Two women just graduated from Army Ranger school, starting the all-too-familiar debate
of women in combat.
After more than 10 years of war, with women participating alongside: is there any science
that says they shouldn't be all that they can be?
When First Lt. Shaye Haver and Capt.
Kristen Griest passed the nine-week training program to become Army Rangers, they made
history, but they also made the news.
Ranger School is the Army's most rigorous training program.
36 percent of attendees fail in the first four days, and only 42 percent will finally
walk away with the black-and-gold Ranger tab.
But even though these women passed all the tests, they still may not see combat.
In January of 2013, then-Sec of Defense Leon Panetta announced the end of male-only combat,
requiring women be allowed to serve in combat roles by January 2016.
Many argue that women aren't ready for frontline combat, or simply cannot manage the hell that
is war, and as the equality train hits the voting booth, the bedroom, the workplace,
and onward: the theater of war is yet another stop.
After Panetta's order, the armed forces began conducting studies and assessing standards
to see if sex integration will be the future of our military.
Women have been part of fighting forces for decades in Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, Ireland's
IRA, and soldiering in Sierra Leone.
But now, the U.S. has to determine if they can open the remaining 220,000 men-only jobs
to women too.
According to military data, three things are important for combat readiness: mental health,
physical capability, and proper training.
A National Center for PTSD study in 2011, found men and women developed mental health
issues equally after "combat, firing a weapon in combat, being fired upon, handling human
remains and witnessing injury and death," but men were more likely to fall into substance
abuse.
Those findings were supported by another study in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
But a 2006 study of women and men in combat, found emotional responses were different,
and quote "in stressful situations, men are more likely to resort to physically aggressive
responses than women," and according to a piece in TIME by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter
Mark Thompson, "aggression leads to more accidents and injuries in men" It would seem, mentally,
women can hack it as well as men, and may handle some things better, as they don't abuse
substances, become aggressive, or injure themselves due to stress.
Physically, though, women have less upper body strength than men overall; according
to a 2004 U.S. Army study.
Women do have smaller hearts, skeletons and muscle mass, and a greater percentage of body
fat relative to their male colleagues; which ups the injury rate significantly.
Injuries are anything that takes a servicemember out of combat.
Pregnancy adds to women's injury stats, but even if you remove it from the data -- women
are hospitalized at 30 percent higher rates than men.
According to data from the Pentagon, men are hospitalized for general injuries, poisonings,
and disorders of the muscles, skin, or "connective tissues," while women are hospitalized for
genital and urinary disorders, mental disorder, and tumors.
With this data in mind, the military is working to design gender-neutral training programs
and understand injuries.
Even though women, on average, have less strength, not all women are weaker or prone to injury.
Some females are stronger than males, and they deserve an equal chance at a combat position.
That is echoed by Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
According to every statement I read, military requirements will not be eroded, lowered,
lightened or lessened in any way on the road to gender neutrality in combat.
Instead, they'll make it "about science and observation" and ensure people can perform
needed duties.
If so, they get the job.
Period.
According to a 1980 paper assessing women in combat by Major Thomas H. Cecil, people
should be "allowed to serve in whatever role that could use best the talent and capability
each individual has."
After racial integration and the repeal of "Don't Ask; Don't Tell," the military is disrupted
at first, but they gets over it as long as people are perceived fairly and equally in
training and practice.
There is no evidence males break down when females are killed or injured in battle, or
are distracted by their fellow female warriors.
As long as the training is equal, our armed forces are trained to protect each other regardless
of which chromosomes we possess.
Of course, there will be sex between members of the military, but that is not new at ALL.
GIs in every war we've ever engaged in found girls abroad, and that tradition continues
with these women too, but the fear comes from societal stereotypes about female sexuality,
not fact.
In the end, they are servicemembers first and women second.
Caliber and ability are the currencies of our armed forces.
As serving females are trained equally and prove they can do anything fellow males can
do; they will earn the same benefit: to serve their country as a volunteer in America's
armed forces.
If you want to show your support from home, start a website and showcase your support
your favorite female servicemember.
No domain extension will help you tell your story like a DOT COM or DOT NET domain name.
And because you watch DNews, you can get 15% off Domain Dot Com’s names and web hosting
by using the code DNews when you check out.