Women and men are equal in this country (or at least should be). Therefore, we have an equal responsibility of defending our nation. Who is the government to say that someone is unfit to serve their country because they aren't male? Let's get rid of the social rules from the 50's and live in the 21st Century.
If a woman has the will and skill to serve it's her decision. It goes with equality. Although there are some gender specific accommodations needed for women this can easily be accomplished. The important thing is not to have women pass watered down tests, If they can qualify they have earned the privilege.
This is crazy! It's like going back to ancient times when women don't have rights at all. In today's world women can do a better or equal job than men. I just can't stand people! We were all born and we are all equal but we are also diverse which is good.
In my opinion, women should have to pass an extremely physically hard test in order to be allowed to serve in combat duty. And I mean hard. No matter what you weigh, what gender you are, or what ethnicity or background. No exceptions at all. It should be a fine line
Women have every right to get in on the Combat action of War. My strong advise is that they consider the outcomes! War is not a glorious wonder like kids video games depict. With 4 Combat Tours, 2 in Iraq and 2 in Afgan i can utterly not understand the reasoning for pursuing Combat as a means of overcoming gender stereotypes to prove gender equality. Any man or women eager to fight in a war is a fool. Combat is Hell so be careful what you wish for ladies! If it comes down to having a sister next to me in combat replacing a few bros then i will embrace it but I remain skeptical of how the outcomes will play out.
American women also have shown courage on and off the battle field for centuries. One, women who have had shown courage was Joan of Arc, a teenage girl who successfully led men into battle during the Hundred Year War. Joan lived on the front lines, fought with men, and was even wounded. Today women make up fourteen percent of the 1.4 million active personnel's. They have totaled more then ten percent of those who where sent to war zones. More than 280,000 women have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and more then 150 have died. In conclusion, women should be allowed to serve in combat duty because they have shown great courage on and off the battle field. Also, they are willing to get wounded on the battlefield while fighting for our country.
Women should be allowed to serve in the general infantry/armor. For example infantry battalions and combined arms battalions. The standard should be no lower than the existing male standard today. Not a separate female standard, nor an "adjusted" (aka lower) gender neutral standard.
They should not be allowed to serve in R&S units or ODAs. They should continue to support SOF mission outside the wire with CSTs.
The people saying all women are automatically disqualified for armed service and combat duty for simply being women are so wrong that they are not even worth the time. First: Strength was a primary factor in warfare in the Stone and Bronze age, now it is mostly irrelevant. Second: women are not that much physically weaker than men, only by a small dozen percents across the board. Men and women body types and capabilities also vary greatly on the individual. If a woman truly wants to serve in combat and is capable of doing so that means she has it in her to be a soldier and killer. Of course they should be held to the same intense training and scenarios to hone their mind and bodies into weapons like all soldiers should. From what I have heard first hand from male soldiers is that they would respect and accept female combatants if they proved themselves capable and equal to males, sadly many are not pushing themselves hard enough and so have a bad reputation. This does not mean women should be barred from something they are willing and capable of doing, or god forbid, actually good at but never given the chance.
Yes it's simple. Firstly I think we should all assume that every recruit would have to pass the test in order to serve in combat, men or women. But If the difference between a male soldier living or dying in combat for whatever reason rested on the hands of a female soldier would anyone complain? If this male soldier was badly shot and injured and the only comrade around who could help before the enemy got to this soldier or he succumbed to the wound was a woman would this women be shunned? No, In combat we are all equal.
If we ban women from serving in combat duty, we're depriving ourselves of troops to fight in our wars. Also, most of these women want to fight, isn't that partially why they enlisted? Banning them from fighting is also gender inequality because we're keeping them from fighting in combat because they're women.
First off, the upper body strength of women is weaker then that of a man. So if a woman were to engage in hand to hand combat with a male opponent, she would be overpowered. Second off, the women would have to bunk in a different place then the men. That would break the bond between the soldiers. I am in the military currently and I have served 2 tours of duty in Afghanistan. Do you think somebody would run in the open under fire to save somebody they haven't bonded with? I don't think so. Third, women naturally are weaker emotionally compared to men when it comes to seeing blood and gore. She would compromise the mission and the survival of others if she couldn't deal with death. Fourth, when a woman would die in combat the media would call her male counterparts sexist for not protecting her. Look people, the military's job is to execute the mission without compromise. With women they would compromise the mission and may cause other soldiers to die.
- From a current Sgt in the 75th Rangers.
After WWII, Russians entering Berlin finds and uses German women as 'sex slaves'. Given combat duty, women will have to enter enemy territory or areas of conflicts. If they are captured, these women will most definitely be sexually assaulted (even men POWs suffer from these).
Other than that (although very controversial, especially to feminists) this study
compares Men and Women's reaction to emotions. Although the some areas are activated in the Brain are the same and at the same rate, Men's brains behave differently.
Men are more intimidating than Women. Tribal cultures have tried to make their warriors as scary and intimidating by painting their faces and body building. Gender plays a role in the increasing popular psychological war.
However, in emergencies (such as an invasion) women should be allowed to join resistance as much as men.
They have different standards now physical fitness test, get pregnat, and they do not have the strength to lift a male with his gear on. I have seen combat. I do think women has pain tolerance. I have seen them complain and quite on patrols. I have seen them not being able to do the simple run and work out.S.
Women were never designed for the physical demand of a combat zone. Their upper body strength is no where near a males even if they work out. Whe it comes to endurance, weight carried then a female definetly cant hang with her male counterparts. When it comes to running women and men are more equal. Me may be avle to deal with the noise, chaos and gore of war but her male coujterparts would be very dismayed if something grizzly happens to a female. Also suppose a female doesn't want to fight in the combat zone anymore. Does she simply get pregnant so that she can automatically be airlifted to safety. There are also many gruesome ways to torture women than men. Women because sex slaves of captured. When women and men serve in a combat area it could more than likely cause sexual relations in the team which doesn't need that kind of disruption. The infantry team needs to worry solely on the mission and not about women and their personal issues. Personally I'm an infantryma I dont want to have to worry about saying the wrong things around overly sensitive females. That is a good way to get a SHARP violation and kicked out of the military. I enjoy forming a brotherly bond with my fellow infantrymen and women would only complicate our job massively. It's nut sexist but since the New Army has let in women into almost all aspects if the Army nothing but problems have arrissed.
SSG 7 years in the US Army as a 13 Foxtrot Forward Observer
5 Deployments, 2nd Infantry Battalion.
Men were originally allowed to serve in combat roles not because of sexism, but because in nature men are made, born, raised, and built to do battle. Our ancestors realized this, but our nation is being taught that men and women are the same. I am not saying that women are lesser, and in fact have their strong points.
Women are not originally built for intense physical labor like military combat roles. Why else do little boys go outside while girls sit and play with dolls? Because that is how nature intended it to be, and we should realize that women will not be able to preform well enough to be suitable for combat roles, due to their importance.
Generally, men have more strenght than women. Men are also alot more faster than women when running. Men could also handle recoil and fully automatic better than women could. Men could also stand war and fighting more than women could. This isn't sexism, it's just the truth. It's just in mens nature to be generally stronger and faster than women.
The standards need to be the same, you cannot demand equality while also demanding special treatment. The military should have one standard period, regardless of gender, sexual preference or race. If you pass the physical and mental standards serve in anyway you wish.
But again I cannot stress the importance of equality AND NOT SPECIAL TREATMENT. Two very different things, if a female serves while having gone through a less harsh test, she will drag the unit behind and be a weakness rather than an asset. That will cause long term consequences.