Recently, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted a ban on women in combat, declaring that it would “strengthen both the military and the country.” As people all across America applauded this decision, believing this to be another step toward freedom and independence for women, the truth of the matter remains that this decision was far from advantageous to either the military or women.
Women serving in combat roles would only put themselves in danger. Generally, women only have two-thirds of the upper body strength that men have, as well as weaker bone structure. It is therefore unreasonable to expect servicewomen to meet the same physical standards as those of men when it comes to lifting water tanks and heavy supplies. Also, during combat struggles, soldiers are expected to carry their wounded comrades, a task that is typically accomplished by one to two males; however, in typical cases for women, it would require an average of four women to carry one man, excluding his supplies. Statistics show that approximately only 6% of women are as physically capable as men. Expecting and requiring women to undergo the same rigorous conditions and training that the military expects of men will only jeopardize women’s health.
Also, being in combat roles puts women at a higher risk of rape, especially if they become prisoners of war. One example of this was when Major Rhonda Cornum faced sexual assault while being held captive in Iraq for a week during the Gulf War. This is hardly uncommon for female prisoners, however. Such roles not only put the women in a vulnerable position, but also the military, as they will, in some cases, be forced to choose whether it would be more ethical to negotiate with the enemy or to let their servicewomen be violently abused.
Moreover, men, knowing that women can potentially face such consequences, would customarily go out of their way to protect them, as foolish as it is. Because of the classic demure and fragile image that women are generally portrayed, men tend to become overprotective of their female counterparts. By doing this, they are not only putting themselves in higher risk of injury, but also making the purpose of women fighting alongside them completely unavailing.
Another negative aspect of women in combat is that it will affect the men in combat. According to a poll on navy military, 71% of male soldiers do not trust a female to accomplish all the tasks that male soldiers are expected to do. A basic lack of trust between male-female relationships can cause disruption to the groups¡¯ performance as a whole.
Lifting the ban will open more than 230,000 positions for women, mainly in the Marine and Army infantry units. However, the Marines have until 2016 (when the law is implemented) to make any specific exceptions to the rule if they decide that there are any positions they believe should not be open to women.
Antagonists might relegate these arguments to sexism, but there is logical reasoning for the ban on women in combat nad it should remain. Women obviously have physical disadvantages, which make it more difficult for them if they do decide to enroll in combat. Women have been and should still be refrained from combat duty for their own safety.
