The female counterparts of male have always been regarded as a fragile being. They are to be protected and to be placed in safe places. They are domesticated and most often expected to do menial jobs and household chores. They are expected to attend to their husbands’ needs and take care of their children. In this society, especially in the third world countries where culture is very much regimented, women are said to be weak and are expected to remain passive, submissive, docile and uncomplaining. It is very natural that many would think they should not be involved in works that requires decision making or jobs that would require not only physical strengths but strong will and determination.

The military or the army is the last profession that a woman is expected to choose. However, in today’s world where women have become quite vocal and open in their struggle to liberate themselves from the oppressive culture we see them exploring different professions that were seen in the past as purely intended for men. Many women are entering the police works. They are not only seen in the offices but they are already seen in places where they do activities to counter criminalities in the cities and in the suburbs. Such roles of policewomen are getting quite acceptable to many. However, women involved in combat in the military or army is still something quite unimaginable to many. It is a fact that the army is needing so much determined and dedicated men to serve the country, however, must women who are supposed to be in the homes attending to their families be encouraged to become combatants? Or shouldn’t they just have to stay in the offices to do documentation works or assist the male combatants in their needs? Or shouldn’t they just have to stay in camps to prepare food for the combatants or stay in clinics to nurse the wounded? Whether they should be encouraged to continue such desire of serving the country as combatant is really a question that needs to be answered. It is the purpose of this paper then to investigate on how women as combatants are seen not only by the society but by their fellow combatants in the military. This paper specifically intends to discuss the ethical standards that should be observed by the army and the entire society in their regard of women as combatants. It specifically wants to find out how the military should treat the women who are with them as combatants. Are they worth the effort, time, and money of training them or they are just be liabilities in the military?

There are several studies done to answer this issue. Fenner and Young (2001) in fact presented legal bases why women should or should not be allowed to join the military as combatants. Accordingly, physical and psychological capacities are very important aspects in the military especially in combat situations. Are women capable of the demands and the pressures that combatants may have to face and withstand? On the move for the revocation of the exclusion of women as combatants, Fenner and Young stressed the need. They said that no matter how media try to reshape and manipulate the character of women they are still weak and are incapable of the pressures posed on combatants:

No matter how many movies are marketed to reshape the female psyche into GI Jane or Xenia, however real life examples of women who have been able to withstand even simulated ground combat horrors without damaged to the point of permanent disability are extremely rare. (Fenner and Young 2001, pp. 145-146)

Further more, Fenner and Young cited cases of American women in the military where the government spent twice as much as they spent for their male counterpart in recruiting them to active-duty but even with large bonuses offered to women, many still leave the army even before the service contracts are made:

“The peacetime attrition statistics for the past decade—when women are promoted at higher rates than standards less rigorous that the male standards—Irrefutably demonstrate that the army cant attract and retain good women to fighting force” (Fenner and Young 2001, p. 146.).

Pugliese (1998 as cited in Fenner and Young, 2001) that some of the reasons of the attrition their experiences of being called “slut,” “whore,” “bitch” and worst of all are the strenuous demands of the combat training.

Indeed there are many situations that have been used to discriminate women in combat. And yet, women must be respected for what they wish in their lives. The FreeLibrary.com states:

“If women want to serve in combat, it’s discriminatory to deny them; it’s like the rank discrimination that once segregated blacks in the battlefields. But there were no biological differences to justify the unequal treatment of black soldiers….” (The FreeLibrary .com).

Browne (as cited in The Free Library.com) also pointed out that the exclusion of women is more parallel to the exclusion of older people from active service, which according to him is based on biological fact. He thus states:

The “equal opportunity” argument winds up being a call for special treatment. Women can’t be expected to meet the same physical qualifications as men, and the advocates want military women to be assigned to combat only by their own choice. (Browne as cited in The FreeLibrary.com).

It is ethical for the military or the army to allow women to choose not to be in combat then? Moskos (as cited in The Free Library.com) states:

“To allow both sexes to choose whether or not to go into combat would be the end of an effective military force. Honesty requires that supporters of lifting the ban on women in combat state openly that they want to put all female soldiers at the same combat risk as all male soldiers — or that they don’t.”

There are many arguments regarding this issue. On Browne’s argument that women are not physically the same with men he was challenged by a writer in Winds of Change.net who presented the following arguments:

1. That the high-tech nature of modern warfare means that the sexes no longer differ much in combat-relevant ways;
2. That as long as a woman possesses the individual physical and psychological attributes of an effective soldier, her inclusion in a combat unit would not impair its effectiveness;
3. That the primary obstacle to integration are men’s “masculinist” attitudes, which can be overcome with adequate training and leadership.

These arguments indicate that women can indeed shoot. It indicates that women have the physical and psychological attributes to become good combatants. There have been real life situations that have manifested the ability of the women to pull the trigger when necessary.

Women should indeed be given the right to fully develop in whatever professions they believe they can be most beneficial. In
today’s society where there is the need of people who can dedicate themselves to end terrorism, one way of honoring the women is to stop the prohibition on women in combat as this had been seen as an “outmoded vestige of a bygone era that only hurts women to serve.” (McFeatters, 203). It is part of the repression of women’s right. It is part of the discrimination of women.

There are many wars that have been waged. There are many combats that have yet to be won if only to bring the society into a just, humane, and peaceful society. What most ironical there is then than when in the quest for justice, the male combatants as agents for such quest have to withhold from the women the chance to be part of such victory to make this earth a peaceful world to live in.

There is nothing wrong with women. Ethical standards call for the promotion that women in combat and in fact in all aspects of the military should not be stalled because of their sexuality. It is high time the society put an end to the many forms of women repression. It should stop blocking brave women in their desire to serve their country in the manner they deem best.

Popularity: 3% [?]