With time, the armies all over the world have increased the number of Military Occupational Specialties or the (MOS) that can be filled by females. Many of these positions that are created by the MOS tend to place them near the combat zones. In spite of doing the work almost equal to their male counterparts, women soldiers have time and again faced the heat and are still limited to certain combat positions only. There are many reasons that strengthen the general insight that women soldiers tend to weaken the army in many ways, (Military Woman Home Page, 1996).
U.S. President George W. Bush and many other international leaders have openly opposed the role of women on the war front. The President has even suggested that women should not be assigned any combat roles and service on the onboard combat sites.
There have been generous proofs that suggest the ill effect of women in the army – as it destabilizes the army structure, thus giving way to friction. Certainly, the friction which has resulted with the significant increase of women in the army is believed to be discernible in two most prominent ways: issues that have risen due to the physical disparities between men and women, and the surfacing of problems that arise due to these physical disparities. These issues depress the morale and at times may be the cause of general unrest and failure. Even more, there is a social unwillingness that is also a cause of opposition to women recruitment in the army.
Women are in fact barred from several professional turfs of Infantry, Armor, and unusual battle areas. In addition, a number of work-related expertise in the water, protection, and transport career fields, are also considered open to females but are blocked above definite division ranks as these units collocate with undeviating ground battle units. At the same time, societal engineering cannot alter the reality that males tend to behave in a different manner with women that their fellow men, (Hosek and Peterson, 1990). Studies show that emotional relationships between men and women certainly do not encourage competence, thereby affecting the morale and team spirit.
Certainly, there are incidences in which women have portrayed high forms of efficiency in times of emergency; however the media has always tried to consume such episodes. The ABC news channel, also aired a story about a female soldier, employed in the national guard unit and the Washington Post had a similar piece after a House subcommittee voted to bar women from such posts. But these incidences disapprove the universal disagreement that prevalent task of women to fight units could be unsafe because of its effect on unity and morale.
Apart from the above mentioned issues related to the military unity and efficiency, most of the female soldiers themselves do not want to be posted at the combat or areas linked to the fighting units in some way. People who oppose the role of women in the army often question their physical capability to perform heavy duty tasks and engage in a ground battle, (Weins and Boss, 2006).
Additional study further showed that media strongly promotes the image of women as an interference or a distraction for the other men in the military. This idea equally fed the perceptions of people opposing women in the army. Females in the army as either depicted as sex symbols, such as Lance Corporal Roberta Winter ton. She was the first female soldier who posed topless for a newspaper or as tomboy girlish character who is not fit enough to be a regular woman and at the same time is also not expected to serve as a real soldier.
“We found that the Army is still a customary male oriented organization which is only adapting gradually to the inclusion of women – and this adaptation process is uneven through the ranks. There is evidently great opposition from many soldiers who think the Army should be an exclusively male preserve” Dr. Woodward, (2001).
They further debate on female capability of running for long tracks, carrying heavy weapons / masses or are able to complete any critical task requiring greater physical strength as well as their men partners. According to the research made, women were exposed 2 times more to exercise oriented injuries than men and four times more at risk of receiving fractures.
During conflicts, women are much prone to get affected physically and emotionally both leading to short term and long term effects on the mindsets. Sexual abuse, and emotional misuse of women are some of the various tools that are a part of the war – such incidents definitely leads to an isolation, protracted disturbing shock, and unwanted pregnancies(Military Woman Home Page, 2000).. Also, many incidents have been reported from around the world about women being abused by their own male counterparts and service men. Army roles put women at greater risk of violence and if captured, they are at higher risk of being physically assaulted.
Social Effect – While serving in the army, females face some concerns that have an influence or upset their family lives in a large way. For example, a woman’s decision to keep her child and also at the same time remain in army service, can lead to a number of struggles in order to accomplish her responsibility as a mother and as a warrior, sailor, airman, or naval servicer. Disappointment to make herself available for the care of her family or to execute her service duty is foundation for getting a tavern to reenlistment or being unwillingly estranged. Family life and children are still the most important concerns for female soldiers which at many occasions tend to decrease their efficiency towards their service.
Most of the women in the army agreed to the fact that finding proper childcare was difficult for them due to their remote locations, (Hosek and Peterson, 1990). Transfer to a new area with less facilities and high costs such as paying more money for child care as some of the common concerns that women in the army have to face. At the same time it can be tiring and demanding on the woman who might feel tough as a parent.
The question of whether women in fighting ranks in the army essentially makes an effective combat strategy is another major concern on which most of the advocates of women in army remain noticeably silent, (Weins and Boss, 2006). In general, the nature of women has been studied who have opted for army service. They generally tend to seek a rise in position as an automatic affect of being a female and choosing the army. Certainly, this attitude is not what is required of an army personal whether a male or a female.
As per the traditional social norms, women recruited in the army often fight back to sustain their relations and maintain their domestic needs mutually along with their role as soldiers. This often leads to family abuses and development of guilt in them for not being able to support their family in times of need. Disagreements smash the console of conventional daily schedule and expectations. Women working in the army are uniformly affected in a delicate surrounding where community services, they once depended on disgrace or fade away. Even though differences may, in some cases, develop better gender relations as a consequence of reallocations in the societal gender roles – some alterations may improve women’s issues – by and large its bang on army is negative, (Kessler, 2000).
Evidences that are given by the studies and research made by Commissions on Women role in the army, and proofs that are collected from the tasks of women working on navy ships, and military units with a good male / female ratio, all point toward that mixed-gender units have lesser employment rates for women, higher attrition, smaller amount of physical muscle, more sexual action / abuse, and high costs(Military Woman Home Page, 2000).
. These indications strongly point out at the negative effects of women presence in the army. In short, the study demonstrates that women in the army prove to be less efficient and productive than men, thereby affecting the basic concern of the organization.