De facto discrimination and harassment against women persist in almost all areas of our society. But there is one institution that officially restricts women from certain jobs regardless of their merits. That institution is perhaps the most traditional and conservative organization in our country: the United States Military. Reforming this institutional discriminatory practice is not only a necessity for social justice, but the gateway to a more modern and professional military force.

There are many factors that contribute to the tradition of open discrimination against women in the military. Soldiering around the world is commonly a male-dominated profession that breeds an excessively masculine environment. In these circumstances, women have to learn to communicate in masculine ways in order to be effective. The nature of the profession demands that armies be aggressive, vigilant and unerring in their propensity to deliver lethal force against enemies. Traditional feminine qualities are seen as weak and equated with defeat on the battlefield. In addition to this, military society tends to be somewhat isolated from civil society, reducing scrutiny from subjects outside of the military order. The result is an environment that can be hostile to women and that responds slowly to pressure for reform.

As long as women are barred from any military job, there will be limited justice for them in the military. Currently women are banned from officially serving in ground combat jobs, including infantry roles. The infantry soldier is the foundation of any army and ironically dubbed the “Queen of Battle.” As long as this fundamental military profession excludes women, they will not have equal access to positions of leadership within the ranks that can affect cultural change from within. Women are essentially restricted to supporting roles.

There are many advantages gender equality can bring to the American military. Victory does not depend on merely the greatest combat power. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have seen that political management is at least as important as combat operations. The modern battlefield demands the expert management of delicate local politics, cultural understanding, economic development, humanitarian efforts and precision military strikes against insurgencies in urban environments. This requires a diverse taskforce with a large toolbox of skills, training and professional aptitudes. Allowing women to serve in combat roles would provide a greater variety of capabilities that enhance the officer corps’ military strategies as well as the soldiers’ professionalism.

One of the most popular arguments against the full integration of women in the American military is that women are somehow unfit for combat. This argument suggests that women cannot handle the emotional or physical demands of combat, and that men cannot bear to see women hurt on the battlefield. It often implies that male soldiers cannot be expected to behave professionally if females are introduced into their environment. Our solution to this problem defines our national understanding of gender equality. Our military represents our most traditional beliefs. Defending gender discrimination in our military is inevitably linked with beliefs about the limitations of women throughout our society.

Normally, military reform follows slowly in the wake of societal reform. The military is, after all, composed entirely of men and women from our hometowns. The state of gender discrimination in the military persists because of rampant sexism still yet to be eradicated in American and global society. One day men and women will serve alongside each other in combat. A female infantry officer will give orders to male sergeants that in turn direct their squads. They will be a more professional military force – not because a woman commands it, but because it does not matter that she is a woman.

Tags: discrimination