Suchergebnisse

This article offers an approach, not an answer. It concludes that any of the three branches of government could permit women to serve in combat units. Women have been formally barred from serving in combat ships or aircraft by a 1948 law-the Women's Armed Services Integration Act. Because the sponsors of that legislation concluded that it was impossible to distinguish combat and noncombat roles in the Army, the Secretary of that service was given discretion to designate combat units which would be filled only by men. Congress could change the law. The judiciary could decide that the law, or the Army's exercise of discretion, was unconstitutionally discriminatory. The President could issue an executive order ameliorating the law's application. The nature of the inquiry into whether there should be a change, and the criteria applied, will differ depending on the branch of government involved. While that proposition is unremarkable, the distinction seems to have escaped the attention of most proponents and opponents of the combat exclusion laws. Although the considerations that should apply can only be outlined, the debate is more complex than is commonly suggested.

This study examines reader responses to opinion editorials about women in combat and contributes to the literature on women in the military by explaining how contests over sex–gender essentialism and diversity underlie public debates about individual rights and military effectiveness. Comments in favor of women's ground combat exclusion use a logic of averages to promote essentialist thinking about men and women. They categorize women as inferior soldiers and argue that desegregation puts individual soldiers and the nation at risk. Conversely, comments in favor of integration advance a view of sex–gender diversity that places men and women along a continuum with overlapping qualities, suggesting further that giving exceptional women the freedom to serve in ground combat will advance both equality and military readiness. We argue that public commentary about women in combat concerns more than the military, underlying this discourse are distinct conceptions and expectations of men and women.

This study examines reader responses to opinion editorials about women in combat and contributes to the literature on women in the military by explaining how contests over sex–gender essentialism and diversity underlie public debates about individual rights and military effectiveness. Comments in favor of women's ground combat exclusion use a logic of averages to promote essentialist thinking about men and women. They categorize women as inferior soldiers and argue that desegregation puts individual soldiers and the nation at risk. Conversely, comments in favor of integration advance a view of sex–gender diversity that places men and women along a continuum with overlapping qualities, suggesting further that giving exceptional women the freedom to serve in ground combat will advance both equality and military readiness. We argue that public commentary about women in combat concerns more than the military, underlying this discourse are distinct conceptions and expectations of men and women.

What should we know about the roles of women in armed conflicts? I review the existing literature on women's roles in regular and irregular conflicts to identify gaps in our understanding of the significance of female combatants. I draw on contemporary and historical cases of women's combat participation across world regions and, in so doing, I challenge existing assumptions about the limits of women's participation in armed conflict. Examining women as a group and expecting conflict to affect this group in predictable and easily identifiable ways only reinforces existing assumptions about women and war. To understand the range of motivations underlying women's decisions to fight or to not fight, we should give greater attention to opportunity structures and other social conditions rather than simply assuming that women have different incentives than men.