Is the Exclusion of Women from Ground Close-Combat Roles Acceptable?
Is the exclusion of women from ground close-combat roles acceptable?
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) defines ground close combat is defined as, “Combat with the enemy over short range on the ground” (MOD, 2010 p.6). In November 2010 a review for the MOD upheld the exclusion of women from ground close combat roles (MOD, 2010). This essay will determine if it is acceptable to continue this exclusion. Although there are many potential issues for debate, discussion will be limited to those of physiological factors, effects on unit cohesion and legal implications. The policies of other countries and the Pentagon’s recent announcement to allow women in combat roles will also be considered.
Rayson (2000) reviewed over one hundred studies on gender and bio-mechanical aspects of gender performance, in the Infantry and Royal Armoured Corps. This was in order to analyse differences in performance of the genders. The review highlighted that although men and women can gain similar increases in fitness, less than one percent of women could match the average male’s strength. The average female to male ratios for strength were stated as “0.55 to 0.68 for static strength, 0.53 to 0.63 for dynamic strength and 0.39 to 0.49 for power” (Rayson, 2000, p.1-2) . It was outlined in the review that for women to deliver an equal performance, they needed to exert 25-30 % more effort than a man; this could increase their exposure to fatigue and over-use injury. The review explained that a lower bone density increased the risk of stress fractures in women; furthermore during loaded marches, a larger gap in performance of the genders was shown to be proportionate to a heavier load. Although the review showed that some women had increased performance during menstruation, women were less tolerant to the extremes of temperature; in some cases this was increased during menstruation. It was highlighted that “painful menstruation can impair performance” (Rayson 2000, p.4).
In consideration of the above review, it would be difficult to dispute that the average man has more physical strength than the average woman. Tuten (1982 cited in Carrieras, H, 2006, p.90) concluded “Few would deny that these physical attributes are essential to the soldier or marine in ground combat. Therefore, the exclusion of women in frontline ground combat is mandated by their lesser physical capabilities”.
It is questionable whether the average performance of women versus men is a fair indicator of suitability for a given role. Segal (1983 cited in Carreiras, 2006) reasons that, job related physical tests are a fairer way to evaluate capability; rather than assuming all women incapable based on performance of the average woman, and all men capable based on the same. Woodward and Winter (2007) propose that performance on the battlefield, is increased by repeating practice drills until they become second