ton Post, ôThe argument about women in combat is over. American civilization has not collapsed as a result,ö (OÆBierne 2003, 24).
Others argue that women should be allowed to serve in combat because it is their right as free citizens to choose to serve their country just as much as it is a right of men. Further, women who choose to serve in the military understand they are choosing to leave behind their most precious resource, their children. This is a conscious choice, one that posits a higher moral worth on the good of the nation in the long term. Such sacrifice is noble and not to be limited. This is particularly true at a time when valuable, skilled personnel are required by the military in a time of increased risk for American security. As David Freddoso (2003) maintains, ôThe current policy has proven to not only provide the best opportunities for women to serve their country, but also provides the services with valuable personnel assets to meet their requirementsö (Donnelly 2003, 8).
Many who support women in combat are of the mind that the risks and dangers associated with it are par for the course for a military occupation. There are many high-risk jobs that women are permitted to take in civil society, from working at nuclear plants to being police officers. Surely there is not much more risk involved in policing the worst violent inner-cities of US society than in serving in the armed forces during combat. Likewise, an occupation is something one chooses to do. Women are not forced to take high-risk positions or enlist for combat duty. As such, many view women serving in the military in a fairly clinical manner. It is just one more elected job that comes with high-risk. As one journalist argues, ôThis is their job. These are the conditions of employmentö (OÆBierne 2003, 25).
With respect to employment, women have traditionally been the victims of discrimination and an uneven playing field with r...