other female soldiers. It is obvious how my male
counterparts feel about Women in Combat by the omission of females in combat positions. 
I have interviewed several women assigned to my unit to see just exactly how women in the
military feel about serving in combat roles. The first women I spoke with, SFC Sheryl
Skepple, has served on Active Duty in the Army for 16 years, she is married to a civilian
and has twin two-year-olds. When asked how she felt about Women in Combat she replied
with the following: "Women in the military have been deployed to numerous operations
throughout the world. They trained and served side by side with their male counterparts.
If you are on the frontline or providing support from the rear you are still in combat,
and will do what is necessary to protect yourself and others. Whether it is feeding
soldiers, or sending supplies to them, you are contributing." The point SFC Skepple is
trying to 
Gamboni-Short 3
convey is that women have been supporting combat missions without having to fire weapons.
Further she says, "In my opinion, women have proven that they can serve in combat, and
are willing to do so because they know if called upon they don't have a choice. However,
I pray to God that I will never have to fight. 
As of September 5, 2000, there are 90,563 women in the U.S. military, comprising about 13
percent of the total U.S. Armed Forces (Defense Almanac OCT 2000). In 1970, only 1.4
percent of the total military was comprised of women, a number that more than tripled to
4.6 percent in 1975, nearly doubled to 8.3 in 1980, rose to 10 in 1985, 11 in 1990, to
the current 13 percent (Government Executive March 1999). 
When discussing the history of women in combat, one might think of Joan of Arc who in
1429, at age 17, successfully led French troops into battle against the English. Hundreds
of women disguised themselves as men to fight in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars.
Beginning in 1942, separate military services for women were established, but women did
not gain professional military status until 1948 when President Truman signed the Women's
Armed Services Integration Act, which limited their number to 2 percent of the total
military. In 1991, the 
Gamboni-Short 4
restriction of women from flying combat aircraft was repealed, but the 1948 law still
bans women from serving on naval combat vessels (Minerva Spring 1994). 
I don't think the answer to the gender problems the military faces is to go back to the
separate military services. We can work productively, side-by-side with service men
provided we stay in garrison environments rather than field environments.
Major Angela Haynes, a Quarter Master officer in my unit, has been on active duty in the
army for over 13 years. She is married to a retired Enlisted soldier and has two
children. She 
was in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm just 10 miles from the Iraqi border.
When her unit was getting ready to move to the border to provide combat support, her
Battalion Commander gave her the option of moving out with her unit or staying in the
rear. She chose to stay behind. Her explanation was clear. MAJ Haynes felt that she was
already in a combat zone but that given the circumstances didn't see a need or the
necessity to go any closer to enemy lines.
When there is knowledge of eminent danger, women have no business occupying combat lines.
Men well always feel like they have to protect the female next to them. Instead of 
Gamboni-Short 5
concentrating on the enemy in front of them, they would be distracted by the woman next
to them. 
Good order and discipline doesn't just happen. But when lives are at risk, military men
and women must function together as a seamless whole. This happens only if bonds of
absolute trust exist before a battle, trust that everyone knows the mission, trust that
each will do his or her job, trust that risks and rewards will be allocated fairly and
equitably.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Years 1992-1993, Congress
rescinded female combat exemption laws and then the Clinton Administration opened a
quarter million 
previously closed combat positions to women (GAO Report, July 1996). 
On October 1, 1994, the Defense Department issued a policy that rescinded the so-called
risk rule that gauges the specialties to which women can be assigned. The policy was
backed strongly by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and was the extension of the changes
made in April 1993 that opened most aviation specialties, including attack helicopters,
to women 
(Army, March 1994). The policy emphasized that no job will be closed to women just
because it is dangerous, but fails to open direct offensive ground combat jobs to women
(Army, March 1994). 
Gamboni-Short 6
Even today, the official policy of the Army and Marine Corps excludes women from combat,
which precludes 12 percent of skilled positions and 39 percent of the total positions
(GAO Report, July 1996). 
Proponents of opening all positions in the military to women argue that military
readiness is enhanced when there is a larger pool of applicants, whereas opponents insist
that due to politics, quotas would be undeniable, thus allowing unqualified women into
key military positions. Opponents of allowing women to compete for combat billets argue
that it is too dangerous to 
put women in the position of becoming prisoners of war. Without a doubt, there is a much
greater probability for acts of sexual molestation and rape with the addition of women to
the front lines. Although they were technically in support roles, two female U.S.
soldiers were taken captive and the Iraqis in the Gulf War sexually abused one. This
situation made those who were already skeptical about putting women in such a
compromising position further question whether women should be subjected to the horrors
of combat. Many, however, argue that adult women who make the decision to join the
military are aware of the consequences (Minerva, Spring 1994). 
Gamboni-Short 7
Show me a woman in the military who desires a position that would require direct combat
involvement, and I will show you a women who falls under the "don't ask - don't tell"
policy. I am not typecasting, however, in my twenty-years in the military I have not met
a "straight" female soldier desiring front line combat duty.
I asked SGT Monique Roddie, a Logistics Specialist, what her feelings were on Women in
Combat. She stated the following: "Women in combat roles should not be considered because
of personal hygiene issues, you cannot expect a women to go to the field during
Menstruation and provide the support to her fellow soldiers that they should and do
expect." "It is impossible for a woman to know exactly when an "accident" may occur and
that would eliminate any chance of a seamless whole."
Another argument against women in combat is that they simply do not have the physical
strength and endurance needed. 
Without a doubt, being in the military is a physically demanding job that not everyone is
fit to handle. Despite this, all experts agree that there are some women, although
perhaps small in numbers, who have the physical strength and endurance to be soldiers
(Army Times, July 29, 1996). Concerning combat aviation some question whether women can
handle the gravitational forces 
Gamboni-Short 8
of an aircraft, but there is absolutely no evidence that says they cannot. It is
interesting to note that everyone, including women, believe the physical standards for
military occupational specialties (MOS) should be identical for both men and women. 
Currently, all members of the armed services must pass a semi-annual physical fitness
test, which is scaled according to age and gender. There are no current tests that
specifically measure the physical skills required for each military occupational
specialty (MOS) -- the only way to test this is have the soldiers simply go out and
perform their task. The goal is to create these gender-blind specific tests that more
accurately predict a soldier's success in combat. 
Another argument used to keep women out of combat billets is that they would disrupt the
cohesive unit and undermine the espirit de corps. The effectiveness of the military
hinges on cohesion -- every member must completely trust and respect one 
another. Many argue men would not be able to trust women to be capable of accomplishing
the physical demands of combat, which could lead to serious problems. In order to
maintain cohesion, experts agree that all members of the military must be treated
equally. A standard must be maintained to make every member feel 
that they are part of one single unit, not separated by gender.
Gamboni-Short 9
Romantic relationships and pregnancies also concern many experts. The argument is that
romance may undermine espirit de corps and that pregnancies will hurt readiness. Although
pregnancy is a major concern of many, statistics show it has little bearing on military
readiness. In fact, women on the average spend a mere one fewer hour per month at work
than their male counterparts. When one excludes pregnancy leave, women have a lower rate
of lost time at work than their male counterparts (Minerva Spring 1994). 
If a female soldier has knowledge of a pending combat assignment, what would prevent her
from intentionally becoming pregnant in an effort to be discharged from the military or
to request a compassionate reassignment. We cannot have pregnant women on the front
lines. I know if given the option I would rather have a baby than face the horror of
war.
More than 40,000 American women served in the war against Iraq. The Marine Corps awarded
twenty-three women the Combat Action Ribbon for service in the Persian Gulf War because
they were engaged by Iraqi troops. Desert Storm was a huge turning point for women, much
like Vietnam was for African-Americans, and it showed that modern war boundaries between
combat and non-
Gamboni-Short 10
combat zones are being blurred. It makes no sense to cling to semantics (combat vs.
combat support) given the reality of war. Furthermore, allowing both men and women to
compete for all military occupational specialties is not an equal rights issue, 
but one of military effectiveness. If the United States is to remain the world's most
capable and most powerful military power; we need to have the best person in each job,
unfortunately, for most combat positions the best person is going to be a male. 
The vast majority of enlisted women do not want to be in combat and a great many of the
female officers do not want to be in combat. It's a small minority that promote Women in
Combat and the rest of us would rather not have them dictate what our future jobs will be
in the military or the future of those women who may be interested in enlisting or going
for a commission in the future. 
I did not join the army to fight wars; I joined so that the men in the army could fight
wars. I like to feel that my job allows our infantrymen the ability to go to where the
fighting is and to be assured that their personnel, finance, and administrative concerns
are being managed while they are away defending their country. I am a woman and I know
that I have no business fighting side-by-side with my male counterparts. It would cause a
morale and readiness problem that we cannot afford.
Gamboni-Short 11
Keep the men doing what they have always done - fight the physical battles, and let the
women continue to do what they have always done best - fight the mental battles. I don't
mean to be misinterpreted on this. If the U.S. Army needed me to perform during a war or
conflict in a combat role I would have no problem following the orders given to me.
However, if given an ultimatum, I would stay back and support the soldiers from the
rear.
Gamboni-Short 12
Works Cited
Defense Almanac OCT 2000
Government Executive March 1999
Minerva Spring 1994, by Jake Willens 
GAO Report, July 1996
Army, March 1994
Army Times, July 29, 1996
CDI Newsletter, CDI's Policy on the Service of Men and Women in the U.S. Military, 28 Jan
98
Bibliography
4 References