Introduction From Desert Storm to Tailhook, prevailing attitudes about military women are being reformulated and tested in myriad ways. How smoothly or quickly a shift in attitudes occurs is chiefly a matter of leadership. Commanders must give women equal access to a level playing field on which each competitor either succeeds or fails based on individual merit. If you put points on the scoreboard, you play. Tough standards outlawing fraternization, shunning paternalism, and minimizing segregation must be accompanied by changes, the hard fact is that women will fight as well as die in our next war. While a gender-neutral meritocracy may be difficult to achieve, an initial step is to promote a shared common identity and purpose: man or woman, a soldier is a soldier first. (Mariner 54) Rosemary Mariner writes on a very important topic that circulates through the ranks of the military as well as through the public eye. We ponder whether or not women should be allowed to serve among the ranks of those serving in the combat arms and fighting at the front lines; and if they are not allowed to do so, why? The reason most likely stems from the early writings of the great philosophers, which give credence to the belief that women are incapable of possessing virtues, and in this case the virtue of courage. "Aristotle maintains that woman is a mutilated or incomplete man...[and] since he associates heat with life or soul, he therefore supposes women to have less soul than men" (Agonito 41). For Aristotle the virtue of courage is associated with the actions of soldiers in battle and soldiers in the armies of his times were all men. If such is the case, according to Aristotle, then women are incapable of fighting in wartime situations, because they are not courageous enough. Plato on the other hand argues that "...we're dealing with a physically weaker sex: the males are stronger" (Plato1 162). Other Platonic writings coincide with this...