Brute force is not always the answer. Women are better thinkers and examiners of situations. And your example is actually inaccurate because a woman of that size wouldn't be on the battlefield in the first place. When a woman joins the military, they do it because they know that they have the physical and mental strength to. The type of women on the battlefield would be the ones who have a better physical physique through a good combination of genetics to make a stronger and agile female. At the age of 14 I was 5'9'' 175 pounds, mostly muscle, you can imagine how I am now. It's people who are actually capable of combat that join the military. Not all women are short and skinny, your example is categorizing them as if they were
First off I have no doubt that there are women out there who can handle themselves out there and even more who could beat me up for what I'm going to say. So here it is... Women as a majority are not stronger than men and are not fit to fight on the front lines. Here is my reasoning. Women are naturally not as muscular as men and it would probably be harder for them to carry wounded men to safety. Second, when women soldiers are captured bad things happen( I don't think I have to explain that one.) And lastly women tend to be a bit more emotional when it comes to bullets and loud explosions. In conclusion I do not believe women should be fighting but could instead be serving their country in secondary but still very important roles such as being a nurse or humanitarian worker. Thank you for hearing me out and if you disagree then please post on my whole. God bless
Men think that because women are small or isn't built like a hulk that they cant do it. Men are idiots because of this. There instinct is that is women are out there then they will have to worry about then more than the mission at hand and that's not true.
All women need to do is build more muscle... They are smart and women can most certainly be warriors.. There are women who pass the test and passing the test is what matters! Who cares what gender you are! The goal here is to pass the test and thats it! And just because a female has a motherly instinct doesnt mean she's gonna be all sweet on the battlefield. When women pass the test they know the results about what could happen. They arnt stupid. And like i said, so wha if theyre smaller all they need is muscle and all we have to do is work out. The thing that makes it harder for women is that we have wide hips, which sucks, but ive seen a good amount of women with their uniforms on.. YOU GO GIRLS! :) thanks for fighting for our freedom.
Everyone woman is different. How can you say women are not mentally or physically fit to be in combat? Are you saying that an anorexic man would still be stronger than a female bodybuilder? Please just grow up. I am absolutely disgusted by the amount of people who said no.
Yes, male upper body strength(and lower body too actually, just by a smaller margin) is better than female's. Males build muscle easier and have testosterone, which gives them an upper hand in breathing. No one is, or should be, denying that. What people fail to understand though is that females on the other hand, are far more flexible, more durable(not talking about endurance here), tend to be smaller(which has both its pros and cons I suppose), apparently more resistant to pain and actually deal better with injuries(less likely to develop sepsis and whatnot). Women also require less resources and are in general, once agin, more durable. One should note that flexibility is key in agility, so yea, strength isn't the key component. And, of course, not all women are the same. There are plenty of tall women, for example, etc, etc. But you don't have to be tall to exceed in combat(especially if we're talking CQC, HTH), in fact being small has its advantages.
And that's not to mention the shitload of evidence that women tend to make better pilots, although once again, not all people are the same, I'm just generalising here.
So all in all, the argument against women being in combat roles is pretty ridiculous. Although, being a devil's advocate here, some arguments can be understandable. Still though, women should be able to serve in combat roles because they are just as able as men. Even if you ignore the arguments about the different pros each sex physically has, one shouldn't be against the idea of women in combat because there are enough women who would fit into male standards, so why should they not be allowed to serve their country? Short answer: they shouldn't.
Now on the question of equal training, I do believe that training of both sexes should be as equal as possible, though shouldn't we exploit each sex's advantages a little bit more? I think we should. That's another question though.
Women and men are almost exactly the same when it comes to personality, intelligence and nurturing nature. Sure, there is a psychical difference, but not all women have the 'motherly' physique many of you seem to say we have. I am not motherly or nurturing at all. I am not very emotional, either, and I am a woman.
Women are stronger and smarter. So they should definitely be in the military. A woman can do anything a man can do. Throughout history women have been taught they are the weaker sex and that they should take care of the kids and the house work. If you take away that mentality women can do any thing better that of a man
Combat isn't really about being strong anymore. It is more computers. Anyways, no matter the average, strong women can be as strong as strong men. Neither are smarter or more cunning. It is all about working the technology now. For the strength issue i just think it is the way that scociety forces men to work to be strong more often than women. Both have equal potential if they work at equal amounts.
Modern combat does not rely on brute strength and speed. It relies on marksmanship, mastery of particular computer-based technology, etc. Drones, for example, are part of modern combat, as are tanks and calculating missile and mortar trajectories. There is nothing about any of these things that has anything to do with sex.
On average women are much smaller and weaker than man. Imagine this:
You are on the battlefield and you are shot in the leg and badly injured. You cant stand up by yourself and a fellow soilder comes to aid you. Would you rather...
A) have an average 5'10 170 pound man come to your rescue
B) An average 5'4 120 pound woman.
Women lack the Speed, Upper body strength of en, im sorry but its true, Women are equal to men in Intelligence, General smarts, but physically men are stronger and faster, Most men under 70 could flatten a women with one punch so they would not last very long in hand to hand combat
Although many women may be more physically adept than some other men, on average, men think more aggressively and act on what they think has to be done. Women usually think in a totally different way; hence "men are from mars, women are from venus." Women are better at men at different things, but in this case the brutality and force of a man is necessary, rather than the opposing thinking style of a woman; if the difference between life and death is a bullet, a woman and a man would handle it differently, and saying that women are the "examiner of situations, or better thinkers" even though men can also be as good of an examiners of situations or a better thinker than a woman as well, is totally biased, and would not help the woman at all if she was hurt in battle. In a real fight, even if the woman was more far more intellectual than the man, it may only make up 20% for the physical aspect of the fight. Women are built for bearing children, and even though in some cases they may be much more adept than men, on average, they are not as strong, cannot bear as much pain, and would lose in combat. Saying that they are stronger is a complete lie, and if you do believe that, there is a 100% chance that you are a woman. Women have their own advantages overall, but the battlefield is not one of them.
Women present many of their own benefits on the battlefield, however, combat skills are not one of them. The are on average much shorter, weigh much less, have a lower percentage of muscle capacity, and have much less dense skeletons, making them more prone to breakages. They should not be allowed to take part in active combat because they are simply not built to do it. Every species has a gender that is better suited to fight. For humans, that gender is male.
We aren't as physically strong as men. Emotionally were much stronger but physically.... It's not sexist it's a fact. Men are usually much stronger than women are. It's not a big deal. Is just the way it is. There's a reason men have always been the ones to fight in wars.
Women can become good fighters but only few. There is a reason why the physical requirements for men and women are different. It is because most women cannot do as much as a man can do physically. With the proper training a women can do the requirements but if a man had the same training he would still be superior. Therefore the average women are not equal to average men in combat.
There was an article written by a woman who wanted to go into combat, but she decided against it after she realized that the men in her unit treated her differently(which is natural). She stated that some combat units have to take dumps in the same room, and have to be vigilant at all times. They cant afford to protect a woman more, which they would have to with enemy rapes happening, as it wouldnt look good. The men would be pressured to go out of their way to protect the woman, and might spoil the mission. I believe this is the correct source. http://warontherocks.com/2014/11/heres-why-women-in-combat-units-is-a-bad-idea/
Women are not equal to men in combat. They are smaller, emotional, and mentally lacking. A woman's natural motherly instinct is far too likely to cloud her judgment in combat. I'm not saying there aren't women who couldn't be in combat, but generally speaking, no. Combat was not meant for women. Women being allowed to serve in battle is one reason why the U.S. Military is as weak as it is.
No argument is needed. The test should be the same, if a woman passes the same test as the men then good luck to her. But no way should any tests we weakened to allow women in. They must meet the same very high standards as the men. This is going to mean serious biceps and muscle building. Clearly biology is against them, but its possible some women with great fitness and strength levels can reach the standard
After going through basic and finally graduating my long ait, i say combat expectations vary however people tend to focus more on the physical aspects of war. From the social dynamics of the unit all the way to unique combat situations (which could entirely depend on a person) from my observation men are more likely to be successful in combat because we are more socially geared towards that type of circumstance, we are naturally more aggressive. And lastly men are more likely to do what they're told and remain disciplined rather than question an order. I can't tell how many times ive heard females question, complain or fail to comply with an order/instruction/policy they disagreed with, in comparison to the men i work and live with.