1. I believe if a woman can pass the PT standards to serve in combat, then they should be allowed. By that I mean if they can pass the PT standards set for men, not the lowered standards.
2. If a man is too distracted by a female (ie. feels to protect her instead of doing his assigned job) then he should be removed from the unit.
3. Pregnancy. It takes two to tango. It was a common argument for women on submarines. The men's wives were worried about sex. If you are that worried, then maybe there are some marriage issues to be worked out.
4. Russia has women in combat roles. Not a lot of people are willing to mess with Russians. Germany has women in combat roles. Canada does too.
5. Rape. Women are raped in the military even without being in combat roles. It isn't our fault men feel the need to do something that horrible.
6. Draft. If I am denied a combat role then I shouldn't have to sign up for the draft. Once I get a combat role, I will register on my 18th birthday, if I get a combat role before then.
7. It's just sexist. To say I cannot serve in combat just because I am a female. Don't I have equal rights?
Women should be allowed to serve in combat roles. If a woman is able to pass basic training and would serve some helpful purpose in a combat role in the armed forces, what reason is there to forbid her from serving in such a role? To disagree is to discriminate for no reason.
Women and men are supposed to be treated equal and given equal rights. If a woman wants to serve 100% for the country, then she should have that right. There should be no discrimination. A woman can do any job, like a man does, with the proper training. As long as she chooses to do it, nothing should hold her back.
Women enrolling in the armed forces are aware of the risks of their position, so they should be allowed to serve in all the same capacities as men, including combat roles. Since hand-to-hand combat is obsolete now, the idea of men having a combat advantage because of their naturally superior strength is also obsolete, making women equally suitable for these roles.
Personally, I am against war, in all of its incarnations. I do, however, believe very strongly in equal rights. I f a woman loves her country enough to potentially die for it, then she should be allowed to serve her country. Plenty of women are already doing this.
While I do not believe that women should be forced to serve in combat roles in our armed forces, if they are willing to do just that, then it's a different story. Women are fully capable, and have the knowledge, desire, strength, determination, and passion for serving, just as men do.
I firmly believe that, if a woman is accepted into any specific branch of the military, she should be afforded the same rights as men. There should be no gender separation, in regard to serving in combat roles. I think this should be a decision left up to each individual. If she is capable and able, then she should be allowed to. If her superiors feel that she would be an asset in that position and setting, then it should be her choice.
Women are a big part of today's military, and preventing them from serving in combat is sexism, plain and simple. While there may have been good reasons in the past from preventing them from serving on the front lines, today's high-tech military makes those reasons obsolete. If they can shoot straight, we need them as soldiers.
Our military used to be primarily composed of men but, in the past few years, many able and capable women have joined the ranks of our armed forces. Many of these women want to be more than just a desk jockey. Many capable women pilot our military aircraft and are responsible for developing military strategy. If a woman who is in the military feels that she can successfully engage in combat, she should be allowed to do so with the understanding that she has to be able to give her all and endure the roughness and the hardships along with the men. If a woman joins the military, she should have the same privileges and duties as a man in the military.
Women are trained to do what the men are trained for, and are physically and intellectually able to fulfill the same tasks. Combat need not be an exception. Women in the armed forces are highly competent and able to perform the duties called for in combat situations, so they should be allowed to serve in this capacity.
Women should still be able to fly planes but they should not be in ground combat. Ground combat is dangerous and the men on the battlefield will go die for the women because they are women, And they will not complete there missions. The military also lowered the standards for women in the military.
They're has actually be tests that has shown that in Israel, where men and women serve in combat roles, the men's natural instinct would be to protect the women, this could lead to both being killed. Also, when a medic sees a downed women, the women is helped, dead or alive, before the men who would be in a less worse condition, mainly because she is a women. It is just natural instinct. Not to mention the amount of muscle, and the way the two genders think. Also, I feel that even though technology is huge, it can fail, it can fail on itself, or it can fail from a weapon that ends it, therefore, I don't think that in that case, women will have what it takes to take on a huge, male enemy that we may be fighting. Just my opinion.
It's been this way for thousands of years: The guy protects the woman, and in life threatening situations like, oh I don't know,,,war, the male soldiers will go out of their way to defend the female soldiers. This could easily end up in both their deaths. There's a lot more to be said, but i'll leave it at that.
Like it or not it comes down to health and hygiene, the physical part can be over come, so can the mental problems. However woman need more maintenance which they wouldn't be able to get during months in a desert. Men can stay in acceptable standereds with as little as a wet sponge and a shave however woman need a lot more supply's to stay healthy removing space that could be used for food or ammo. It's not a case of sexism when even when you over look half of the problems the other half alone is enough to turn down the idea.
It seems like everybody who's served in the forces agrees and the only people out of the forces that disagree are people calling it sexist despite perfectly good reasoning.
And my brother just got back from this tour in the middle east and he has not been the same ever since. You want your strongest and tough minded people in ground combat. My brother was and he barely speaks now. War ruins people. If you're a woman who thinks she's strong enough to go through all of that then go ahead and kudos to you! But you don't just get to fight on the ground, you are chosen and placed in something like that. I think that if military personnel have a choice, they would chose a man over a woman. We just aren't built for this type of stuff and equality has its limits. Truth is, women can't do everything men do and men can't do everything women do.
The lads together are a team and male bonding for the hunt as it were is hard wired by evolution.
This would be like bringing the wife to a lads night out, it just does not work.
If they must go fight then it should be all female units, the guys would just worry about them though if they got caught by the enemy.
I am all for woman's rights, and for them to be equal to men. However, this is one where I must draw the line. I do not believe that women should be allowed in combat roles. First, look at the biology. The average man is a lot stronger than the average woman, and can carry more weight. Of course there are the exceptions, but the number of exceptions is very small (almost nothing, in fact) compared to all woman. If the group comes under fire, and a man gets wounded, the woman (if the man and girl were both average height and weight) would not be able to carry out the man. Woman as well have a some hygiene needs (periods and such) that could complicate things on the battlefield. Next, you have to look at the mental state of both men and women. Females are more emotional than men. Some girl will find out that this other girl talked bad about her, they don't talk for a week, and then they eventually make up after a big emotional reunion. With men, they can be cussing each other out and beating each other up, then be best friends having a beer the next second. Men are also more prone to protecting women. So lets say that there is a woman who is in trouble, but there is also a man who is in trouble. Lets also say that the man is the safest one to save. Because of a man's natural instinct to protect women, they would try to save the female, even though it was a ton safer to save the male. They then just put the entire group in danger of getting hurt, or maybe even killed.
Well, that sums a lot of it up. Sure, you could argue that Russia allows women into combat roles, and that nobody screws with Russia. Well, nobody screws with Russia because of their nukes, not because of their women or anything. If you look at the "yes" side, it is mainly women saying that it is not fair, that it is sexists, or that they could do good in combat roles. Well, to those saying that it is sexists or not fair, just look at the facts. It is best for everyone if they were not there. To the women saying that they could do it, great! But like I stated before, you are only one woman compared to everybody. We shouldn't put people in danger just because you and a few of your friends think you could do it all. People also might argue that women are usually smarter than men. Although it is true that women are smarter than men (again, the average man and woman in this case), they are not physically capable of being on the front lines. They can put their smarts into fields such as intelligence.
And to end this on a joke, a woman with a gun on her period... Yikes! Haha
Women aren't built for that type of physical, mental, or psychological stress. It isn't a matter of whether women are just as good as men, it's a matter of physical proof, what's safer, and what science shows. Why would a woman want to risk the possibilities of being raped, physically abused, and tormented. It's bad enough we have to worry about situations in our houses, when we go to our cars, or anywhere for that matter. But to intentionally sign yourself up for that? I don't get it..... Just to prove a point? That's stupid! Men and women serve a purpose, neither is greater than the other, and neither is more important than the other. We were made to complete each other, and give in ways to what the other couldn't. Why is it so bad that we aren't able to do everything that men can do? Men can't do everything we can! No matter how much a guy may want to carry a child to see how it feels, they will never be able to do that themselves. That's just how science and God made us :). We serve a purpose that is so amazing! We give our men in combat hope and love in a world that is filled with destruction and corruption, something to look forward to and a reason for fighting, strength, we are the nurturers, we are mothers, we show them beauty and tenderness, we help provide a family for them and pass along their name to their children, and more! Women are the backbone in men. We keep them strong in ways they can't be, and they keep us strong in ways we aren't.
Onto reasons: Our bones and ligaments are weaker by nature, women are naturally meant to have higher fat percentages in their bodies as well, we have less blood running through their viens, there's higher risks of being raped and tormented more, we are the lower percentage rate among population count (with every girl that is born every second, there are three boys born every second), we need to be there for our children, if a woman gets pregnant in the military, ends up getting deployed and cannot go, the military has wasted money towards training and who knows what else! There are a ton of reasons why.... However, I feel if a woman can do ALL the things a man can do, succeed at the strenuous training they go through (with nothing changed or altered for the woman), and be able to handle the practices they give of being taken hostage, etc., and come out of the training process not physically or mentally disturbed, THEN GO FOR IT! More kudos to you! However, to change multiple things around in the military just so a few women can do the same thing as men seems ridiculous to me. But, hey, maybe there's more women who can accomplish this than I think. But all in all, I feel this shouldn't be allowed.
Physical Ability: While the majority of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to which women are just not physically suited.
Efficiency: While integration of women into combat is possible for those qualified, the small number versus the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integration do not make it a worthwhile move.
Morale and Cohesion: Having women serving in direct combat will hamper mission effectiveness by hurting unit morale and cohesion.
Military readiness: Pregnancy can affect the deployment of a unit and case a disproportionate number of women or understaffing.
Tradition: Men, especially those likely to enlist, maintain traditional gender roles. In some situations, men are may act foolishly to protect women in their combat units. Harassment and resentment of the presence of women in a hyper masculine military subculture would likely become a problem.
Abuse by Enemy: Both male and female prisoners are at risk of torture and rape, but misogynistic societies may be more willing to abuse woman prisoners.
If they join then what about their monthly pains? Also it would cost more for their equipment, room, and missions. They have to take care of the children at home if married or have kids. Also the military has lowered country standards so women could be in the military, i think that is unfair.