Ian Reed

WRTC 103

2/11/18

Why “Women Should Be Allowed in Combat Roles”

It is a known fact that women have been treated unfairly throughout the course of history.

This still holds true today, however on a much smaller scale. For women who want to be

admitted into certain combat roles in the United States military, they were barred from most

positions. In 1994, rules were established that denied them this equal access to certain combat

roles, but today the military has become more accepting of the importance of women in combat

and have opened more positions to create more equal opportunities. Through stories and

statistics, writer Cheryl Pellerin describes in many ways why women should be allowed in these

combat roles, and what officials are actively doing to help them.

In the article “Women Should Be Allowed in Combat Roles,” Cheryl Pellerin goes

through a press briefing from the Pentagon, and describes what General Martin E. Dempsey and

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta talk about regarding the future of women. Cheryl Pellerin, from

the first paragraph of this article, is described as a “science writer and reporter,” and with this

information we understand the credibility of her opinions. As this article mainly focuses on the

reporting of a press briefing, the statistics she adds in-between quotes should be taken as more or

less reliable and

As written in the “Women Should Be Allowed in Combat Roles,” the people proposing

some of the sweeping changes to the 1994 rules, Martin Dempsey and Leon Panetta, are some of

the most qualified people to be giving their opinions on this subject. They have, in one way or
another, a relationship with the United States military. Dempsey, being a General, should be

considered the most qualified because of his high ranking within the military. In this article, he

goes into detail about what he plans on doing to increase equal opportunities for women. He

states that the military will be integrating women in a way that benefits all female and male

members. He goes on to state that performance standards will be set in place to ensure that the

ones wanting to be put into these new spots, that are being opened up to women, are able to live

up to military’s expectations.

Logically, there are many reasons for why Dempsey would want to push this new change.

In paragraph six, section one of this article, Cheryl Pellerin says, “Women make up about 15%,

or nearly 202,400, of the U.S. military’s 1.4 million active-duty personnel. This is an impressive

number, and should be taken into consideration when one is deciding what to do about women’s

involvement in the military. Touching on a story to come later in this essay, Dempsey references

that men and women go through the same training to get to where they want to be, and barring

access to certain roles from such a high percentage of people should not be considered the

morally right option to consider.

In paragraph two, section one of this essay, Cheryl writes that 53,000 positions are

currently closed to women, and those positions are now being reviewed. Dempsey, as a part of

this new policy states that these positions will become open to women who meet the standards of

those specific positions. This is an important note to mention because before the above statistic,

Dempsey mentions that opening these positions will strengthen the joint force. However, it

should also be mentioned that he never elaborates on why it would strengthen the joint force.

Finally, in, logical appeals, there is another notable example in the third paragraph, first

section of this article. Cheryl writes that “According to senior defense officials, the services are
also reviewing about 184,000 positions now closed by specialty but will be open to women who

meet the standards.” This fact is immediately followed by a statement from Cheryl, stating that a

lot of these specialty positions have specific requirements that must be met for a person to

qualify. Secretary Panetta said that by January 1 of 2016, the military departments’ efforts to

implement more women into these positions will be complete.

Moving into the second section of this article, Cheryl Pellerin finally starts implementing

emotional appeals, and the first example comes in the form of a story coming from General

Dempsey. In the first, second, and third paragraph Cheryl reports on a story Dempsey told about

his time in Baghdad. He states that when he got into an armored Humvee, he turned around

slapped the turret gunner on the leg, and asked for that individual’s name. The woman

controlling the turret leaned down, and stated her name. Dempsey says that this is the moment

that he knew that significant changes needed to take place and he was the one that needed to

usher them in. By using the emotion of patriotism with the line: “The female turret-gunner was

protecting her division commander”, Dempsey strikes a nerve in many people’s hearts, because

of this sense of American pride and how many people can connect to this feeling.

Later in this section, in paragraph nine, Dempsey finally mentions that “They will

continue to asses, develop and validate gender-neutral standards so we can start assigning

personnel to previously closed occupations.” Gender-neutral standards were mentioned earlier in

section one, and in this paragraph, he doubles down on the idea that these roles will be become

open in the coming years. Following this statement, he adds that the military plans on taking the

time that they need to finely tune the work so that they aren’t compromising on any of the

principles that were mentioned earlier. Through vivid description, Dempsey establishers a
relationship with the audience as a person that genuinely cares about this issue, and plans on

working with everybody so the military becomes more equal, more open, and more transparent.

Finally, in the thirteenth paragraph, Dempsey brings his speech home by concluding that

“We all wear the same uniform and we all fire the same weapons…” Through this thought, he

rightly claims that men and women do an equal amount of work to become a part of the military,

and that gender discrimination should no longer be a factor because of this. Through moving

language, the General describes that these women and men do everything in their power to fight

and protect the United States, and that the oath they take do not differ from person to person.

With this last example, it is finally understood by the audience how much he cares about the

women and their role in the military, and what he is willing to do to ensure equal access to all

combat roles.

In “Women Should Be Allowed in Combat Roles,” Cheryl Pellerin describes what is

being done to ensure equality, what the statistics are of the women already in, or have seen,

service, and proves herself to a competent writer on this specific situation. In reading this article,

one would wonder: Why does this argument matter? In short, it matters because of the recent

spark in controversy over transgender women, and what they can and cannot do in regarding

combat roles. This article adds what is going to happen in the future, and how the military will

ensure that these changes which favor women will remain in place, because of the idea

mentioned earlier that all men and women take the same oath. They all sacrifice themselves for

the good of the country.

 Works Cited:

CNN Staff. “By the numbers: Women in the U.S. military.” CNN, 24 Jan. 2013,

https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women-glance/index.html.

Pellerin, Cheryl. "Women Should Be Allowed in Combat Roles." The US Military, edited by Noah

Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2016. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in

Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010978220/OVIC?u=viva_jmu&xid=4baeeaaf.

Accessed 3 Feb. 2018. Originally published as "Dempsey: Allowing Women in Combat

Strengthens Joint Force,", 24 Jan. 2013.