Throughout American history, certain people have always banned together for one cause: equality. One of these more recent fights has been that of women fighting for equality, in every aspect. Women haven’t stopped at the workplace and home, but have progressed to the field of the military, more specifically combat and leadership positions. Many controversies have erupted since this movement; many people have been misled and military policy has been attacked. Even though military policies have recently come under fire, women in the military must be held to the same standards as men, must be trained side by side with men, and must be guaranteed accessibility to all military positions and ranks. If this situation is not dealt with in this way, our military effectiveness will surely fall dramatically.

As with all controversial and important issues, there are going to be many who will blow their horn and yell foul. This issue is no exception. When it comes to the issue of combined training, many oppose it because of sexual misconduct problems. Furthermore, many souls disagree on how sexuality should be handled. Elaine Donnelly, from the center of military readiness, believes that the military should regulate discipline, but not sexual conduct (Side by Side). This disagrees with others beliefs, which think that people of different ranks should not be allowed to have sexual contact. Another argument is that women who train with men are more susceptible to injuries. Well, they are put under pressure, both mental and physical, but is that enough for America as a nation to create a second rate military?

The truth is that men will be serving side by side with women, and if our troops aren’t trained that way, they will not be prepared to serve in a time of war. If women and men are trained side by side, they will be faced with all of the problems of a coed military. The idea of training is that our soldiers are supposed to be prepared for all of the situations that they will face in their jobs, and more importantly, in combat. If the military is to split up the training, it would defeat the purpose of training: preparing all for all tasks to be performed, in all situations. Major Andrea Hollen (Ret.) believes that it would be a big mistake to eliminate coed training (Marching Side by Side). The truth is that the military needs to have coed training so that our soldiers will be able to perform well in combat, together.

Another attack on the idea of coed training is the claim of uneven standards, which equates to lover standards for the military. Well, this is true, but is easily repaired. Some say that coed training even lowers standards for men (IWF Policy analysis). The truth is that all the military needs to do is make the entire list of standards equal, regardless of race or sex. This idea has, also, come under fire. This makes people believe that women would have and do have higher quotas that men. In truth, women are still trained with lower requirements; whenever the military attempts to equalize this training requirement gap; people start saying that it is another way to keep women out of the military. Truly, this is not so. Equalizing standards only makes sure that women are in shape to handle military duty, as much as men are. Wouldn’t it be a good idea for women to be pushed just as hard as men so that they would be prepared for the ravages of war?

Yet another attack on coed military training is that of morals. In an IWF Policy Analysis, it was said that coed training should be eliminated because it hampers effectiveness and lowers morals. How could this assumption be made when it goes against our country’s doctrine? Coed training should push people harder, not lead to moral corruption. People say that sexual misconduct occurs, and it does, but that is a result if faulty leadership. If our military commanders would attack the problems of sexual misconduct and abuse, there would be an extremely minute occurrence of occurrence of sexual misconduct. Then, after the sexual misconduct is eliminated, what is there that is immoral? The only thing that comes to mind is that of racist bums. Mrs. Racy, author of “My Stand” in her web site: “Women in the Military”, states, “If others don’t like minorities in the military, it’s their fault, not the minorities’”. This is the 21st century; neither racism nor sexism have a place in the military or society itself, therefore, this shouldn’t be a problem to begin with. In the military, the best person for the position should get the position, no matter what it is or how demanding it is.

Now, in solving the issue of women in the military, it seems that creating equal standards would solve many problems, but recently, even this has been attacked. As soon as Briton integrated it’s training, the injuries occurring with women increased (Identical Training Regiment). Some look at that and say that the military is doing something wrong, but it is just called training. If any person, man or woman, decides that they want to become a solder, they will suffer injuries if they are not fit for training. Women are more susceptible to injuries because of upper body strength and other issues (Identical Training Regiment). Because of this fact, women must prepare their bodies more than some men to be able to have the same chances of completing training. Why should the military lower its standards only to hamper its effectiveness? Many say that not allowing women to do all military jobs make them second-class citizens (Women in the Military 2), but doesn’t that mean that training should be included? If not being allowed the same positions as men makes women second-class citizens, wouldn’t segregating training do the same? If women want to serve in the military, let them serve with men and make them train with men! This would allow all women in the military to gain recognition as an equal counterpart in the military, just as much as men have been. If women want to join the military, let them, and let them do it side by side with men.

Furthermore, many people believe that allowing women to serve and train side by side with men would and does lower morals. Aren’t morals in this country based on equality to all? If so, wouldn’t it raise morals if women were trained with men, were granted all jobs that men are, and were treated as an equal to men? That is what our country was founded on: all men (people) were created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights by their creator. That comes from the Declaration of Independence, and if that doesn’t represent our morals, nothing does or ever will. Those rights were said to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a woman wishes to be a part of the military, it is her duty to serve sis by side with men, and to be trained with men, just as men are trained. If this country doesn’t allow this to happen, we surely are the biggest followers of hypocrisy in the world!

Finally, the major issue of not allowing many positions to women has many people angry and rightfully so. The military claims that it wants to be well balanced, and still women are clearly being discriminated against. In our military, women receive fewer promotions than men and fill only about one percent of senior and combat positions (Women in the Military 2). Even though there are fewer women in the military than men, one percent is an unfair number for senior or combat command positions. In order to truly have a well balanced military, one must make sure that all parties are well represented whenever possible, and it is very possible with regards to women in the military. Our military must allow women into all fields and positions that they personally can handle, even in combat. This would single handedly help to make a better performing well balanced military.

Another reason, easily found, to allow women to join the military and pursue any career that they wished to, is to allow them to feel as, and truly be, higher than second class. Someone who is second-class at something is not held to the same standards as the others, are trained separately, and are not allowed to fill important roles. This fit the women’s present role in the military to a T. If this country really wants to allow women to be first-class citizens, it must allow all positions to be filled, training to be equal and coed, and the standards must be made equal too, for women. If not, women are truly second-class, in the military, and that is anti-American thinking and should not be permitted. Tracy, a woman who had served in the U.S. military, believes that all who can do a job should get the jobs, and that race of sex should make no difference in weather or not one fills a position (Women in the Military). America must recognize the rights of all, all of the time, everywhere. A great concern of a coed military is sexual misconduct problems. If this is a concern, what better a way to solve this problem than to have women in leadership positions? If women were in more leadership positions, they would be able to influence military policy in a good way; they could work on discipline and prevention aspects of the sexual misconduct problem. This is just another problem that could be easily solved by arguing that all people, regardless of race or sex, are equal. This more balanced our military is, the better it performs and the easiest that problems are solved. If placing women in all positions; combat, command, et cetera; is going to help our military become more balanced and more effective, it is a crime to do anything else.

With all of these arguments presented, it becomes clear that the U.S. armed forces would greatly benefit by recognizing women’s equality to men. All that must be done to accomplish this is to train men and women together, set equal standards for men and women, and allow women to fill any position or rank they are qualified for and are able to carry out. It is the 21st century and this is America; it is time to look past all prejudices and welcome equality. Remember: “Making a woman a solider doesn’t make her a man; it makes her a solider (Women in the Military).”