| Description |
Historically, women have legally been excluded from participating in direct combat, but in December 2015 the Department of Defense made the groundbreaking decision to open all combat-related positions across the military to women. In this thesis I aim to show that from a feminist and egalitarian point of view this decision was the right decision. In this thesis I plan on proceeding in the following way: in Chapter 2, I am going to review the history of women in the Armed Forces, and I will explain how the Armed Forces have legally justified the decision to keep women out of direct combat. In Chapter 3, I will set forth what I call the "traditionalist's view" on what it means to be a combat soldier, as a way of framing, and thus understanding, the opposition to women in combat roles. Next, to put this into perspective, I am going to argue that the ontological category of ‘woman' should be understood in the context of social construction and power. Against this backdrop the traditionalist's assumptions about sex and gender become particularly problematic. In Chapter 4, I will present two arguments for why women should be allowed to serve in combat positions. First, the exclusion of women from combat is based on social fictions about what it means to be a ‘woman', and to move forward these works of social fiction have to be dispelled. Second, since women are already serving on the frontlines in today's modern, asymmetrical warfare, it makes no sense to uphold the combat exclusion policies. Finally, in Chapter 5, I am going to carefully consider three major objections to women in combat positions: women are naturally physically weak, women disrupt male bonding and unit cohesion in the military, and women are sexual distractions who put the mission at risk. Chapter 6 concludes that the new policy announced by the Department of Defense is the right policy for an integrated military that is both progressive and effective. |
