Seriously. If a woman passes the test and joins the army they are already outting there life on the line. Excluding people because they have a second X chromosome is kind of silly if the person want to join the front line. What if we banned African Americans because they had extra melanin even though they pass the tests.
In the armed forces, the main aim always should be defending our country with unity. So women should take place in the army to show our power. In this way, everyone on the earth will understand and accept that we are the strongest ones. Do not forget that women and men are always EQUAL!
Why wouldn't you let them as long as they pass the requirements that everyone else has to pass there is no reason to exclude them if they decide to risk their lives in combat. Women and men work together in just about everything else. Women are used in combat roles in various other countries without any problems.
Allowing women to serve on the battlefield shows the truth in our very own Constitution: that all men are created equal. If women weren't allowed to serve the country they love, it wouldn't be constitutional. Simply put, give women the chance to serve. If they want to fight on the front lines or just be in the military, don't take away that right.
Okay just because they have a body part that is different then a male one doesn't give the guys in the government the right away to hold back female rights. Now I'm positive that if the "Big Man" (Brock) would stand up for you ladies this would be a better life for all people to have equal rights.
Women go through the same training as men and it has been proven that women feel pain more intensely then men. Which means for whatever amount of pain men feel going through training, women feel double that because of their high estrogen levels. And for those that think women can't handle the blood and bodies...have you ever seen the amount of blood during childbirth or the countless pictures of battered and abused women when they are taken into custody for questioning. Did you know that some women loose enough blood during their menstrual cycles that they hemorrhage? It is not a matter of whether or not women can handle the death and bodies exploding. It's a simple question of whether or not the men can handle seeing a women's bodies explode? Army wives can replay the deaths of their husbands over and over again in their heads, but men mentally just can't handle it...why? Because women are pretty, weak, young things...because you're reminded of your mother, sister, best friend, life partner every time you see a woman. As if army wives don't go through that same mental marathon everyday. I'm starting to think army wives and women are stronger than the soldiers fighting. I hate to stereotype, but I am a person of color (not that that makes it okay), if your Hispanic, Black, Latino (however you identify) did your momma never "discipline" (cough, cough) you as a child. I know mine sure did. She handled herself just fine and I made it out alive. And what did my daddy do? Watched TV all day. -.- SMH. So who can't handle what now?!
We are all the same. Women are strong, they pull their weight. Just like men, I have seen women do the same thing men do and better. They're smarter, it is a fact! Men are the ones saying no to them fighting, because women could do it better, much better.
Because women need rights and its their choice if they want to go out to war and risk THEIR life......... They risk their to save us and were trying to make them not able to ? We don't own them, and they deserve the right to become a hero. Its not fair to them
The quote "All men are created equal." Wo'man' has man in it. So therefore women should do what they choose too. A soldier is a soldier. If they want to risk their life for their country, then let them do it. Women from a long time ago wanted their rights and they earned their rights, so why not let them?
I think women should go to war because they train for the same thing as men. Women can also carry their own weight. If you let women fight, you can always pair up a girl with another girl because if one were to get shot the other could carry her out.
of course women should be able to serve in equal combat roles as men. The whole thing sounds completely sexist to me. woman can do anything men can do, but we can do it in high heels. If a woman is willing to help serve her country are and wants to be in combat, who are you to deny her from serving her country.
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any other State on account of sex.” These words, taken directly from the nineteenth constitutional amendment, apply almost directly to the women in combat policy debate, and describe how a lawsuit should completely vote in the favor of women’s ability to serve in combat. However, some have protested in fear of a decline in military effectiveness. Having women relations that are served or are currently served in our nation’s military, this topic is important to me, Women should, without a doubt, be allowed in combat, regardless of gender differences, especially if women meet the physical standards.
Many people would disagree with my statement. They fear that if the policy is changed, military effectiveness will decline due to requirement changes made to suit both genders. What these people overlook is that women and men are completely different from each other. Men are generally larger and smaller; women are small (they can fit into tighter spaces) and lighter on their feet. Even if these points are overlooked, the average times for the military two-mile run test for both men and women are separated by only about two minutes. They also fear that women are more likely to be caught and raped by an opponent, but military courses are taught on self-defense and problem solving. If a woman makes it into a combat position, shouldn’t they already know how to protect themselves, fight back and avoid this problem?
These people had the same fears when African-Americans and homosexuals were allowed into combat. However, nothing drastic happened and the military is still just as effective, so it’s safe to say that the same will happen if women are allowed into combat, nothing drastic. There are also women in prominent community roles such as police officers, firefighters, DNR officers, lawyers, medical scientists, etc. These women risk their lives often to save the lives of the citizens of our nation. With them saving lives and enforcing the law, putting them into combat shouldn’t be done with hesitation. Especially now that women can get into any career that they qualify for, the policy can be dropped.
I remember when I was younger, my grandfather telling me about how my grandmother saved many lives in World War 2 and Vietnam as a military nurse. I am sure that many people can say the same about their families. It is very important that women become recognized in the military, to honor of our women relatives who’ve served under the hands of men. Another problem is that many women officers cannot move up in status due to restrictions in the combat policy.
War and combat are still terrible things that should be avoided, but if a woman wants to voluntarily join in and fight for her country, she should be able to, because in America, we have equality. If these equality laws are ignored, it can be considered unconstitutional and, in my eyes, unlawful. Women should be allowed in combat, regardless of policies and gender differences.
Isn't this country a free country? Well if this is a free country then women should be able to be in the armed forces and help protect our country. If this mighty country is what it is supposed to be then they should treat women fairly and let them help. This country is also about equality. Not letting women put themselves on the front line just like men is not making this country equal. Let women fight and this country will become even stronger than it was before just because women are being treated as equals to men. Just because we are women doesn't mean that we aren't just as strong as men. If we push ourselves just as men push themselves, if we train just as men train then we can be just as strong as men. There should never have been that stereotype that says men are stronger than women because that is not true. If women want to be strong then they can. If women want to fight for our country then they should be able to. Men are not the only people on this planet that can fight. Women should be able to fight. Yes this world needs women to reproduce, but we need men just as much as we need women.
Why should we restrict women in doing what they want? We're in a new generation where women have the same rights as men. Equal right means that women can do what they want as long as it is not beyond the law. Not all women are weak. In fact, many women are stronger than men in terms of physical strength.
For centuries woman have been an important part of the war. They worked as nurses and helped in the medical field. Women would serve on battle submarines, fly fighter planes and carry machine guns. The one thing they couldn't become is a front line solider. The US military has been around since 1775 and now after all these years for the fist time they are allowed to fight in the front lines. I agree that women should fight in the front line, if they fit the criteria as a front line soldier.
Why shouldn't women have equal rights? Why cant we fight for pride and justice? Why shouldn't women be able to serve their country with pride? Men may say that women are weak and feeble, but we really aren't. Men have tunnel vision, they only focus on what they are meant to do. Whereas we women, are able to look outside the box and come up with other plans in case one of our previous ones doesn't take place properly. We live in a world where, financial independence, equal pay and employment opportunities for women are all backed up by the law. With rights come responsibilities. Women that sign up to serve their country's don't expect it to be all flowers and rainbows out in the field. When we sign up we know that every back street, every market place, every playground is a war ground. We do not expect people to make exceptions just because we are women, we realize that there are dangers in war. Women can endure double the amount of pain a man can, we go through child birth, we put up with our periods every month. Like any job, employee's are picked because of their qualities and skills. It's the same in the forces, soldiers are picked because of their qualities and skills. Women can have many different skill's. Why shouldn't women be allowed to fight in combat along side men? The question isn't in what the women can do, it's what the men will think of it. Women deserve to be treated equally to men. We don't join the forces and expect everyone to bow down to us. We want the same respect a soldier would give another soldier. I hate the fact that women are stereo typed as weak, feeble, emotional humans. Its 2013, women haven't fought for all these freakin' years, it's time for a change. And a good change too.
The opposition's argument is that women are weak and can't take care of themselves. I've yet to see proof of that. I've beaten up and taken on many men in my life, and I'm 5'3". I know a lot of women who are a lot stronger than I am, who have taken men on in fist fights and come out victorious. I have seen what women are capable of, and we are much stronger both emotionally and physically than men give us credit for. I am not a feminist in any way, just a woman who wants to serve her country and support a family. I believe I am very capable of doing so. As far as sexual abuse in the military goes, I've never served over seas, so I can't say for certain what it's like. I've faced sexual abuse domestically many times and I've moved on from it. To put it crassly being hurt like I was sucks, but the tortures I've heard inflicted on male POWs in war are so much more horrifying than any of my own personal experiences. The only thing that I agree with the opposition on is that standards should not be lowered for women, and as a woman I find those lowered standards offensive. I can easily meet the men's standards and I know many women who can surpass them. There should be one set standard and if a human being regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation meets those standards they should be allowed in combat. If they don't they shouldn't. Our military would be much improved if we became blind to gender .
Men and women are equal. So why do men have different rights? Women have the right to choose, so why don't they have that option? Yes I know that back in the old days, women stayed at home and cooked, cleaned, and took care of the children. But it is obvious that our world is much more evolved then it was back then. Yes, men are the stronger sex, but if women want to serve in combat, they should at least have that option.
Just because women look weaker doesn't mean they are. If we believe we can do something as good as a guy then we go for it? There shouldn't be a debate on whether or not we should be in the military. Everyone should be in the military if they want to be, no matter the race or gender, or physical strength.
Women are just as strong and smart as men, maybe even better. If a women wants to be in combat then let her. If not what's the point of her being in the military? A lot of women are good use to the military just because we are females and have breasts doesn't mean anything.
Just because we are women doesn't mean that we weak and fragile. We are strong and powerful human beings, like men. It doesn't matter what sex you are, if you want to do something and you are willing to work hard for it, then you have as good a chance as anybody else does. It's not right to judge us because we are supposed to be stay at home moms, taking care of the kids and pleasing their husbands. I personally think that that is sick and wrong. No woman should be humiliated that way. We have rights and feelings and we deserve to be heard and paid attention to. We are amazing and beautiful and no matter what anyone tells you that will never change. You might be different but it's ok to let your true colors shine and you should never be something or someone just because someone else wants you to be or excepts you to be. I personally am planning to get a degree in the trades. I am going to work towards being an auto mechanic, even though it's a "man's job." I am also debating if I want to go into the Air Force after I graduate high school. But one things for sure, no man will ever hold me back from doing what I love and adore. I will be me and shine bright. Remember girls, you are not a black hole that needs to be filled, you are a light that needs to shine!!
Being in the military is a desire that a person has. This desire and skill has nothing to do with the gender of that person. Women and men both are capable of being in combat. It simply depends on that person's desire and training. Combat is combat, and the sex of the person does not matter at all.
The archaic idea that we need to sheild women from the evils of our enemies which only they can experience, is wrong. Women aren't the only ones who get raped by the enemy. Women end up in combat anyway. At least they should be able to avoid a glass ceiling at home.
Women are physically and mentally strong just like men. Commander Sergeant Major Derek Bahn said ''working with females is like working with me, they show courage, skill, and patriotism." Women have the right to be n the front lines of the army. You would not tell a black or Hispanic person that they cannot be in combat so why would you discriminate a women. I urge you to change your vote yes!
Being a woman that was in the military I can tell you that we can do just about everything that a man can do as long as we get the training to do so. Women today are not meek little weak things like women where very many years ago we are strong and proud and want to serve our country just like men do yes women should be allowed to fight in combat roles in the military if they so do choice too.
Just because were females does not mean that we are not fit for the same job as men. We're pretty good at what we do and if we weren't fit for the job we wouldn't be able to make it through bootcamp because we do everything men do. Therefore we should be allowed. Equality? I think yes.
It is a sad statement on society when people still think women cannot do the same work as a man. I am male, but I feel if a woman wants to fight for their country, they should be able do do that. No matter what. More power to people that don't let others put them down because of prior bias.
Women should be allowed to serve in the army, that's final. The main argument is that women would be "incapable of defending our country". I'm sorry, but have you seen what the US army has done to "defend your country". Sure, they've done some stuff, but nothing so major that it becomes a "mens only" club. Oh, and have you met a woman who wants to join the army? Well, let me put it into retrospect. They're hardcore. Would you really look a chick with a punk haircut, a few scars, and a sarcastic attitude, and tell them that "You can't join the army because you're a girl."?
Women on the home front are patriots as much as any man wielding a gun; they must bear the responsibilities and duties alone in many cases. Not nearly enough are women recognized for the duties they endure on a daily basis when their country is at war. Though our returning soldiers are indeed patriots and heroes to our country, women need that choice. If they can suffer from wars, feel the repercussions, or support the efforts of their nation, then they must also be allowed to serve it as personally as men can. Their fight is equal to men’s; it is unfair to glorify the service of men if the service is based from exclusivity.
Yes women should be allowed to serve front line roles because its equal and fair and women tend to be better shooters than men 9 times out of 10 and many women are able bodied and strong enough to fight so who are men to say no they have the same training and they are equally qualified?
If a female has the physical ability to overcome the requirements to be allowed in the armed forces, they should have the same opportunity to proudly serve their country, alongside males Increasingly, battlefield technical expertise and decision-making skills are more valuable assets for modern warfare. With women being allowed to serve in combat situations, military says they will not lower their requirements.
Another argument is that women will affect moral and cohesion by causing unnecessary problems involving relationships. Creating relationships will add more stress to an already stressful situation and take away their focus. Also break ups or sexual assault will tear a unit in two. This is a delicate situation and one that does not apply to the majority of either women or men. Although, these problems do happen we should take necessary precautions and then deal with the results because a mistake from a minority should not hinder a whole gender. Arguing that men will no longer be able to focus on the task at hand and will try to pamper women on the battle field; however, may I make the argument that we are all adults? If men are affected by a female’s presence, I suggest they keep it in their pants and focus on the job at hand. Also, for years women have had to live and work in close proximity on battle ships without causing the Navy to sink. Looking state side, in law enforcement men and women are partners and rely on each other during high stress and life threatening situations. Police officers are a prime example how men and women trust each other and can have each other’s back without breaking partner unity.
Today as we are still a military presence in the Middle East, women in the military have been proven to be extremely helpful. Women have been oppressed in many countries around the world and have begun to fear and avoid men. Typically, they will bond and trust a woman, rather than a male. This helps protect the women and her family and can help the military. Allowing women to serve on the front creates a more diverse unit and would double the amount of people who have interpersonal skills needed in such sensitive situations, which not every soldier has.
By withholding women from the front will hinder career advancement. Usually combat duty is a precursor needed for advancement in the armed forces. Denying females from combat experience will assure that few women will make full career advancement. Excluding these applicants would then further ensure sexism. Also, this could possibly lead to accepting a candidate that would not be as useful as another, just because of their gender. It is our duty to put the best person in place for the job, by excluding gender is not just unfair and unjust, but could possibly to disastrous effects.
Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary, says, “Not everyone is going to be able to be a combat soldier, but everyone is entitled to a chance.”
While serving in Iraq we had women on the front line because there was not really a front line. We even had female gunners on convoys. They train the same way that the men do so they have earned the right to fight in a combat role. I would trust them with my life.
Women are scientifically proved to be more flexible. The only reason not to let women fight is sexism. Women have all the same rights as men do, they should be able to fight if they're physically good. If women can pass physical tests, why shouldn't they be able to fight? Letting women fight brings more protection. What does having a penis matter when fighting? Let women fight.
Women should be allowed to participate and fill combat roles. Men can, why can't women? I get it, women don't have as much stamina or strength as men do, but if they want to go out there and serve for our country, who has the right to tell them no? Obviously, men still have more of a right than women do. You're saying they're equal and have the same rights. Not true. It's in plain sight! Women SHOULD have the right to fill combat roles, but they don't. Oh look what we have here. Men can fight but women cannot? I'd say that's quite unfair.
Look at Margaret Corbin and Molly Pitcher! They went to combat. Taking over for their husbands when they had been wounded.
And two men having to automatically leave their posts when a woman is injured? That is absolutely ludicrous. Why not just base the number of men that are needed on the woman's condition?
Women should be allowed in combat. If they sign up and then are killed, then it's their own problem because they made that choice in the first place. Women don't need to be babied. Except for... Of course... When it comes to their emotions. But seriously, ever put a woman PMSing with an M-4? It's guaranteed that someone of the opposite team would die or be wounded. It's dangerous for a woman, yes, because of the hygiene and having monthly periods, but why not just have the women on their periods stay on base or something until the week of bleeding is over? A problem that many would think would occur is: what if the woman lies?
Have urination tests done. It isn't that difficult.
And then there's the case of rape and sex and all of that. That's twisted. It happens all the time in our everyday world. We can't really put a stop to it. Everyone thinks that if someone rapes another someone in the military, it's such a shame and disgrace. But if it happened on the outside, if the same thing happened but they weren't in the military? It's still a shame and disgrace but apparently "not as bad" as a case where it was rape in the military. You CANNOT really stop the crime! There are sick and twisted pigs out there, both men and women. Yeah, they chose to serve our country but what makes it that much more of a difference? Put a stop to rape on the outside of the military before hounding the troops and letting that stop women from fighting.
Both women and men have the right to fight for your country. If it's their passion, don't stop them from advancing towards it.
Women can serve in the combat roles without screwing any missions up. They can do just as much as a man only they are more flexible while men are more muscular. I really don't have any problem as long as they meet the physical standards. Just being huge with big muscles is not so important when fighting or out in open fire, it also includes strategy and the use of your brain. If a man was going up against a female, the male would underestimate the female so technically this is an added advantage.
Women deserve to be in the military. Women are equal and deserve respect. Women are very strong individuals and go through the most pain ever, giving birth. Women can be just as strong and are beautiful individuals. Many women have served in the military and apparently it is working because we are safe right now.
Women should be in the military, because they can do everything a man can do. If they all have the same training they should have the same choice in jobs. The military should be based on ability and training, not gender. A soldier is a soldier, why should it matter if it is a female or a male? Females have the same amount of determination as men do, they should be able to fight for their country. I feel offended that some people think us women shouldn't be protecting our country and family; I am a female that is in the United States Navy, and if I want to fighting, then I will; I know that I can keep up with a man during training, I should have the option.
Because women need rights and its their choice if they want to go out to war and risk THEIR life......... They risk their to save us and were trying to make them not able to ? We don't own them, and they deserve the right to become a hero. Its not fair to them
In my opinion, I think women should be allowed in combat because I think women have the same rights as men. Just because we are women, doesn't mean we are weak and fragile. Women can be just as courageous as men. Women are already in the army, and there is no need to change this right. If they truely want to fight for out nation then let them.
You hear the shot of a gun. BAM! You look around and watch all the men around you fight to the death. They key word here is “men.” Never, when in battle, would you see women holding guns and fighting alongside the men. Why is this? Are women too feminine to fight; do they not have the courage men have? I believe not. Women are just as courageous as men (if not more) and also just as powerful. I think the real reason women haven’t been allowed in combat is because there are still people in this world who truly believe men are more superior than women. Being a woman myself, I find this situation ridiculous and unfair. If there are women who are just as strong, powerful, and courageous as men, then why not let them help defend our country? After all, America is made up of over 50% women. Moreover, we need to keep the policies involving women in combat, and instead focus on how we can further improve them.
Do you remember the Holocaust? What about when African Americans weren’t allowed to attend public schools? These are two examples of a time our world has participated in discrimination. Because events like the Holocaust were so terrible, our teachers constantly remind us that we have worked past discrimination, and that an event such as the Holocaust will never be repeated. If this is true, then why do people still make “black jokes?” Why do kids refer to each other as “Jews” or call things “gay?” Why (until recently) were women not allowed in combat? These are all forms of discrimination that even US citizens face every day. I say “even US citizens” because America is supposedly a “free country.” However, even though we are a “free country,” women still have not been able to participate in combat like men have. This is preposterous, because a lot of the other jobs in the military that women perform are also life risking; one hundred and fifty-two women have died in the past two wars. All that this restriction really did was hold women back, because it is extremely hard for women to advance positions in the military without participating in combat. This rule was unfair, so I find it perfectly appropriate that it was revised. It now needs to stay the way it is.
In addition, women have courage. Women love to stand up for what is right. I am a woman, and personally, I love to fight if I believe it is for the better. In this perspective, women are stronger than men. If you had women out on the battlefield, it would give our army a whole new energy and dynamic, especially because the women who are there truly want to be there. Plus, it’s more soldiers – forget about their gender! We should be glad to get as many combatants as possible. Women are going to be there to help aid our country, so we need to appreciate their efforts and let them do just that.
Speaking of appreciating one’s efforts, it is very important that we acknowledge both women and men who put their lives at stake to defend our country. Using physical aspects to downgrade the importance of women’s efforts in the military is not an appropriate way of thanking our women for what they do. Each person in the military is there for a reason, and they all have to pass a physical test to be accepted into combat. With that being said, why is it still such a big deal to some people that women “may not be strong enough” to be in the military? Physical strength is of huge importance when entering combat, and I can assure you that women also must prove themselves physically capable. Another major complaint that non-supporters have is that having women participate during our wars will make it an awkward situation for the men. After all, where will they “relieve themselves (without being uncomfortable)?” Showering is a problem as well. Contrasting views state women will have too much of a problem with the possibility of not showering for long periods of time. These opinions are biased; many of these people are men who think all women care about is their appearance. Although I am aware that it may be uncomfortable at first between women and men, it does not change the fact that war is war. When our soldiers are fighting for their lives, their stench and personal privacy will seem of incredibly low importance. The same issue was brought up when African Americans were first brought into combat. Never less, the concern was overruled. This is because we are all citizens of the same country combating for the same cause. Nothing will change that fact, whether we are women, men, Jews, Christians, African Americans and the like. Moreover, let’s stop rebelling against each other and instead start functioning together. We are citizens of the United States of America!
Ultimately, giving women a chance to prove themselves in combat is one of the best changes made in the military in a long time. With proper courage, physical buildup, and support, women will help strengthen our military for the better. All we need to do is join forces to let women know they can be free to attempt working in combat if they aspire it, for we are known as a free country. In conclusion, the next time you hear the “boom” of a gunshot, I hope you can look over your shoulder and know that it could be a man or a woman that is the one to have your back.
There's no such thing as equal while being graded on a curve.
The double standard protects women in ways their not even aware of so give them what they want. For decades feminism has argued equality and do a way with the double standard so serve equality to them by making it a requirment.
Society has marginalize and devalued men for decades. I think this is good way to truly get in the heads of women that equal doesn't mean treat me like a girl when it's convenient.
In the United States Constitution it states that you cannot discriminate because of race, religion, GENDER, that gives them the right to fight in the military. It also states that you have the freedom of choice, so if that choice is to join the military then women should be allow to fight on the front lines. We also have life, liberty and the right to pursue happiness, if going into the military makes a woman happy she should be allowed to. For these reasons we stand against stopping women from fighting on the front lines of a war.
If a woman wants to be in combat then she should be allowed to be in combat! The argument that women are weaker is the most ridiculous thing I have heard! If a woman is physically capable and mentally capable then she should allowed! According to some people if a man saw a woman get shot it would be more emotional than seeing a man but seriously, that's stupid, f you want to join the army then you are capable of seeing both sexes getting shot at and/or killed.
The women want to serve our county just as much as men so why not let them they should be judged by skills not gender its not your life its theirs if they want to take the risk like men What is the difference nothing is so women should be allowed its offense to not be allowed to serve Ur country
Although some people still believe that women should not be allowed in combat, women have the right to. All men are created equal... and that includes women. Anyways, they are fighting for their country. Fighting for their freedom!!! So I say YES let the woman in combat! LET THEM FIGHT!
I'm all for fairness and equality in the military. If a woman can do combat jobs as well as, or better than, men, she should be able to. However, they should also be expected to meet the same physical fitness requirements as men. As of right now, women do not have to meet the same standards, they're much lower. For example, for the 17-21 age range men have to complete 42 push-ups within 2 min, 53 sit-ups within 2 min, and a 2 mile run within 15:54 min, in order to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test with a minimum score. Women on the other hand only need to complete 19 push-ups, 53 sit-ups, and a 2 mile run within 18:54 to pass. In the Marines, men do pull ups but the ladies are not expected to do the pull ups. That might be America's definition of equality, but I believe its discrimination. It discriminates against the males who have to do more in order to pass the test. Why should the guys have to do 42 pushups and lots of pullups whereas the ladies only have to do 19 and no pullups?
I think women should be allowed to join combat, because I think if a women really wants to join the combat they should be allowed to join whenever they want to just like men. I think they should be allowed because we should be treated equally and have the same rights as men.
i think they should be in war because they are human and we are all the same. Everybody should be able to go into war no matter if you are a women or man and be able to experience whatever they want, no matter gender.
We as humans are born into a world which provides an equal opportunity for everyone. Supposedly. Lifting this ban on women will do more good than harm. Yes everything that involves the military will have it's downsides but we need to take that risk. Women are here and are the threads that hold this country together we should at least let them fight.
Because they have a life they want to make a difference in the word too! They want to be there for there friends. They have right to fight next to a man! They have the same training as a man. They both took the same workout they know how to think like a man! They have skill!
The only reason that there is any argument on this issue is because we haven't yet fully confirmed in our society that sex doesn't define who we are and what we are capable of. A popular argument against this is that men see women differently, so they are a distraction. This is a weak argument because it argues that the deficiency of the male should prevent women from serving at equal capacities.
If woman are put on equal footing of men in the military, they will be getting combat assignments. They could still volunteer for combat, just like the men, but they could also get assigned a front line slot, just like the men....whether they want one or not. No opting out. If equality is the target, let it be truly equal.
Women should be allowed to serve in equal combat roles so long as they are able to meet the qualifications that the military sets for in training for all soldiers. There is absolutely no difference in the capabilities of an equally matched man versus a women, and to disallow women from combat is the limit the advancement in the military careers of all women.
Okay, sure women are as tough as men in many ways, blah, blah, blah. The cold hard truth is that very few females are capable of meeting the physical requirements for infantry duty. Placing every female who displays an interest in combat duty would be irresponsible and would be doing that service member a great disservice; to say nothing of compremising the infantry ranks. A recent experiment conducted by the U.S. Marine Corps Officer Candidate School in Quantico, VA resulted in two exceptionally qualified and fit females failing to complete "basic" infantry training course. I agree in providing combat duty opportunity for females. Versatility is strength and females have much to offer. However, this opportunity should not come at the cost of lowering the qualifying standards necessary for combat duty, for infantry and the like.
I am a woman currently serving in the U.S. Army. I have been through my training and have witnessed first hand how women are just as strong if not stronger than some men. Physical fitness is not a physical thing it is a mental thing. As for the manipulation of the weapons, my mos is small arms repair. I have male friends in the military who handle weapons far slower than i do. Plus i no what it is like to drag a male solider off the battle field. In training they showed us how to use as little muscle as possible to remove a male solider. I am 140lbs at "5'4", I had to drag a 210lbs "6'3" male solider to safety.
Women deserve to be cannon fodder just as much as any of my male friends. It'd be great if some chick fell on a grenade for me! Who'd feel guilty about that? You girls better watch out because I'm totally embracing this gender equality thing next time I have a choice between protecting you or myself!
This is the 21st century... I can't even believe this question has to be asked. Clearly if a woman proves she can handle herself in combat just like men have to then she should be allowed to serve in the military. What does having 2 x chromosomes have to do with defending your country?
Women make more troops and help injured soldiers. Women and men are equal so women should be allowed to share their opinion if they want to be in combat. Some may say women reproduce but they did not think about it carefully because children need a father in addition to a mother.
With equal training, women should be allowed equal opportunity as men in the armed forces, no matter the field. They can be just as strong as men. Period + gun = unstoppable. So yes, they should be allowed. It would not be equal if we said that they could not.
I see no reason why a women should be denied the right to fight on the front lines with every other soldier. THIS IS ONLY PERMISSABLE IF the women can preform every action that the men can (including the fitness test). if women are fighting for equality then they should have to test EXATLY THE SAME AS MALES, no exceptions. There should also be a fraterization clause. if one male soldier is caught having romantic relations with a female soldier, there should be punishment to the ferthest extent. The "dont ask, dont tell" rule DOES NOT APPLY to opposit sexes because there can be severe circumstances (pregnancies for instance), and when a soldier leaves his/her company, it is up to the company to deal with one less soldier and pick up the slack. other than this i see absolutly no reason at all why not.
Women are as equally strong willed and level headed as men. Men think they are stronger but in what way? Women should be allowed in combat. My mother has served for 22 years and is stronger inside and out than many men. In conclusion, women should be allowed in combat.
I feel that women should be allowed to serve in equal combat roles in the armed forces. There is no reason that women should be delegated to roles that barely allow them to serve in almost any useful capacity in the military. We should all experience equality in the work place, and the United States government has failed in this department.
Women can take combat roles if they are individually capable of fighting. There are some women that shouldn't have combat roles, but there are also some men that shouldn't. Women are slighter of stature than men, mostly, but do possess other qualities that would be a benefit in combat, and a person's stature does not determine if they can shoot or operate some of the equipment and women's decisions sometimes can be more practical and based less on emotional impulse.
I know for a fact that women are just as capable of fighting along side of men in combat and armed forces. The U.S.A. always preaches about equality among the people, but yet they still deny women that 'equality'. Everyone's says that women are weaker and don't have the same endurance as men, but that is was training camp is for. To build up the strength and endurance that is needed. If a woman wants to go into the armed forces, let her. But just make sure to tell her what to expect and if something happens than to deal with it. And not all women are in there for sexual relationships, some are there because the want to help to fight for peace and for their country. There are some men like that in there too, only looking for the chance to get and a woman's bed, so fix all that blame on the women.
I do believe that women should be allowed to perform the same combat roles in the armed forces. I do not see why they wouldn't be able to. If they are accepted into the military the same as a man then they should be treated equal. The military should have to be a fair and equal hiring place like all the other businesses have to be.
Today's battlefield is technology driven. Battles are fought using automatic weapons, tanks, ships, and aircraft. Physical strength is no longer the primary requirement for effective war fighting. Women behind these modern weapons are every bit as deadly as their male counterparts.
Women have every freedom now that men have right? Wrong. Women in today's society are still being prejudiced against in today’s world. They are not allowed to fight for the country in which they live and believe in. Most women in combat have the same training, experience and have passed the same tests as men have and should be allowed to express their desires to protect their loved ones if they are qualified.
Everyone is allowed to fight in combat. It shouldn't even matter what gender the person is. In addition, women go and trained at the same bass. To continue, the same equipment is shared through out the solders. For example, in the 1800s when women fought the generals were shocked that women could fight just like men.
Women are very under estimated and gender should not determine the jobs one can have. I feel women should stand up for what we want. I feel that it should be a women's right to serve in the military and be treated equally. I believe in the saying, Behind every man is a hard working women. Which is true.
As women gain equal rights in nearly all areas of life, the military is one that, although it is opening, has traditionally been closed to them. Women are having an increasing role in our military, and should continue to do so. In fact, I believe in the interest of equality and fairness, women should be subject to the draft as well.
I am enlisted in the military, and I joined the army to serve my country, and not sit around while our men fight. I enlisted knowing all of the risks. Women who join are willing to risk their lives for their country, so why shouldn't they be able to serve in combat, some women are more willing then men are to fight.
Women should definitely be allowed in combat. There is so much proof that women are better than men. For example, in Canada women are allowed to go in the front lines and be in combat, and the military has improved! Also, people are lowering their kill rates because they are not prepared and everybody they referenced were men! Just do a requirement test and if the women pass, let them serve. If they don't, they don't. That's the way it should be! LET WOMEN IN COMBAT! ~sloane (yes I'm 13)
It is not fair or equal to prevent women from serving equal roles. It is sexist in that it says that women are incapable of fighting and should stay in the kitchen or can only support. So what if a woman has a risk of being raped in combat. So does a man! In addition, there are many women who are far more capable of leading troops and serving in combat situations than a multitude of men. It perpetuates the idea that women are weak and familiar. And a woman can lift 220 pounds so long as she trains hard enough & has the determination to do so. I can lift a 120 robot by myself without any assistive tools!
In addition, male fundamentalist Christian assholes are probably the only people who would think that a woman is incapable of serving in the armed forces at equal ability or even better than a man. They are a fringe group whose opinions are irrelevant and should always be ignored in all and any circumstances.
Seriously. If a woman passes the test and joins the army they are already outting there life on the line. Excluding people because they have a second X chromosome is kind of silly if the person want to join the front line. What if we banned African Americans because they had extra melanin even though they pass the tests.
Yes, men are stronger than women, but there are women who are stronger then men, and are you going to push them away because their sex? That is like judging some one by the color of their skin, and it's wrong. And your looking at this in one point of view, women never try to keep men from women dominant fields, so why should you.
I know a lot of marines are against this, but look if a women tries to get into combat, she isn't weak, she knows she could die, her emotional status is ready for what she going to see in combat. DO YOU want girls to restrict you from what you want to do, I'm just a teen I see what's right.
Back then men used to open doors for women. When a women got on a bus and all the seats were full a man would get up and give his seat to a women. Does that happen any more? No. We are equals. People say that women would get raped in combat if captured, but they could rape a man too. Women are going into combat to serve our country and we're going to let them. Smart, dumb, women, or not we do what we want because its our choice!
Females can fight just as well as men. And if they want to fight for this country, then let them. Also some say that we have a shortage in military, that we need more men. Well maybe men are not the answer. Plus the fact that one of our amendments say that women have rights just as men. Well one of those rights is fighting in the military, so why can't women?
Because women need rights and it's their choice if they want to go out to war and risk THEIR lives. They want to risk their lives to save us, and we're trying to make them not able to? We don't own them, and they deserve the right to become a hero. It's not fair to them.
Do you think women should be allowed in combat? Some people think yes, but some people think no. Reading articles in class is how I found out about this issue. If men are allowed to fight in combat, women should be allowed to as well. We are no different than them.
For the opposing view, there are a few understandable arguments. Women are more vulnerable than men, but that does not mean that women should not be allowed to do something. If you are going to keep women from combat they should be kept from being a police officer; the same things could happen there. If a woman knows what she is getting into she should be allowed to do it.
Since when does gender decide the strength of someone? There are plenty of strong women, and on the other side there are plenty of weak men. Strength and weakness can be measured emotionally, physically and mentally. There is no evidence that says that women can’t handle combat. This just shows that this should not be a general law but up to the individual and their strengths.
This issue is one that we should not be voting on; this should be an individual’s choice. If they meet the requirements it should be up to them. I don’t want a group of individuals in Washington D.C. that have never met me, and know nothing about me deciding if I should be allowed to pursue the career of my choice. Do you?
If men are allowed to fight in combat, women should be too. We are no different. Just because we are no vulnerable does not mean we should be kept from our dream. Think about that!
They are strong enough, and if they are not, they can train with the men, and become stronger, or even stronger than the men. They do not do any danger to the war, and they are volunteering to risk their lives for America! Why would you not let somebody risk their lives for you! It has to be a women, because men are too scared to go into war! At least we have some people in war! Men aren't the only heroes, women can be heroes too!
When I learned that so much debate surrounded this subject, I was both surprised and horrified. If a woman is physically able to serve such combat roles, who are we to stop her? If she is not physically able, she should not serve in such a position, same if a man is not physically able he should not serve in such a position.
The fact is, times are changing. You just need to get over that fact and get on with life.
We live in the 21st century! We women have fought long and hard to be considered equal in society and part of that equality is being able to be able to fight in combat. Women love America just as much as men and we want to be able to fight to defend it just like anyone else.
Because they are equal to men. They might not be as strong but they can still shoot a gun and they can be great leaders. They also can be good at close hand combat. This is why I think they should be allowed in military with men equally. I vote yes.
I know nothing about combat or the risks of war, but what I do know is that any woman can do that same thing men can do. They can lift heavy equipment and even shoot firearms! So I think that women should be able to go into combat and risk their own lives for their countries.
Why should we restrict women in doing what they want? We are already in the new generation that believes women should have the equal rights as men. It means that they are allowed to do as long as it is not beyond the law. Not all women are weak. And nowadays women are stronger than men even in physical strength.
There is a huge difference between men killing men and women killing men that nobody is seemingly noticeing, Let me explain. In order to kill your enemy you must first demonize and vilify them so that you can hate them so that you are willing to kill them. Because most miltaries are overwhelming made up of men they after having demonized and vilfied other men they do not have to face the adjustment when they return to cilvian life of having to form loving relatonships with the very gender they had to demonize and vilfy.
However when women soldiers return to cilvilain life they will have the difficult task of being exspected to form loving relationships with the very gender they had demonized and vilified and hated enough to kill on the battle field.
One of the reason we have so much violence by men directed aganist men is because America is a nation constantly at war trainning men to kill other men. Why would we exspect women to behave any differently than men who have been trained to do violence to men?
Also we should be trying to keep more people from having to kill people. So far we have managed to shield women from this most of insane things people do. Lets keep it this way by not alowing women to learn the art of killing men!!
We live in the 21st century not the 1600's there is a major difference. Not all women think that its the mans job to protect us. I would enlist if I didn't have dreams already set up. Women are just as accurate with a weapon as a man. Actually women are more accurate than a man because they have a natural pocket. And they that a steadier hand.
If a women is willing to go out and fight in combat, then they should because that's another person willing to fight for America. It's their life, their choice. I was always taught if you're going to be stupid, you have to be tough. Women have just as much rights as a man they should be able too choose for themselves what they want to do.
If a Female wants to serve then fine let them serve. But don't give them an advantage over men, just because they are weaker. For instance in the military a 19 year old male and female in order to get a perfect score on their physical assessment test must run 3 miles. Males have to do it in 18:30, and Females only have to run it in 19:45 to obtain the same score. How is that fair to the men that are more physically fit than women?
Women that take a step farther and pass the physical and fitness part of training and boot camp at a mans level should have the same opportunities as that man in combat. They have proven not only to themselves but to others that they are just as fit if not fitter than that of the opposite sex.
They absolutely should because they care about us and if there are more, the bigger the better! Iiiiiiit's not fair to them that just because theyre girls they can't go! They have every right! They want to save our country and make it better for all of us. So yes!
In the U.S. constitution it states that there can not be any discrimination because of race, religion, gender, etc. Therefore it is against what we stand for to say no to women in combat. We also have the freedom of choice that should let women chose to go into the military,
Why should gender decide whether or not a person could fight to defend their country? I don't see why woman shouldn't be able to be in direct combat. The fact that a soldier is a woman doesn't automatically mean that she is weak and frail. That's just prejudice, and stereotypical. Women may seem weak and helpless, but that isn't true about all women! Not all men are good soldiers, but they get to fight for their country. Women are strong people and deserve to fight for their freedom. Woman love their country too. They want to defend it, as well. Yes, woman and men have many differences, but everyone is a person, and deserves equal rights. Isn't that what America is all about? Freedom to do what you want, and everyone being equal! So why are we back tracking into the past and defying woman of their rights? Everyone is equal, and deserves equal rights to do what they want to do with their lives! Not all women want to stay at home, cooking and caring after kids! They want to fight, too! So why are you holding them down with your thumb? Let woman fight, and protect your country! We are all equal, and should be able to do the same thing
I thnk that women should be allowed to go into war and go into combat. Why shouldn't they? They know what's coming for them, they know what could happen if their captured in war, they know all of that. Women are just as prepared as men mentally and physically. So why not thet them make their choice without being limited? They should be able to pic their cuter and continue what they love and to serve their country.
When we entered America, Thomas didn't write the constitution for no reason. It was for every man and women to have equal rights. The whole time women have been in the country we have been left out on everything. Voting, combat, specking our opinions. It's time for us women to stand up and defend our rights. I want to be on ground combat, and I don't care, I WILL.
If there is even one job that women are not allowed to do that men are than that can easily open the door to more inequality. We must be thinking about the future of the earth and humans as one people. No more ignorance, no more sexism, no more racism. Everyone would and should be able to have any position in job, even the military, if they prove that they are just as qualified and meet the standards. I believe that not only men should be drafted if need be but women as well. We are all one species, one element, the human element and the future is about choice and qualifications. If a woman wants to serve in a combat role and proves that she can then she should be able to, no question.
Women are just as versatile as men. Suitability for frontline combat does not simply come down to physique and physical strength. Stamina, emotional maturity,morale, discipline and sheer determination all play a big part in combat. As such, women would be selected,trained,"weeded-out"(just like some of the men) and then prepared for multi-role combat positions. Good soldiering means good survivability skills. Not all men make good soldiers, nor do all women.
If war were still hand-to-hand combat, a woman may not be able to perform as well as a man but it isn't any longer. Most often war is performed with guns and missiles which can be used by simply pulling or pushing a button. A woman can do this job as well as a man. And often a woman will have better judgment, not simply shoot up everything is sight.
1)People always claim the main difference between Women and Men is a disagreement in strength when arguing about the approval of Women in the infantry. However, it's also said that there are some Women who deemed themselves worthy of admission into combat. Naturally, Man compared to Man have very similar body structure, just as Woman is to Woman. The Women who proved their strength as great as any man or even greater are still first and foremost "Women"; meaning they were born just as any other girl and grew up with the same bodily structure. If a Woman (with the same bodily structure as any other Woman) decided to become strong and is apart of those Women who "deemed themselves worthy of combat", then it's narrowed down to only a matter of decision. Any one can grow strength and the limit is the sky, Women choose to simply get fit whilst Men choose to get physically stronger. That's why in our society, men look stronger. Think about how the world would be if Women cared just as much about getting strong as any Man. The best way to express this is that, if a Woman signs up for combat then she knows how dangerous it is and knows what's required of her. There should be no difference of gender as long as the requirements and skills are reached, after all that is the only important thing in the end. 2) People want different things, Women are the same; many of them want to join the combat roles and they shouldn't be prevented because of their gender. Women of the future will want this as well. I believe if the Women of now don't show their own aspect of strength, then the future will adapt to this. If a person proves their worth, Man or Woman, then they should be allowed to do what they proved themselves for. Skill, bravery, and strength are simply skill, bravery, and strength; every individual should be looked upon as an individual. Women and Men are individuals and they can be equal in skill, bravery, and strength if trained properly.
With equal training, women should be allowed equal opportunity as men in the armed forces, no matter the field. This is very important for future generations, as we have to teach our youth the importance of equality in society. If women want to be a part of combat positions, they should be able to be.
If a woman wants to fight in battle, let her. However, if women truly want equality in the battlefield, they should be held to the same physical standards as men and prove they can keep a level head in chaotic conditions. I find it sexist that many of the claims on the "no" side immediately go to rape, like men are some sort of barbaric animal that only thinks with their anatomy. I do believe that menstrual cycles will be a problem, as long as they allow certain birth-control pills that stop or slow down the cycle, that's fine with me.
Although it is true that many woman are raised to be fragile and dainty many others have been hunting, fishing, and doing "men's work" their whole lives. We can be just as mentally stable as men and are stronger than men in many physical areas. Ive always been more fit than men around me. We should be able to prove we are able to hold these positions instead of simply being told we cant.
As a woman I understand there are many things woman can do that men can do as well and vice versa. And yes I think women should be allowed in combat but standards shouldn't be lowered and exceptions shouldn't be made. I mean seriously if a woman is on the front line and has to preform some insane task and she can't do it because the standards were lowered that's what's not fair!
Girls can be just as strong and hard as any man! We have succeeded in everything else that is supposed to be a man's job, such as raising a son to be a good man. We do all this and get no credit. We could take down a whole army and it will still be wrong! That is what makes me mad. We can do ANYTHING we put our minds to.
Women are strong and they aren't given enough credit. With practice they can meet the physical requirement. There should be no problem and most of this is debate is based on sexist ideas and opinions. Men don't think that women can handle it but they're wrong. Women can be just as mentally strong as men if they try.
Women are just as strong as men if not stronger. One of the amendments states that women have equal rights to men. Not allowing women to fight would show how sexist this country still is. Some say that we have a rather small military; the men need all the help they can get.
Women should fight in the armed forces because women want to protect our country. Some people don't want women in combat because they think females won't be able to perform as well as men do in combat. I do not agree. Women should be able fight if they want; it's their decision to fight for our country. It's a life or death situation for both women and men who choose to fight for our nation's protection.
Women should be able to do whatever they feel like to do and they should have the same rights as men do because from I remember there was a law passed for womens rights. Sometimes women are tougher than some men are so maybe they should just let them fight.
Women who sign up for the armed forces should be allowed to serve in combat roles since that is why they want to sign up and defend their country. We should all be given the chance to prove that we are adequate to perform are duties. If in a combat situation a man or woman is not holding up to the military standard then they probably shouldn't be there.
Women should be allowed to serve in equal combat roles in the armed forces. However, I would qualify that statement with as long as they prove during training that they are capable of serving in such roles - just as men should have to prove themselves as well. The decision to serve in a combat role has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with whether a person is capable of living up to the expectations of that role.
Women have worked for so long to gain their rights and in this world we just want to be treated equal. If a women intends to enroll in the army or marines, WITHOUT saying they want to be a nurse of some sorts, then they want to fight and should almost be expected to. If a women does not enlist in the military, then they should NOT be expected to fight in a draft or any situation of the sorts.
Being a woman doesn't make you weak, physically or emotionally. I've met women who were stronger than me, and women who don't cry for anything, whether it's a broken bone or broken heart. The women who go to war know that they'll be pushed to their limits and won't be given any "special privileges" because of their gender. If anything, they'll be treated worse than men because of sexist stereotypes and beliefs. They're not going to go to the front line to play, they're going to go to fight for our freedoms that many of the "strong men" are too scared to fight for themselves. You're going to tell someone that they can't fight for their country because they don't have a piece of flesh hanging between their legs? Why does someone else have to make the choice for them? And why can't a human being, male or female, have the same rights another has? Women are fighting for MEN'S rights, yet women still don't have many of the rights they fight to protect.
Forget about physical strength, mental issues, and other fooey. If women lose their lives and limbs for this country like men do even when they're not in combat roles, then why are we holding back? Yes there are differences in physical makeup, but who cares? Try to state this argument to women bodybuilders who actually look like men! That stuff about girls grow up crying and emotional is bull. I was the BIGGEST tomboy when I was growing up and frankly I don't care about what others think. I hate it when people put women in gender roles, its 2012! Women didnt fight for all these freakin years to not be thought of as equal as men. America, its time for a change.
A man works half of his life to go into the military. He does boot camp, he does training everyday, does backbreaking work to shape him into a soldier. Now imagine if a girl does that. The results are the SAME! Everything is the SAME! They are all physically able! And men's bodies are not made for war. They are made equally to the woman!
Yes, they should. If a woman would rather fight than sit at home, let her. I have a lot of respect for them. I know many women that could hold their own during combat. People shouldn't underestimate them! After all, they've saved lives and won medals before. Why shouldn't they
I found everything on the "NO" side to be highly offensive. Women can be just as capable as men can. We can train hard we can be mentally hard as well. I want to join the Air Force Security Forces and I am a women. Does that mean Im not suited to hold a gun and fight along side men? We all (those who chose) want to go into the armed forces for a reason, to fight for our country. Women can do what ever they put there minds to, and they will achieve greatness. We weren't put on this earth to simply have kids and cook/clean for our husbands. We all have a purpose and if some women chose to put there life on the line for there country, than let them its there choice to make. I am extremely proud to be a women and will continue training and learning as much as possible so I may achieve my goals.
Some of you have asked, how could we maintain our population if we keep killing off all the women? Our world is currently grossly OVER POPULATED, we should have no problem maintaining a stable population and I am offended that you would think so many women could be killed on the front lines as to affect the population. Also there are significantly more women on earth than men so get over it. Others have said that women are not as physically as capable as men. Yes, it is a fact that if you compared a woman and a man at average health the man would be stronger, but not all men are at the top of their health and it is possible for a woman to be more fit than a man. Women are not the weaker sex! Fun Fact: women have a significantly higher pain tolerance than men, take that! Some of those against woman being in the military have even said we are less capable and we wouldn't fit in. That is because women having the same opportunities as men is a rather knew thing. Of course we wouldn't fit in people like you haven’t really given us a chance. Many of your arguments are based on the fact that women are emotionally weak and mentally wouldn't be able to handle it. If a woman wants to join the military then let them. There have been a plethora of cases where men have suffered from shell shock. You men might be physically stronger than women, but nobody said you had a superior mind. You are even using the fact that women should be protected and taken care of. When I want your help I'll ask for it thank you very much so keep your nose out of it. I'm not saying all women don't want that. A lot of us do, but that's not every woman's dream. Some would even say that putting a woman in the company of so many men is a bad idea because that puts her in danger and in all honesty it does, because some men have attempted and sometimes succeeded in rape. Whose fault is that really, the woman's or the man who decided to rape her? Those of us that want to join the military would rather do it without stepping on anybody's toes, but that is a challenge when so many people keep sticking their foot in the aisle hoping you'll trip.
There are fundamental physical differences between the sexes that bar the average woman from being equal to the average man in terms of combat capability. If a woman passes the exact same tests the men pass through to become a marine then by all means they should be a marine, but you should expect that there will always be fewer woman willing and able to pass them.
Over the past decades, women have "fought" their way into the Olympics after being told they were too "fragile" for physical competition, into our firefighter and police forces and into the boxing ring. In addition, women have an innate biological imperative to protect that makes them more than equal to males when it comes to defending their country.
The idea that 50% of the population should be barred from serving in an all volunteer military is absurd at best, suicidal at worst. By allowing women the opportunity to serve in combat roles as soldiers, possibly even as special forces operatives, we ensure that we as a nation don't inadvertently turn away some of our strongest, most competent candidates simply because of sex; it's stupid, insulting, and the antithesis of progress.
However I do believe we should approach with caution. Currently women and men have separate physical requirements with women on average being required to perform less than men. If combat roles, especially special forces positions, are to be made available to women, it is absolutely critical that we only allow women into those positions if they have the physical and mental capacity that we would demand from a male applicant. Not only would this be needed to avoid jeopardizing military effectiveness, it could also be used as a psychological remedy to the longstanding 'chivalry effect' wherein men have a natural instinct to devote an abnormal amount of strength and effort to keep a woman out of harm's way.
Why not? It is their own lives they are risking! They are making a better reputation for women. Women are supposed to know best, so take their advice when they say that they should be in combat, because they know what they are doing, and what is best protection for America. People always say that women know best, and maybe they do. Maybe women are better in combat than men are. You have to give women a chance to fight for themselves. Men can't be the only people who are heroes. Women are heroes, too!
Women need rights. It's their choice if they want to go out to war and risk THEIR life......... They risk theirs to save us and were trying to make them not able to ? We don't own them, and they deserve the right to become a hero. It's not fair to them
Women have been in the military for years and are just as capable as men. They go through the same physical and mental training that men do for the military. If they want to give there lives for their country, what right do we have to deny them that. Women go through things men could never even think about such as the nine month pregnancy and child birth.
Anything men can do, women can do better. We always make a way out of anything because "If there is will, there is a way." Fuck men. They think they're so strong and so much better than women. Um, no. If it weren't for women, then men would NOT even be here. Puh-lease! If men thought they could do something, they clearly thought wrong.
They should be because of the economy and the population of people in the army. If they were in the army it would be so much easier. The army would be much better because of the women's' steady aim with guns and their balances in the war, it could help us.
My friend argued with me it would be more demoralizing watching a woman die versus a man. Not true. In the military and during combat you are taught to set aside your differences and fight as equals for your country. We in the military who are strong enough know the consequences of our decisions and should know that this is not like at home where a woman is put in a position she did not want. She knows the consequences just like he does. Regardless of who has a family at home or not you are to save those that can be saved. We learn to distinguish instinct from logic on our feet. Most of us will choose to save our partner whose had our back and will, which should be anyone who can be saved. Protecting in war is protecting each other. The effect it has should be the same across the board and I believe it is however men feeling macho about another man's death is ridiculous. We all know we are hurt no need to say one hurts more than the other. It's just not the truth in combat.
Men aren't better than girls! We can pretty much overthrow a man if we wanted to. We all have the same rights. Remember we are all created equally. We will also be trained to fight the same exact way. Its not like us women if we go into combat are going to get special treatment. We chose to go into the army for a reason and we should know before we go in we will probably get harsh treatment. You can also get hurt, but us women do not care as long as we are protecting our country
Women have the desire and ability to serve in combat roles and should be allowed to do such.When we as a society claim that the sex penis are equal yet deny certain roles to women, we are not truly equal. With the current role that combat soldiers play there is no reason women should not be allowed to serve in combat roles. First, when fully geared up it is next to impossible to tell the women from the men. Second, there is no reason to deny those women who are physically and mentally capable to serve in combat.
There is NO reason WHATSOEVER why a woment should not beable to be in combat. If a women is strong and mentally capable to be in basic training and meet all the requirements as a man, then there is NO reason why a women should not beable to be right alongside the men. There is a high possiblility that some women can be just as capable as the men.
women should be allowed to if they want but they must know the dangers before going into it and reakky consider it. it is a big risk and we dont want girls throwing there lifes away. and men are just physically fit better and diseases will afecct women way more. fight for whats right!
woman should be ably to be in combat because thay want to be in combat and they want to stand up for there country by fighting the wars and be something to there country when they come home to there family and friends they can said i can do this so more woman can this to
Women should, because it is in the bill of rights that all men and woman shall be treated the same. Men and woman should get the same opportunities as one another. It is even scientifically proved that woman can endure more pain than men, so if any thing woman should get the better combat roles than men.
It is chivalrous to want to protect women, but many women today have shown that they are physically and mentally capable of serving in combat roles. Women who do this should be able to pass the same physical requirements that men do, of course. Many armies in the world (such as the Israeli army) use women in equal roles and the strength and fighting ability of their army has not suffered for this.
Yes, I think if a woman really wants to serve in a combat role she should be allowed to, providing that she can prove that she is capable of keeping up with her fellow soldiers wearing all the gear that they must wear, which is extremely heavy. I think they should be able to opt out or opt in of serving in a combat role. Women serve equally in the military in all other aspects, they are promoted equally; hold high ranks, so if they, for some reason, want to fight on the so-called front lines, it should be allowed.
Women should certainly be allowed to serve on the front lines in the same way that men do in the military. The obvious catch is that these women need to be just as strong, fast and athletic as the men they serve alongside. Women should get absolutely no preferential treatment in the military and if a woman is not a good soldier than she should not be in a position to put her troops at risk. If she is a good soldier then she should have every right that every other good soldier has.
When we as a society claim that the sexes are equal yet deny certain roles to women, we are not truly equal. With the current role that combat soldiers play there is no reason women should not be allowed to serve in combat roles. First, when fully geared up it is next to impossible to tell the women from the men. Second, there is no reason to deny those women who are physically and mentally capable to serve in combat.
Military had always been a "man's world" to begin with. However times have changed since then. Today women are allowed to attend all military academy's in the U.S. Also, for training purposes although the amount of repetitions or weight might be weighed less than a male, the female goes through the same physical training and instruction that a male does. However, I can see where people may say well the woman isn't physically capable of combat roles, if something were to happen to someone she couldn't carry them off. While I can validate that point what about the women who are physically capable? I think that a great example is using the U.S. Air Force as an example. In the AF, you fly planes wether they be fighter jets, bombers, helicopters, etc. There isn't a physical restriction other than height and weight, strength isn't a factor. So why can't woman be a part of combat flight missions? They go through the same flight school and training what's the difference? Keep in mind in WWII women were used as pilots to transport bomber planes and would sometimes get caught in a combat situation but faired ok. How is that any different than utilizing them in modern warfare today? This is an issue that our military has been presented with for years now, and I think it is a very serious issue. What do YOU think? Thank you.
If women and men are truly equal, then women not only should be ALLOWED, but should be REQUIRED to serve in equal combat roles just as men are. If women continue to play the "women and children" first card, then what they are really saying is that sexism against men is fine-we want to have it all-and NO have equal responsibility. If we are all equal, then TREAT us all equally.
I am an equalist, not a feminist, not a chauvinist, but equalist. and i think that women, too, should be drafted. I have said that quite a lot on this site Probably because i have only answered these types of opinion things..... I should answer different ones instead. Last sentence.
When women sign up to be of service to this country, in the armed forces, they should be afforded the same opportunities as men. As long as they meet all of the criteria to qualify to engage in combat, they should be able to do so. I don't think that women should be forced into these roles because, as a country, I believe that we should continue to cherish our women and children. At the same time, as a country that strives for equal treatment of individuals - regardless of sex, race or religion - when a woman shows a desire to fight in combat I believe that she should be given the same chance to do so as a man.
If I can hunt, I can shoot things and I can shoot a person if I had to. If I did it would be for the safety of America. So if I am a women and I believe in my fellow women, I know we can stand up for ourselves and fight for the rights of America, that men and women are equal.
What is the problem of our gender? The only thing different thing is that we are girls. Men think that they are more superior to females, well you are wrong! Dead wrong! There has been a lot of females that have beaten males, and I am NOT talking about poker! Woman are just as good as males, maybe even better! We are people not to be ignored and I think since I am a female and I am the strongest in my house that I should have just as much rights as males, that goes for the other females two!
MALES YOU ARE NOT SUPERIOR TO US! IF NOT WE ARE MORE SUPERIOR THAN YOU!
I don't think it is sexist for women to be kept out. I think it is sexist for men to have to be drafted and serve in combat positions. Hello? Why should men have to risk their lives for women. It is so stupid. By the way, I am a middle-school boy. Don't know why that is significant. Actually, I do. I want to draw attention to the fact that, in case somehow one of my arguments is particularly good, I am so young!
If the most bada** military in the world does it than so should we. Women can fight and do the jobs needed done just the same as men. Thankfully the country is changing just as Israel change when it came to women serving in combat. With in 10 years women will be serving in combat roles.
I mean, you shouldn't force a woman to do something that may be dangerous to her life, but you should also not prevent her
Bottom line of the matter is that you have no control over a woman. She goes and does as she please on her own reconnaissance. Period.
Seriously. If a woman passes the test and joins the army they are already putting there life on the line. Excluding people because they have a second X chromosome is kind of silly if the person want to join the front line. What if we banned African Americans because they had extra melanin even though they pass the tests.
With that premise in place, most arguments against the issue is false.
"We need the best people for the job". If a woman meet or exceed the male standard for the post, she should be allowed to serve.
"RAPE!": If a woman is prepared for the job, she must be prepared for this consequence.
"It is not a women's position": if the examiner said she is fit, then she is fit.
"Tradition": Traditionally black people are slave. Traditionally women are not allowed to be educated. This is not even a valid argument.
"Men are more physically fit": Women have more endurance. And if she passed boot camp, then she is fit. The examiner have the ultimate say, not you.
"Women attract men": They are professional soldier, not some draftee. They knew what they signed up for. If they can't take it, leave the army.
"If women get hurt", blah blah blah: Ever heard of duty and command? Soldier act according to order. If he can't follow order, he should not get into the army.
"If she was killed her squad would have a morale blow.": They can take a loss. They are professional solders. If not, again, the army is not their place.
"Hygiene needs?": The women knew what they signed up for. If not, boot camp will kick their asses out soon enough. For Christ's sake, it is the 21st Century - they worked out things to take care of those hygiene needs quicker than you can take a piss. And you, get used to it.
"No reason" or "Political stunt": They are signing up for active combat. In other word, they are signing up to face bullets, defend our freedom and die for our country. For Try to find a politician that does just that, please.
"Women are not as emotionally capable of handling the stress on the battlefield." There are men that doesn't. Does that preclude their ability to serve? No. Furthermore, the women knew what they signed up for. And she is prepared for it.
Too many people on the NO side are saying what women should be doing. That is judging one's capability based solely on sex, which is by definition sexism.
There are many kind of men - there are strong men and there are chicken shit men. Men must recognize that there are many kind of women too. And some are perfectly capable of handling the job of a front line soldier. Our job is to select only the best for the job, without consideration for sex.
Women must meet the same standard - both physically and mentally - as men, if such job so required. And if there is a job that suits a woman *better* than a man - for example, stealth or endurance or spec ops, then it would add even more flexibility to our military capability - I have no doubt such job actually exist if women are allowed in combat.
Everyone wants the best in their team, including the army. The point is that eligible women that can serve in EQUAL COMBAT roles should be allowed the chance to serve, since they are capable of delivering the same result as men. It's not about the general female population, but of women capable of delivering the same result like men. If a person can deliver, why should we deny them the right to choose their life in the army? It is their own responsibility to keep up and cooperate with the team. Anyone who couldn't keep up should be booted out, regardless of the gender.
It's not that we should ban women from serving, but that the military cannot soften the intensiveness of their entry exam or training because on the battlefield, no enemy gives a damn to your gender, but it is your physical and mental fitness and your abilities that let you survive on the battlefield.
If a 170cm, 60 kg woman can fight as capable as a 185cm,83 kg man, why shouldn't she be given the chance to serve? If she can't, boot her out.
Because if that's what they want to do or if that's what they wanted to become in life I think they have the right to sign up for it and get started! I also think yes because women have different opinions on different things and everyone had a say so in something even if its not what the law wants.
As long as the women are held to the same standard as the men in the military, I see no problems with it. If the women are capable, they should be allowed to serve. If they aren't, they shouldn't be allowed. Men who are incapable of the tough tasks that a soldier is given are turned away, and this should be the same with women. Women shouldn't be allowed to serve just because they want to. They should be given the same tests and be expected to carry the same load as the men.
Fighting in combat is about who is able to effectively carry out their duty, and if women can pass the same tests as men there is no reason they should be denied the same rights. Keeping certain roles away from women creates stigmas that display women as lesser and this idea has contributed to the great number of sexual assaults in the military. Not only that, but time and again, women have proved themselves as able soldiers and leaders throughout history. People like Queen Boudica have commanded strong armies, and I also recall Cleopatra outsmarting many people in her time. Whether or not women are allowed in combat positions, they are placed in dangerous situations, so they should be properly armed and be prepared for front line conditions. Marry Pitcher ended up firing a canon for her husband in the Revolutionary war, and occurrences like these often show up in women's military roles; at some point they may have to be put in harm's way. Though science deems women physically inept, they could be well equipped after much training; this is a given, so why can they not use their right to equality? Supposedly letting women in such roles would undermine the men forces, but why should such archaic practices be utilized today? It doesn't have to stay an all-boys club, for if women were just more readily accepted; wouldn't that mean cooperation and more recruits, a better work environment? It's a person's choice to take on the responsibilities of combat, so no would should patronize the poor, weak women; they are the ones with the higher average test scores. Maybe it's entirely possible that a women's wisdom and experience is needed in combat and command positions, but I guess they some just want them at home with the kids.
I was army infantry and I say yes but no special treatment. No female standard, if they're combat hold them to the male standard. Call it combat standards because women have lower standards. Plain and simple they do. And women stop trying to be proud and pat yourselves on the back saying you can do a combat job better than a male. Males have higher testosterone which allows for more physical strength you can't compete. Also you have to understand you get captured you're going to get raped beaten and worse. You get infections, women are generally softer emotionally. Harden up or fall behind, and statistically women are behind. Not being sexist or offensive but truthful. Join but like a male, don't hold us back or fall out. Same standard. I honestly want to see how many women will ask special treatment for time to get ready or extra this or that because when I was in it happened very often.
I think that all women should be allowed in combat. What did the immigrants come to America for? FREEDOM! The same rule applies here. Women obviously want to be in combat, so let them be in combat. Let them have freedom. After all, it wouldn't hurt to have a few more soldiers helping us win all of our wars, now would it?
Why can't women be allowed In Combat? They are risking their lives for us, and if they volunteer to die for us, why can't they go into combat?! It is their own lives, so why can't you let them do what they want with it? Men aren't the only heroes, Women are heroes too!
In my defense I believe women are strong and shouldn't be treated any different. They fight for our country, who can say no to that? I mean, come on. I have to write an essay on this and I honestly found a lot of facts about this topic and studies prove women actually make better leaders than men.
Why keep women from having the right to make their own decision ? People are making excuses, because I'm almost positive nothing is stopping them from allowing it except biased opinions and gender discrimination. If we can adapt to women in politics and business, then adapting to them in combat units shouldn't be too much harder.
Many of the arguments go as follows; “what if there is a 6`4” 250 pound man who is wounded in the front lines, and next to him, you have a 5`9” 135 pound woman and she needs to take him back to base 10’s of 100’s of yards away” They say the woman wouldn't be able to.
True, neither could a small male of that size, and there is no restriction on that. Small people most likely cannot carry much larger people any significant distance; regardless of gender. Yes, females on average have less upper body muscle than males; but no one is asking for the standards to be lowered for women when it comes to fitness. If they meet the same standards, they should be allowed the same position.
Someone else pointed out that there is no need for women on the front lines, that the only thing it achieves is the “death of more women.”
Well, need or no need, women want to be given the same opportunity to serve their country as men. I want to be given the opportunity, as do hundreds of others. Speaking for myself, I don’t want to be protected or coddled. For whatever reason hundreds of thousands of men join the infantry, I want to as well. Some ask why do women even want to join the Military? Because we do, that’s why, we want to serve our country, protect our loved ones just as the guys do. So long as that desire does not fundamentally diminish the effectiveness of our troops, why shouldn’t we be able to serve how we want, just as men do?
Many other people bring up the points of women falling for men, which is invalid because between women and men, men are less able to control sexual urges. Which brings up sexual assault.
Unfortunately I agree that for the safety of women it might be a better idea to have all-female and all-male front-line units; at least at first. This is mostly because of the problem of sexual assault within the military, which could grow even more dangerous with regards to long periods of isolation typical of front line units. The rape culture is bad enough in our country right now that this would be a real problem, and one most likely blamed on the women. So I hate to say segregate, but until women are less viewed as sexual objects and more accepted as equals in the military, it might be safer. But they should STILL SERVE ON THE FRONT LINES! What’s the issue with all-female front-line infantry units? Huh? That would be BADASS! And yes the media would have a conniption if any of those women were killed, but I bet you none of those women would want their deaths to be counted as more tragic than that of their fellow male soldiers. That’s an issue of media.
Men say women are emotional on this topic, and women say men are sexist on this topic. Both are true. There are women who think that it is sexist for women not to be allowed to fight in direct combat, and they let their emotions get in the way of their judgment. There are men who say that women cannot do it simply because of the mere strength required for the job. In this case, both of the answers and stances are true some of the time. When someone generalizes the argument, that only fuels more anger from both parties. Women currently serve in the military and give their lives in the exact same way that men do. Yes, it is a proven fact that men and women are made differently: men have a larger skeleton and on average more muscle mass. However, there are a fair share of women who are bigger and stronger than some men. That does not stop those men from being able to be in whatever position they want, as long as they can physically do it. Women should be allowed the same opportunity as men. As long as they can pass all of the same physical and mental tests that men have to, why can they not be allowed to do the same things? The fact that women are not offered this choice proves the administration is illogical. The government and military want soldiers to do a certain job. Why should gender be a factor? Men have certain physical and mental strengths that women do not have. Women have certain physical and mental strengths that men do not have. Therefore, the only thing that makes sense is to select both men and women, both with their strengths and weaknesses, to maximize our military efforts.
Why should gender decide whether or not a person could fight to defend their country? I don't see why woman shouldn't be able to be in direct combat. The fact that a soldier is a woman doesn't automatically mean that she is weak and frail. That's just prejudice, and stereo typical. Woman may seem weak and helpless, but that isn't true about all women! Not all men are good soldiers, but they get to fight for their country. Women are strong people and deserve to fight for their freedom. Woman love their country, too. They want to defend it, as well. Yes, woman and men have many differences, but everyone is a person, and deserves equal rights. Isn't that what America is all about? Freedom to do what you want, and everyone being equal! So why are we back tracking into the past and defying woman of their rights? Everyone is equal, and deserves equal right =s to do what they want to do with their lives! Not all women want to stay at home, cooking and caring after kids! They want to fight, too! So why are you holding them down with your thumb? Let woman fight, and protect your country! We are all equal, and should be able to do the same thing
The whole "biological" defense holds little water because what usually follows is your [predictable] bias. January 2016, my friends. Let that cryptic message sink in (well, unless your researching skills are pretty good). In the end, this is about valor; not worrying about whether or not Sally can withhold from PMSing (come on, really? Really?) or if George can throw all caution and discipline in the wind on the battlefield because he 's sexually attracted to Lisa. If women are qualified, then they're qualified. If they're not, then they're not (there are a lot of men who aren't either, no big deal). You just don't need a law banning them from the opportunity. Luckily, Leon Panetta, former U.S. DoD, finally introduced a change in all this. Honestly, it's long overdue. Oh, and would you all stop with this immature little 'gender war' you goin' on, here? The sad part is that I'm sure the lot of you are past the of age 25.
So even though they have a less strong body, their minds are much stronger than many men will ever be. Also, because of lack of testosterone, they react better under stress. They promote patriotism and help unit cohesion. Therefore, women should be allowed to fight in equal combat roles in the armed forces.
Some of the strongest people I know are women. If we can pass the same tests, endure the same pain, and accomplish the same tasks as a man, then damn straight, we should be allowed to be on the front line. Just because we are women, does not mean we cannot pull a trigger.
Are you being sexist? We women have rights as well! Some of the stuff men can't do, we women can do it, in our heels too!
In June 19, 1919, a legislation was passed that women can vote. Back then they weren't allowed to vote but they were able to passed it and make it to the amendment.
Women have the same rights as men.
If a women wants to defend her country, she should be allowed to. No other person should tell her not to. A woman can do anything a man can. Society needs to realize that this isn't hundreds of years ago when women were ordered around by men; women equal to men in every way. Women are not fragile porcelain dolls, as some men think they are. If a man can do it, a woman can too!
Women are strong leaders and fighters and deserve equal pay as men. Women are known as weak but on the inside are though workers and are less likely to give up so easily. Men are also strong but with women by their side they would have much more people and a lot more support.
Women should be allowed to serve in equal combat roles in the armed forces because if women are not allowed, it is discriminatory. Men and women should have equal rights, especially when it comes to defending our country. Sexual discrimination should not be in effect, especially when it is dealing with the armed forces.
I support the argument for women being able to serve in equal combat roles in armed forces. I don't believe there should even be an argument. It is said that everyone is equal, which means women are equal to men. The bottom line is that women are not being treated equally or fairly and should be allowed in combat. It is only right that they be allowed to fight for their country, and this should not be taken away from them if that is what they love and want to do. By not letting women in combat seems unfair and sexist to me.
If a man wanted to be a stay-at-home dad, that would be perfectly fine, but when women want to fight and/or die for their home, it becomes wrong! Why? It would be an outrage if women said only women were fit to be single parents or stay at home parents. A woman can do anything she puts her mind to. I have personally known several women who could do even MORE than a perfectly fit, healthy man.
Women and men are perfectly capable to do the same jobs anything men can do women can too. They have proved their loyalty and bravery many times. Since before women's suffrage they have been fighting for rights and they deserve them just as much as men. TYHey should definitly be able to have the same roles.
If women can serve in equal combat roles as men, it doesnt mean that some quota system is going to be implemented that causes 120 pound women to be on the front lines.... Letting women serve in the front lines mean that the women who are just as physically tough as their male counterparts will be the ones out there fighting, not just any woman you can find in the military. Anybody who thinks women shouldnt serve in equal combat roles because they are overall weaker then men or more fragile are acting moronic.
You have a 40 ounce plastic cup. If you drop it, it won't break. If you have a 40 ounce vase, if you drop it, it will break. The vase represents women in the military. Women are just as capable as doing the same thing as men but we are more delicate. Yes that does place a factor about being in the military but if you train hard enough, anyone can go and fight.
Throughout history, women have been positioned behind men as companions and supporters. Women have worked for a long time to gain their rights in our country and are recently allowed to join combat. I've heard my stepdad talk about this new right to me a few weeks ago because he saw it on the news. Some people disagree with this action in our country. My opinion is that women have the right to protect their country as much as men do and limiting them from doing their duty is not helping at all. If the women meet the standards needed, then they should be allowed to join combat.
Women have had combat roles in many nations for a long time. The U.S. has finally joined them. Now that the right has been informed, if women aren't doing their job right, the government has a right to take them out of the military. If a woman can do combat jobs as well as men, she should be able to. Women can do anything men can do.
Women in the military already serve with courage, putting their lives on the line. If women want to serve our country just like men do then should be able to. Women are just as capable of fighting along side of men in combat and armed forces. For many years throughout history, women haven't received the same rights that men have always have. Gender doesn't matter.
One thousand U.S. service women have been wounded in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another down highlight about this situation is that one hundred and fifty two women have died in war. Two strong points that the opposing side has. In one of the paragraphs in the article "Women In Combat Policy Catches Up With Reality;" they discuss how women should be barred from certain specialties, as in combat. I disagree, because there isn't much difference between a man and a woman. As long as women meet the standards to join combat and know what they're getting into, they should be able to. Now women get the rights that every human being deserves, regardless of their gender. It has been a tough fight through the years in the fight for women's rights, but with the help of so many supporters, women are finally being seen as the equals they really are.
If a woman elects to join our military in a combat role it is her choice. We need to understand that personal choice and the ability to pass standards is all that matters. Who are we to decide what is best for the individual? The more we reach in and prevent people from being supported in their hopes and dreams the more we lose as a society.
Women have the right to protect their country as much as men do and limiting them from doing their duty is not helping at all. You also have to think of it, as if you were limited on doing some thing, and wouldn't you want to be able to do something that protects you and your family. If we are allowed to join the military then why the heck can we not fight as well. We are not just here to cook and clean. We are here to fight and giving them this, allows us to show we can do more. And if you think women should stay in the house all day way are you in America. Because the country I know as America gives rights and equal opportunity to every one including women.
Women have had combat roles in many modern nations for a long time. The US has finally joined them. When I first heard of the ERA Amendment, I figured Rights and Responsibility went together. Why should women get a Equal Rights Amendment when they couldn't be drafted and put into combat roles by the Military when all men could? If the women don't support this Action, they have no reason to ask for a ERA Amendment either. The first time US women get combat roles on their Military tour, and drafted as well, they have the full rights to get the ERA passed into effect.
Women should be allowed to serve in combat. WHY NOT? give me 5 reasons to why a women cannot be allowed to serve in combat. As long as they get the training and can pass the test then let them serve their country if they really want to. So once again why not?
Women and men go through the same training they should be able to do the same thing men do, if women prove they are fit and able to preform there duties, there is no reason women should not be allowed to do the things men are allowed to do. If a women wants to risk her life or her country there should not be anyone standing in her way.
This is a load of bull. "Boys grow up fighting...hunting, while girls grow up crying..." Who says girls dont fight as kids? Who says young girls don't hunt? I am a female and yes, I have done both. The argument that women aren't as emotionally stable and they wouldnt be able to stand the sight of disheveled bodies is also just an ignorant point. Obviously, if women have been nursing on the battlefield for centuries, they can withstand fighting in battle. Sure the physical demands are high, but if a woman is willing to lay down her life, by God let her. Not letting a woman serve would be like saying a man's devotion to America is worth more than a woman's, thus setting back the women's rights movements back to the 1800's, or even earlier.
Women go through the same training as men and it has been proven that women feel pain more intensely then men. Which means for whatever amount of pain men feel going through training, women feel double that because of their high estrogen levels. And for those that think women can't handle the blood and bodies...have you ever seen the amount of blood during childbirth or the countless pictures of battered and abused women when they are taken into custody for questioning? Did you know that some women loose enough blood during their menstrual cycles that they hemorrhage? It is not a matter of whether or not women can handle the death and bodies exploding. It's a simple question of whether or not the men can handle seeing women's bodies explode. Army wives can replay the deaths of their husbands over and over again in their heads, but men mentally just can't handle it...why? Because women are pretty, weak, young things...because you're reminded of your mother, sister, best friend, life partner every time you see a woman. As if army wives don't go through that same mental marathon everyday. I'm starting to think army wives and women are stronger than the soldiers fighting. I hate to stereotype, but I am a person of color (not that that makes it okay), and if you're Hispanic, Black, Latino (however you identify), did your momma never "discipline" (cough, cough) you as a child? I know mine sure did. She handled herself just fine and I made it out alive. And what did my daddy do? Watched TV all day. -.- SMH. So who can't handle what now?!
There are fundamental physical differences between the sexes that bar the average woman from being equal to the average man in terms of combat capability. If a woman passes the exact same tests the men pass through to become a marine then by all means they should be a marine, but you should expect that there will always be fewer woman willing and able to pass them.
"Girls grow up crying, emotional, fragile...." That's ridiculous and insulting. Women are perfectly capable of being in combat. Handling blood and death is something women do in the military anyway. Women are already caught in combat situations. It just hasn't been made official yet. Women know what they are getting in to, and should be allowed to serve in combat if they want to. Most of the reasons for the people who say "no" are seriously insulting: "War isn't a time for playing pattycake" Is that what female cops and firefighters do? If that's really your poinion, you belong in the 1900s.
My family and I all believe the US Constitution which says that "all men are created equal". That means that women should be allowed to serve in the infantry and other "combat armies" that they are not currently allowed to serve in. There was a poll at a family member's school, and it showed that 75% of girls, and only 15% of boys agreed with the stance that women should be allowed in combat.
Military should be based on training and ability not gender. Most women and capable phsycally and mentally. So why not let them? its their choice not yours. Also, women know all the dangers and whats going on in war so they know if they can handle it or not. Women should be treated equal to men because they are equal. Women are just as strong as men if not stronger.
Females are just as strong as every other guy. I agree some girls are fragile and shouldn't join in combat but what about the others who aren't who want to join in combat? All these people say we want our opinions to be listened to but they don't listen to us females.
The fact that this argument is still rattling on means that it will never be a level playing field for women in the armed services. We are now in 2012 not 1912 and the MOD (and others) still find weasle words to keep us in our place - back to the typewriter sisters!
We live in a country that stresses equal rights for women and minorities. That should encompass all aspects of life. It is unfair for women to be discriminated against because of archaic values. If a woman wants to go into battle to defend her country, then she should be allowed. The actual combat is to protect citizens, such as these women. They should be able to fight for themselves, if they want.
Women should be allowed equal roles in the military and combat because all people are equal. There is no legitimate reason to forbid women in combat that doesn't boil down to its roots as just plain sexism. Women make up more than 50% of the world's population and to exclude half of the people for sexual organ differences is stupid. There are differences between men and women, and sometimes those differences favor women, like a tendency to be less violent and unstable or being more flexible instead of more strong.
Women have fought for equal rights in every aspect of the law and there is no reason this is any different. A woman should be allowed to participate in any activity or job that a man can, even if that means she may be killed in that job. It is no different than a woman running for president, and everyone welcomed Hilary to run.
Yes the should because it means more protection for us. Also it there choice let people do what the please and if combat is what they please then don't stand in their way. I strongly agree that women should be in combat
Each NFL team wants to have the best team and the only way to do that is by having the best players. Why do they want the best team? Well, the NFL is first and foremost a business and needs to make money. The NFL makes about 6 billion annually. Also, each team that is in the NFL wants the fame and bragging rights that comes with playing for a championship team. Now do you think that the people in charge of the NFL would ever say, “Wait a minute! I don’t think this fair. We should start letting women play.” No, you would probably never hear anyone from the NFL say anything like that. The reason you won’t is because, as I have said, they want to win. To win, you must have the best people for the job. Would you agree that we should have the best people for the job of winning a war? I believe our National Security and freedom is worth much more than 6 billion dollars. Yet, the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, believes that, just to be “fair”, we should allow women to serve in combat roles on the front lines in a war. I think that is NOT in the best interest of our country or our military.
Go to any college campus, high school, shopping mall and collect a random sampling of the population of men and women from the age of 18 to 25 and TRAIN THEM ALL in the Army 11B/11C MOS. At the end of this training conduct a full field mock war and see for your self if women, as gender specific, are as capable as men, as gender specific, of serving in a ground combat situation.
The purpose of selecting men, for ground combat situations, is that any general selection of a group of men could and would be trained to survive any general ground combat situation they may encounter.
I agree there are individual women that could be trained and could survive actual ground combat situations. I also know there are some individual men that would fail training and fail survival of ground combat situations. The intent is that the general population of men, as gender specific, could and would have a chance of being trained and of surviving ground combat situations.
While there are many combat positions that women can excel in, and often do excel in currently, the matter comes down to the likelihood of women coming into close combat, or hand-to-hand combat, and in capture situations that make the choice of women in ground combat positions undesirable for the military unit that is in conflict and for the woman soldier in particular.
A general sample population of women can fly aircraft as good as or even better than the same general sample population numbers of men selected for that job; until that aircraft gets grounded and they must survive in a ground combat situation.
A general sample population of women can command or drive an armored tank; until that tank becomes inoperable and they must survive in a ground combat situation.
These types of combat jobs, and others similar to them, are only dependent on a women meeting a relatively loose qualification of weight, height, dexterity, intelligence and then the training can be obtained for a woman to master that job.
Ground combat capability delves into the historical traits of men and the imbedded desires to be a formidable force when called upon to overcome the enemy or in the act of protection of others. Technology and training only serves to enhance these traits and abilities, not to replace them.
Only in the movies do you have a typical gender woman capable of overcoming a typical gender man time and again.
This is not sexist. This is reality.
Women are not as strong as their male counterparts, but that shouldn't’t really stop them. It would be difficult if they had to drag a man miles when he weighs more than her. It would really just put more women in danger, and cause more deaths. Plus if they get hurt, the male does what usually happens and runs to find out why the female is in trouble. Women should just stay home and do what they should. Take care of kids, cook, and clean. War isn’t a place for a woman. They would just get maimed then killed along with other males that heard her cry. If she was killed her squad would have a morale blow. Then how would they perform? Have them serve but not on the front lines.
Can a female carry 130 lbs of gear running up and down 5 flights of stairs, kneeling and standing, and engaging an enemy less than 5 meters away? There are some female can do 40-50 pushups and outrun males, but think about it. They weigh like 125 lbs while males weigh around 180-200 lbs. Can they bench press 200lbs? No. They are weak. When I went to basic training, 95% of the females fell out of a 16k ruck march. Not kidding. Out of those who made it, none of them carried a crew-served weapon such as machine guns and AT4s. I don't want to risk a mission because females can't climb a steep mountain in Afghanistan for 25km. Also females can't carry extra weight such as rockets, and machine guns and heavy gear so those gear needs to be distributed among the remaining males, further burdening the males. Its a fact, females just are not stronger than males, stop trying to argue it. Maybe 1 out of 500 females is stronger than the worst physically capable INFANTRY male. Plus, they get pregnant and have to leave the unit for a year further burden the tasks on the remaining males. Males can roll around in the mud and not take showers for 3 weeks, females will get infections and has to deal with their hygiene. Please, be realistic, this is the military which involves WAR, the life or death of a COUNTRY! Not, some small business. Females, I know you think you are the most powerfully gender in the world, but please be realistic, almost all of the females just aren't physically capable, its nature. You have hips for giving birth, not running like males do. Please don't get me started on females in special ops.
I'm a woman and I strongly believe woman should not be allowed in combat. It's a man's job to protect women. If a woman gets shot or injured a man's first instinct is to go over and help her. If men were to leave their stance we could have a major disaster in a small amount of time.
I am a Marine. First I'll tell you why, and I will give you real examples. Women for one, over all, don't have the physicality. For this reason they were given their own physical standards. If I had a choice, I'd fight next to the man because when things go down, we can carry each other out. And he can carry his fair share into combat with out slowing anyone down.
If women want to be treated like equals, they need to act as equals. What if a woman punches you in the face? How would you react? As an equal, you can punch her right back in the face? Most people including almost all women agree, you shouldn't hit a woman. As soon as women act equally, they will be treated equally.
Next, we have POWs. That's a part of war. What if women get caught? What's going to happen to them? I can assure you they will be man-handled by the enemy. Think of the worst things you would do to a woman, and then multiply that by a thousand.
Women in real combat has not worked out. As much as who doesn't shave their armpits think they can easily change millions of years of evolution, they aren't.
I'm not ruling out some women being bruisers that you don't want to meet in a dark alley. In the end, they still have hygiene needs that aren't suitable in combat.
In this new America, soft society, where everyone thinks they have a right to something they didn't earn, people need to rise up and stop being afraid. Say "NO. YOU DIDN'T EARN THAT, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT". Say it loud and proud. Say it every day.
I read an article the other day, coming from a female, on military.com. Her perspective wasn't that of women not being able to meet physical standards, or their ability to handle stress, but rather that of why even be there? She spoke about how the only thing being accomplished by allowing women in combat is the death of more women. The military is not the place for political stunts or any other opinionated such things.
Aside from overly feminist views, science has proven women are not as strong as men. Combatant roles can quickly turn into a fist fight, and between a highly trained man vs. a highly trained women, science says the man who almost always win. This is NOT ok for a force who can mot risk losing.
Women should not be allowed into combat for a variety of reasons. First off because women are too emotional, women lack a killer instinct, men are 10x stronger than women are, women can affect a mission by becoming pregnant or having sexual relations with a male comrade & women can also be a sexual distraction to male comrades.
Men and Women are equal, but diffrerent in nature. Women are not fit to do the tasks as men biologically. In Israel they do it b/c they have a small pop. Think what would happen if a female soldier was captured? Rape! Our forefathers fought not our foremothers! I am not being sexist but women have played their roles in war such as nurses or administration. On top of that, you talk about equality; however, there is not equality in war. In the side of religion, culture and tradition, in most cases women are forbidden. It is not even practical, can an avg women lift a 220 pound man out of the line of fire? So stop complaining war is not fair "everything is fair in love and war". Have you though what would happen if a soldier got pregant in a hostile area. Or the awkwardness of sharing a bunk as males testroserone can go crazy in war especially long periods of time and why some of them turn gay. In conclusion nature made men are stronger physically while women are stronger mentally.
Why do women constantly think they are equal to men? The man is made differently physically and mentally, men are always going to endure far more. Another issue is the sexual tension between the two. All soldiers are deployed for long period of time and of course will draw towards one another, destroying marriages and even worse can even lead to death due to ignorance.
After reading through the arguments from both sides its actually quite obvious that the gender orientated responses are in themselves proof of the differences between the sexes. The women saying yes are using emotional arguments such as "its not fair, we are just as good, its sexist, we have rights, we should have a say". The men saying that it's a bad idea are using factual and common sense arguments time and time again "Its a bad idea because of the biological strength differences required for the job, and mixing men and women together is a bad idea in these types of environments".
The women NEVER directly dispute the scientific facts but rather try to muddy the waters with one off examples of a super female specimen as a way to side step the issues. This leads me to believe deep down that they know they are wrong but will do anything to try and prove they are right. Unfortunately this doesn't work on the battle field and this whole thing will end in tears.
Women should be at home watching and taking care of the children. In case of war, when the majority of men are in combat, women should be taking up men's jobs like in WW2 and WW1. When the majority of men are at the front lines, who will take up the corporate jobs, or the very important construction and engineering jobs. Women should take important jobs that men will not be able to fulfill due to the men being at the front lines.
I can't even imagine why a woman would want to be in a combat role. There are too many differences between men and women for the roles to even be equal. Men were made to be stronger than women. Not that women are weak but in a combat situation I would trust a man to be able to fight and kill an enemy more than I would a woman. Today's world has turned upside down the roles of men and women. Women deserve equal pay and status in the business world but in war and combat women need to allow the men to be men.
A woman that served in the Afghan war was changed for life after the military. According to NPR, “...Sergeant...” “Alyssa Corcoran...” came “home, but she came home angry. She would blow up at her friends and family over nothing. And she couldn't really get her head out of combat mode.” She says, “I had nightmares. I couldn't sleep. I would be like, on high alert. I would be ready to go. I would wake up in the middle of the night and actually think that I was getting ready for a mission.”
Am I saying that women are less than men, no. Let me stress that point first because the headline is sure to offend. The fact of the matter is that men are simply physically superior in most aspects that can affect a combat situation. I have personally seen women pushed through the military acting like we all play on a level field, well the fact is we do not. We do not take the same physical fitness test, and the fact of the matter is that a major part of the problem resides with the men themselves. A female combatant dying is much more traumatic mentally to a unit that a man, not anyone's fault. Personally would rather have men on the line.
Just because people want to prove a point and make claims that are unfounded in reality just for the sake of championing women's rights does not mean that they are right. Women are physically inferior to men. That's a fact, and a result of evolution. The frequent argument that someone summons to dispel this concern is to refer to some physical specimen of a woman and say that she is perhaps fitter or stronger than the average man. This is an idiotic argument because by the same logic, if an elite NFL linebacker could kill a crocodile with his bare hands, then that means that any man can kill a crocodile, which is an absurd. Women are simply not genetically on par with men in terms of physical toughness, durability, strength capacity, etc. To try and state otherwise is simply ignoring stone cold facts that might tamper with the integrity of the armed services that already exist. For example, do any of us believe that a 5' 3" woman who weighs 130 lbs would be able to carry a fellow wounded soldier off the battlefield while wearing combat gear? The fact that we want society to be equal in all facets is simply unacceptable in this case because in order to serve a political and motivational "feel good" pride agenda, we would have to put the lives at risk of those men who might be placed in the company of someone who might be physically incapable of performing the tasks that are expected of everyone. If there is any reason for which someone might not be able to complete any physical demand made of them in the armed forces, they do not belong. There is no reason to play with the lives of others simply to feel good about oneself and affirm something that might actually damage our existing system in order to achieve an agenda of political correctness.
No. Women are physically weaker than men. This has been known for centuries. If you want to see this, go ask a woman to punch you and try to hold her hand back. Do that 3 times. So women going into these combat roles are going to be weaker and therefore a detriment to the team. Plus, people might start getting feelings for each other. Women might get pregnant. How much of a f**king disaster will that be?
Women can help any war effort any other way they want other than combat. The military wants the best fighters. The military does not have time for unnecessary political reforms. Why do women want to see direct combat any way? Do they know that war is not a game? Women should be at the home front taking up jobs that the men aren't there to do. Women should take jobs in ammunition factories or weapon manufactures, or watch the children. It is a known fact that men are physically stronger than women. In war people die. In war you kill. Are women actually capable of doing this? If not, good U.S. troops can die.
You can say that women can do anything men can if they push themselves, but the simple fact is we can't. Women are physically and emotionally weaker. As stated above, less than 1 percent of women would be able to carry an injured soldier off the field, with her gear, plus the injured soldier and his gear. Not to mention the distance she may have to carry the man. A woman would be too emotional to be placed in battle. A soldier needs to be focused and ready for anything at all times. And a woman can't do that if she's daydreaming, which we all can admit, women do more frequently than men. The requirements to join the military already are unequal, so why let them be on the front line if they have to do 20 less push ups than men just to get in? What if a woman were to get feelings for a man while deployed, which yes, it can happen whether she is in a combat MOS or not, but while in a combat MOS she needs to be more focused. Focused on the task at hand, which is not the cute soldier riding in the tank. Seriously. It's a bad decision for our military and we shouldn't even be considering it.
Women are much easier to kill and disable than men. They lack the physical strength, stamina and endurance of their male counterparts. A unit is only as strong as its weakest links which makes females an excellent target to disable that unit's overall effectiveness. Many human M/F responses are genetically ingrained and easy to exploit on the battlefield. Maim a female - let her scream in agony - male response is pretty predictable so exploit it in combat. Incorporate said type tactics in planning ambushes, assaults etc.
Most people have never served in the military and have either no idea what its like or have a fantasized TV/Hollywood view. To most its a video game, and they have no intention of allowing reality to trump their fantasy. Reality is simple - women will die and be injured at a far greater rate than their male counterparts - their counterparts effectiveness will diminish and they will die/be wounded at greater rates - their mission/goal will suffer - or to put it better - the chances of actually losing battles and wars will substantially increase. Its simple - I would do it and my opposing counterpart would also (in a heartbeat -winning is everything in war).
A positive item! With females in combat - the restrictive collateral damage concerns will fade as female civilians in the combat zone inevitably lose their social protective status and are treated equally as their male counterparts and killed and maimed without the societal stigma.
Bottom line - I don't care anymore - as long as my pension check is in the mail.
We need the best people to fight in our army, and women are not the best, never were the best, and never will be the best. They should not be allowed to fight in the front lines and mess up our fighting force. Its time women found their place in this world and it is not on the front lines.
If women are ready to risk their life fine then. But you guys don't realize that women's training are modified, in battle field there are no modifications. Women are more vulnerable to torture. And they have less aerobic and upper arm strength than men. Women shouldn't have combat roles at all.
Most of these "yes" people think war is a game. It's not. The reality of being in a combat unit is more than just passing physical fitness tests and shooting guns. It involves an extremely difficult life. Living in the field for weeks at a time is not normal. This requires things like sleeping in 20 degree weather and thunderstorms, and digging a hole to defecate. Physical requirements include carrying a 70 lbs of equipment for 15 miles in 5 hours, and then engaging in battle on arrival at your destination. Marching with heavy loads is a daily activity. Then there's the combat itself, which can become hand-to-hand. To prepare for combat, desensitization is required; you must mentally prepare to kill people, to be killed yourself, and to see your comrades killed. Combat involves death, including your own. And your death may be particularly gruesome and painful; with some types of weapons, your body may not exist at all. Is this what women want to be a part of, something that repulses even those that have experienced it? Women are a wonderful alternative to the violence of men, and it would be better for society if they remain away from warfare, their beauty and peace unblemished by death and destruction.
Women DO NOT belong in combat units for several specific reasons. I have served with both Marine and Army infantry and artillery units where daily physical demands are quite high. I have also worked with personnel from every military branch including Coast Guard. I have 11 years experience with three combat tours and I have only seen less then 10 women in all that time that can even finish a road march with their male counterparts. Women simply do not have the physical or mental strength necessary for extended periods of combat or physiological activity. If a 200 pound infantryman (plus the 40 to 60 lbs of combat gear/weapons carried) gets wounded in a combat situation, a five-foot-five, 140 lb woman will not be able to carry or even drag him to safety in a rapid progression. She will probably end up getting killed or wounded herself. Women in a combat unit will create situations of sexual tension/distraction and if captured by the enemy, they will be tortured in ways that are very different and horrible from their male counterparts. I also know that this will create personal and professional difficulties for male service members that are married. From a personal viewpoint, I do not trust a woman enough to watch my back or even shoot well enough to keep an enemy pinned down if in an ambush or trap. The logistical requirements would also be a nightmare. A lot of infantry squads and platoons that go on vehicular and foot patrol may have to spend the night in a bombed-out structure. Guys in the field think nothing of personal hygiene in front of each other (within reason of course. There would be massive limitations and adjustments having to be made with even one woman in such a unit. I am not saying that women have not done their part in wars of America's past. But current modern-day military requirements at every level DO NOT warrant all the changes needed for women to supposedly earn the right to fight among men. Many combat veterans also point out that there WILL BE females who will use their gender and sexual capabilities to create positions of favoritism, reward and entitlement that they DO NOT deserve. I don't care what all the whining, crying female supporters say. There have been many documented cases where women use their physical charms or lies/threats of exposure if they don't get their way. I don't have a problem with women in the military, but just not in combat roles. If you are going to look at this situation, then look at all sides of it including the ugly ones people don't want to speak about. Women ARE guilty of these things too. They have NO place in combat roles plain and simple.
A woman could take the place of a man and get someone hurt. If someone was stuck or wounded and needed to be moved the woman might not be strong enough to do this. Then someone could die because that woman took the place of a stronger man. This should not happen.
Women are females that should be well taken care of. In other countries the women are well taken care of, with at roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. If we allow this to happen we will lose all morals towards women and how they should be taken care of. We have so many homeless and abused women in America, allowing the policy only makes things worse for women in the long run. This is one aspect America shouldn't loose. Other countries take care of their women and have longer marriages. This is an American value that we are loosing due to contemporary morality from children.
I'm a woman and I believe that men should be in combat only. Men were designed stronger than us, it's just a human fact. Now I know that many people may argue with this, but it is what it is. Women can handle many things better than men can, but when it comes to things like trudging through swamps for weeks on end like in the Vietnam war, we should allow men to do what they do best- protect our country. Men are protectors and women are nuturers, its just a fact of biolog- sorry to disappoint you.
Women should not be in combat roles in the military because they have different mental/emotional needs, they require additional logistic support, they are not as physically capable as men, and would be a threat to unit cohesiveness. While all women will not fall into every one of these categories, it is a necessity for women to have additional logistic support and they will more than likely be a threat to unit cohesiveness. Some women can be as capable as men but for the most part this is not so. All combat units need to consist of a cohesive, well-disciplined, force able to complete assigned mission with minimal support. I am a female and I approve this!
Women need a men to carry HEAVY things.
I can not see a pregnant women (6 mo.) carrying a weapon in combat. I am a women and I can say WE ARE NOT STRONGER THAN MEN. Probably there is an exception like the tallest men in the world, or the tiny women in the world, and the stronger women in the whole world, I never hear such a thing.
Come on, wake up and be REALISTIC
Although women should be and are allowed to serve in the military, I believe that combat roles in the armed forces should be specific to male soldiers. Even though women are not generally permitted in the line of fire, history has showed that women have applied their skills and abilities in time of war in ways that didn't involve fighting. For instance, in World War II, when American male soldiers we sent away to war, their wives and daughters that were left behind took over the vacant jobs in the factory. Thus, the iconic "We Can Do It" campaign was birthed. Women also served as nurses on the battlefield. This female assertiveness proved very useful to the American economy and war efforts. Meanwhile, the Western powers still obtained a victory.
The issue of whether women should be allowed to fight in combat assignments is not an equal rights issue, it is a practical issue. Knowing that women have about 40-60% the upper body strength of males, how can someone say that men and women are equal in every respect? It's not discrimination to prohibit women from doing something that, on average, men are going to be able to do much better. For example, there are no regulations banning women from competing in the NFL, but no coach in their right mind would sign a woman. Why? Because a man can do the same job much better. This is simply a fact, it is not mean or rude, but the reality is that men are stronger and more able to do certain jobs than women are. I am not saying women are inferior, I just think that we are risking more deaths and are compromising the safety of our troops by allowing women to compete with men when clearly they are at a disadvantage. Even if requirements were the same for women and men, the women are on average going to be less proficient if the standards are the same. This would result in unequal promotions if the fitness reports are completely unbiased because men are going to perform better than the women. Something to think about.
Women are able to do a lot of things and help out in many different ways but not on the front line. For one reason go and talk to some pow of other wars and see if some of the stuff they went through doesn't make your stomach sick. Now place a woman in there could you see yourself a captured female soldier being raped infront of other male U.S.A. Soldiers or worth giving birth to a child from the enemy could you really do this to yourself. Plus women don't have the same strength as a man does what if you get into a position were you are hand to hand combat and the enemy is on top of you from wrestling and uses a knife do you think you could force him off most men can't but that is war. Women have rights and can be equal but know the lines were to stop or things will get out of hand.
Women are pampered by society, and are just not raised to be tough as men need to be. Women always want to quit when things get rough, when they get hurt, etc. Just MARCHING, women start crying and collapse. This isn't the movies or Smallville. It's the way women are raised: pampered. Everything women also have to do has the standards lowered compared to guys. This creates weaker people, and you can't make up for that when you become a young adult, because you've been conditioned to quit when the going gets tough. Boys are told "Push through it! GOGOGO". Girls are told "There there, it's okay, honey, you don't have to do any more." That shapes your character and drive when you become an adult. And then there's the testosterone factor: guys fight through pain, women are afraid of it. A good example is sparring in martial arts. Guys love to hit and be hit, while women flinch away from blows instead of blocking and countering, and merely tap their opponents.
Men and women may be equal, but were different. Naturaly men are bigger and stronger and women are smaller and softer. This is is because they play different roles. Imagin how many more rapes will occur if women go into combat, and how many women when would commit suicide when faced with being raped to death.
NO!Can a female carry 130 lbs of gear running up and down 5 flights of stairs, kneeling and standing, and engaging an enemy less than 5 meters away? There are some female can do 40-50 pushups and outrun males, but think about it. They weigh like 125 lbs while males weigh around 180-200 lbs. Can they bench press 200lbs? No. They are weak. When I went to basic training, 95% of the females fell out of a 16k ruck march. Not kidding. Out of those who made it, none of them carried a crew-served weapon such as machine guns and AT4s. I don't want to risk a mission because females can't climb a steep mountain in Afghanistan for 25km. Also females can't carry extra weight such as rockets, and machine guns and heavy gear so those gear needs to be distributed among the remaining males, further burdening the males. Its a fact, females just are not stronger than males, stop trying to argue it. Maybe 1 out of 500 females is stronger than the worst physically capable INFANTRY male. Plus, they get pregnant and have to leave the unit for a year further burden the tasks on
It's not a matter of "wanting to lay down your life" and the other specious arguments being made on the other side. It's an issue of putting together the best fighting force possible. Men are bigger, stronger and have proven capable over the ages. Are we to believe that Leon Panetta is just that much more enlightened than all who came before him? This is a PC decision, let's see if this doesn't come up as a liberal highlight of "look what we've done for you" in 4 years. It's a crock.
Because male troops may forget their tactical objectives in order to protect the women from harm of capture, knowing what the enemy will do to the female POWs, will make units less effective thus putting everyone in the unit at risk. Now going to sexual attraction, yes men and women can bond in a non-sexual way, but what about those that become sexually attracted to one another? Sexual attraction is a powerful emotion as well as jealousy if not more so; ". . .consequences of love affairs gone wrong, rivalry among suitors or even the distraction that sex can provide from other duties. . .unit cohesion is a major factor in the success of any military objective. inject sexual rivalry and tension into a small group of soldiers whose decisions mean life and death, and you are likely to get more of the latter. " (Linda Chavez, NYPost)
I've personally seen and been effected by women in combat. Yes, women can be just as effective physically as a man. Unfortunately, from my observation and experience , they are the exception not the rule. I was deployed 3 times to Iraq in a co-ed Military Police unit and what I saw out of women as a whole was pathetic.
1) Physical Fitness: Women can be just as physically fit as men, but they are held to a different standard (to the military's detriment). My female gunner was able to score the maximum on her Army Physcial Fitness Test, but in order to do so she was only required to do the minimum requirement of a male of her age. This wouldn't be a problem if she were also able to charge and mount her weapon without assistance.
2)Pregnancy: On my second deployment to Iraq, our company consisted of about 130 soldiers. 30 of those 130 were female. During our 15 month deployment 6 of them got pregnant and were sent home. When a soldier gets sent home they are rarely (if ever) replaced which leaves the rest of us to pick up the slack. Not only that but when a female soldier finds out she is pregnant her unit has 48 hours to get her out of the country. Logistically it's a mess.
3)Fraternization: Young men and women in close proximity to each other will from romantic relationships and have sex. It doesn't take a genius to see that fraternization is detrimental to the good order and discipline of a unit when the primary focus should be completing the mission and getting everyone home safely.
No one cares about equality when lives are on the line. We care about being stronger than the enemy and winning. Everyone who said yes clearly wasn't in a life-death situation. It's a shame when people make decisions about policies that don't affect them. -Infantry Marine, two tours.
It is unimaginable what our enemies would do to our women soldiers, if they were captured in battle. Think of women being abused with the pictures plastered all over our televisions and newspapers. Public support for a war would quickly wane. Women also lack the strength for prolong combat and may put other soldiers at risk.
No amount of arguing or social engineering will change the fact that women's skeletons are smaller than men's, their muscle mass is smaller than mans, their hearts and lungs are smaller than men's and their ability for recovery and endurance are lower than men's. That biological fact alone should be obvious, but somehow it still needs to be repeated. If women wanted to compete on truly equal terms they would just say ok there is just one standard, the male one, and we will all compete using that. Of course they won't, because they would loose nearly every female in the military currently serving. The fact is there is already a double standard employed just so women are able to be in the military at all. That is a fact. All branches use two different score sheets to test male and female recruits. This comes down to some selfish females that are hell bent on having their way at the expense of everyone else. There are many combat orientated roles that women are suited to such as pilots or commanding ships. Infantry and special forces is not one of them. The idea is to win, not give everyone a trophy for participating.
women are not as capable in combat
they are not as physically fit as most men and can get pregnant and men have to pick up the slack women are not as strong and need help with training standards they cant carry heavy weopons or supplies for survival they cant do what men can
I am a 6'0 230 pound airman. Realistically if I were to don my battle gear my weight would be around 255 pounds. I would love to see and average American woman--who according to WebMD is 5'4 150-160 pounds--pull me out of the line of fire if I was wounded. The point is women lack the physical abilities to do it, period. All of these men and women voting yes have no idea what it takes to do that. Oh for the voter that is becoming Air Force security forces. Being a glorified gate guard doesn't make you battle tested and proven. Men outclass women in every way in this category not even close!
We know that God created men and women to be equal to each other in any roles, but the thing here is that, we should give the responsibilities for men that will join in combat roles for armed forces, Yeah, I know not all women are weak, and I know some women wants to join the armed forces, but the fact is, It is not suited for women, Men would rather join there because they endure more than women. Women can join in armed forces but in a COMBAT situation, they used to be as Nurse aiding for the injured soldiers. That's all!
Women cant handle the physical and mental issues and the stress (ignoring the fact that they will probably be raped by sex-deprived military personnel). Read the article "Get Over It! We're Not All Created Equal" by Capt. Petronio and she talks about her experiences on deployment. It's clear women are unable to handle combat situations as efficiently men.
Women simply do not possess the physical strength or the mental hardness that a man does, it is not to say that women are unequal, just that they are not as effective in combat. Moreover, it gives the men a sense of hopelessness, having what they are fighting for right next to them, doing their job. Also, if women are equal then why dont we start drafting them? the answer is because they are simply physicaaly weaker than men.
I'm leaning towards no because women are not built the same. For example, a 20 year old woman has the lung power of a 50 year old man. A recent study also showed that the most in fit women is equivalent to the weakest man (in the military). Also including all the feminine hygiene products and pregnancies.
1. You have a vagina. The female anatomy is not suited for combat. A woman without a shower for long periods of time will develop health issues such as bacterial vaginosis and bladder infections. Let's not forget one week out of every month you won't be at your physical best.
2. We do not hold women to the same standards as men when it comes to training. This could endanger their male counter parts.
3. Woman can lead to distractions on the battlefield. I do not know one man who doesn't feel more protective of a woman than a man. This is especially true if relationships develop in combat. Which is likely to happen.
4. And yes rape. Women are already more likely to be raped than killed in battle. I think we would see rape increase
5. How many women can realistically carry a full grown injured man for miles? I'm in good shape and I know I couldn't.
6. Since women can develop pelvic issues from carrying heavy packs they carry lighter packs than a man. Will men have to pick up the extra weight?
I can think of many more but I'm tired of typing. I will say though I am a woman so please avoid pulling the sexist card.
In the second world war, the Russian Army endured far worse casualties than those not employing female troops, that is not to say that most of those casualties were due to their commanders views of their soldiers lives. Men have a natural protectiveness of females, which was a contributing factor to the significant casualties. Rape cases in war, would substantially increase, the Taliban and Somali pirates to name a few enemies would be more than happy to exploit a woman captive. Feminists often ignore the fact, that although for the most part men and woman are equal, they are physically different, in their strength and capabilities in warfare. If a woman's output is less than that of a man then she should be paid as appropriate. In the navy women were banned as commanders and politicians know what happens to a bunch of men trapped in a steel can deprived of woman. Why do you think major ports in the sixteenth to the nineteenth century were renowned for their 'loose women'.
Men and women ARE NOT equal. Men are built to defend; women are built to nurture. There are places for women in the military, but combat is not one of them. It's normal and natural for men to go off to defend their families and their countries; but it is neither normal nor natural for small children to be without their mothers because "mommy is out shooting big guns at bad guys". I'm just old-fashioned, I guess. I don't have a lot of respect for a woman who can abandon her babies; her place is with them. Now a single woman with no kids, that's a little different, but they still don't belong on the front lines. They are more likely to be captured and tortured, and no matter what any of them say, they are not built the same as men. Leave the fighting to the men.
It's about surviving, not rights. I've personally seen and been affected by women in combat. Yes, women can be just as effective physically as a man. Unfortunately, from my observation and experience, they are the exception not the rule. I was deployed 3 times to Iraq in a co-ed Military Police unit and what I saw out of women as a whole was pathetic. 1) Physical Fitness: Women can be just as physically fit as men, but they are held to a different standard (to the military's detriment). My female gunner was able to score the maximum on her Army Physcial Fitness Test, but in order to do so she was only required to do the minimum requirement of a male of her age. This wouldn't be a problem if she were also able to charge and mount her weapon without assistance. 2) Pregnancy: On my second deployment to Iraq, our company consisted of about 130 soldiers. 30 of those 130 were female. During our 15 month deployment 6 of them got pregnant and were sent home. When a soldier gets sent home they are rarely (if ever) replaced which leaves the rest of us to pick up the slack. Not only that but when a female soldier finds out she is pregnant her unit has 48 hours to get her out of the country. Logistically it's a mess. 3) Fraternization: Young men and women in close proximity to each other will from romantic relationships and have sex. It doesn't take a genius to see that fraternization is detrimental to the good order and discipline of a unit when the primary focus should be completing the mission and getting everyone home safely.
If a man is captured he will be tortured, women will be raped. Brutally. And while men are intellectually equal to women. When it comes to aggression and strength. Men excel. It's what we evolved to do. We're just biologically better at warfare because that's what males are supposed to do in nature. Defend. Men are just better at war.
Here's the problem with women on the front line, when it comes down to it killing a man, insurgent or not, is hard. Very hard. If you can or can't pull the rigger when the time comes is something that many rookies dread facing on the inside. The ONLY reason men can do this is because of our natural chemical testosterone which in combat basically gives us a disregard for killing and focuses our minds on victory. In short we become ruthless. The real face of this is ugly to see but necessary. Women don't have this. When it comes down to it, without that emotional suppressant for the horror of killing, which biologically women aren't evolved to do, many just wouldn't be able to pull the trigger. And those that do could face serious mental health problems. Women should be the equal of men. But not in this, just not in warfare. It isn't nice knowing that the only reason you can kill is because of your biology. But it's true. And women are born equal to men, but not the same. Before anyone asks me how I know. I served.
The fact that in order for women to serve in combat they may be required to lower the standards therefore decreasing the power of our military. It will also decrease moral within the unit. Men do not have a menstrual cycle and will never be hindered in any way possible by natural occurrences.
Women who fight in the army may cause us to lose the wars due to their lack of strength. They are considered smart, so why don't they just stay behind the lines while the men fight. Men would definitely have a better chance of winning a fist fight against another strongly trained enemy. It is the truth.
The military is changing the fitness requirements for female soldiers, would effectively weaken the strength of our military. Also, by giving women the option to serve on the frontline because of gender equality, then the argument that man should be allowed to choose as we'll because of gender equality.
Men and women are built differently, one of the top arguments for yes isn't really an argument, it is just saying that not letting blacks into the military would be as crazy as not letting women into combat roles. The difference is that melanin and chromosomes aren't even comparable and women will just never have as much body strength as men. Also the women didn't "pass the tests" the tests are lowered in almost every single requirement greatly and they require special equipment. They are not strong enough, fast enough, and they cost extra money to equip. Women should not be allowed to serve in combat roles.
I'm a woman! I'm in the military. I'm a mother, sister, daughter, wife, and proud of it but I don't want to take everything that's n have away because they can not do it to me. Guess what ladies... Can a man give birth to a child? Can a man have a me steal cycle? I think not. Guess what those jobs are solely for us and men can't ever take it away! Why much women be so determined to take what little jobs men have to themselves away? I'm a wife of a soldier in the Army Special Forces, my father, brother and many friends are male and military, I myself am an E5. I am so sick of women trying to take away the one thing men have left closed to women! I don't want a woman in my husbands unit getting him killed because she got hurt and his instinct as Ana kicked in and he went to help her! I damn sue don't want a woman distracting any man because they have been in the woods or desert for months or years and have had no sexual contact. Wen being able too mingle within in any Armed Service is nothing but trouble! For obvious reasons already stated wen aren't able to do chat roles without jeopardizing the mission one way or another. Why do women have to be so damn selfish!? Come on its one role in the military, we as women have one role that men can never have so if you want to be equal as you keep saying thence it equal by leaving the Combat roles to the ones at lesser risk and greater success MEN! We keep the ability to create life within ourselves and they get to go out and make sure we get another day to repopulate what's lost in those combat battles! There's equal for you now get over yourselves and move on to more important matters!
The problem with letting women serve in combat is that they physically made different than men. Our muscle structure is just different. I think women are mentally and emotionally capable and tough enough to handle combat, but I don't think they are physically. I know some women who could do just fine as a grunt, but most are not strong enough. Men on average have superior upper body strength, it's just the way we're made. I am in the military and most of the women I know couldn't drag a 200 pound wounded battle buddy out of a combat field. If a woman can pass the same physical standards as the men, she would be serving with and not fall behind she should be able to serve with them. The problem with that is that they are lowering the standard for men so that women can meet the same standard. The army has lowered the standard enough over the years. I know too many overweight lazy infantrymen who I wouldn't want to serve next to in a hairy situation. I'm all about equal rights, but lowering the standard across the board so that women "appear" physically equal to men when genetically, physically, and scientifically they are not is not good for the strength of the country.
For the people that merely base their entire post upon women being allowed into combat role MOS (Military Occupation Specialty), the intent of a combat role MOS is to pursue the enemy with the intent to directly engage the enemy. While it seems fair that both male and females could do this, add all of the gear that has been issued to them, the fact that women have to come in from down range more often then men which could disrupt a mission, and that women where not anatomically created equal.
Females are not held accountable to the same APFT standards as men,
Push up Situp 2 mile run
Men 42/71 53/78 13:00/15:54
Women 19/42 53/78 15:36/18:54
221% 0% 1:30 min/per mile
These are the differences in equality that are used to grade APFT with the amount of difference between men and women at ages 17-21.
But women are equally able to do the same work load correct?
Men and women are different, (in case you hadn't noticed.) It is a simple, indisputable fact that the average woman is smaller and weaker than the average man. How many women can carry a 100 lb ruck 15 kilometers? And that just gets you to the fight - then the real work begins. The overwhelming majority can't even pick it up to put it on their backs. How many women are capable of picking up and carrying a wounded male soldier and carrying him to safety?
The absolute best case scenario is that an infinitesimally small number of females will just barely meet the standards and then be "allowed" to perform at a physical level well below that of the average male combat soldier. What is the point? The bottom line is that integrating females into direct combat occupations will weaken the effectiveness of combat units. Moreover, past precedents suggest that when females overwhelmingly fail to meet the existing standards, those standards will almost certainly be lowered in order to achieve the desired diversity. The powers that be know that change must be achieved incrementally so this is off the table for now - it will not stay that way.
It's not about women's rights or equality, it is (or should be) about combat effectiveness and ensuring that all our soldiers, male and female, have the best possible chance of coming home without being in a body bag.
There are too many biological differences between men and women. Having women in the field would put male troops at a tactical disadvantage. The attraction taking place between male and female soldiers would surely occur and perhaps spark 'drama' in the field and irrational feelings to interrupt the main goal of a war: To win.
Men and women are not equal, it is biology, it is fact. Women's bodies break down faster than that of men. With the chance of pregnancy and loosing members of the platoon, it can get in the way of mission accomplishment. They need all members in order to operate to the fullest.
This debate is not about bravery, courage, or emotion, it is strictly about the physical demands of being in a combat position. Women cannot handle these physical demands. There are possibly some women out there that could, but in general, the average women cannot. Consider Capt. Katie Petronio's argument. She is an officer in the Marin Corps who has served in combat positions and even she says that combat positions are too taxing for women. Also, one must take into consideration all the necessities that women will require in combat. How hard is it to ship 3000 tampons to the center of a war zone? Also, take into consideration human nature. Put a woman and a man together for a long time, things are bound to happen. I am not saying women are any less than men, I honestly believe that women are more than man. I do not know a man who could endure the pain of giving birth or deal with the struggles of a monthly period. Women can do this with ease. Women do not belong in Special Operations or in Infantry.
Men are stronger than women in general, yes, but that is not the main problem. The USA has the greatest military in the world, the band of brothers and the generals HATE the idea of women and homosexuals in the military...they know best.
The REAL ISSUE with women in combat is that there are men there too! Men act differently around women, and they fight over women, and get aroused around them. Can we afford that happening with active soldiers? The whole point is that there is a brotherly bond. When you add women, brothers compete, or get flirty with the women. We can't have that, it will just distract our soldiers from their duties and break brotherly bonds.
My first objection to women serving in combat is that mothers need to be with their children and if a woman goes into combat, it is obvious that someone else has to care for her children. I do not believe that this is good for the children in most cases. Another fact is that the female body was simply not designed to be a warrior. Men are much stronger physically and much less emotional, thus more suited for combat.
I am an infantry soldier and having women involved combat will put the other soldiers at risk bc the women will be put above the rest of the soldiers. For example if a fellow male soldier was captured or pinned down he would have to wait it out for the risk of the other soldiers trying to get to them. Now if a women was captured or pinned down the male soldier would do more to save them. It allows too much room for error and too much room for feelings. Woman should not be in combat it will be a very very bad situation. Ask any soldier who has seen COMBAT!
Men are stranger and women... Well sometimes women can be weak and have emotional break downs... So the fact that they can cry during battle and can get raped during combat or sex offended is ridiculous. So really I'm not saying men are better but that THEY should be the ones on the battle field... I am a girl and this is my OPINION so you can agree or disagree but either way it helps support the topic ^^
Women are not men. That's the argument. Nothing more needs to be said. But since I'm required to say more, I will say women are weaker, and the physical standards have to be lowered just so they can wear a uniform. They will create tremendous problems with unit cohesiveness. They will end up being violated, either by their own guys or by the enemy in ways that one doesn't recover from. They won't be able to hold their own, period. And they'll have periods. Demi Moore was play acting as a Navy Seal. She wasn't actually a Seal, nor could she ever be one. And she's buff. It doesn't matter how butch a woman is, or if she wears boys clothes like Rachel Maddow. She's still just a girl. And girls are awesome, but again, they are not men. When women are born as men, then they should be allowed to serve in combat. Women should only serve in verbal combat, at which they are all four star generals.
Women are our earth mothers, the givers of life. For a women to take another's life is very evil. I will let our president and elected officials know this this is a terrible wrong. I do not support such a thing at all. If a woman wishes to be a doctor or a nurse in the military it is alright. Anything in support like firing off missiles or canons, tracking the enemy on radar is still wrong. You marines are tough bunch and you would kill someone using any means you you can. Think of it, would you want your mother, wife or daughter in combat facing all the horrors involved. Come on "commandant US marines" you really do not believe this right, do you? I thought so. So I am asking you to get back to our president and tell him he made a mistake. These woman the earth mothers, givers of life, should not be put to the test to kill another human . Sorry that is how feel. I am very thankful for those that went before us, who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our country and humanity, so I could express my displeasure about women in the military and combat to my highest officials without being arrested and imprisoned or executed. Some of these horrible wars and police actions were necessary, but did we have woman in combat back then. Of course not. There was a good reason. We needed them to build our war machines. Thank you for your time.
It's factual that men are stronger than women so they are more able to serve long missions and survive physical combat. I realize that some women are physically equivalent to men, but that is a rarity and it would be too costly to provide accommodations to the 2% of women that exhibit the same signs of strength.
I know that women are just as able to fill certain roles and more able to fill others (such as being a health care personnel because people generally respond better to female nurses, doctors, and dietitians), but infantry and special forces are not one of them.
Women simply don't have the strength needed to fight in combat. What if a 200 pound soldier carrying 100 pounds of equipment is injured in the middle of the road and the woman is the only one with good enough health/timing to help him? Do you expect her to pick up 300 pounds and carry the man to safety? No. It's nothing personal. It's just a fact that men have different physical abilities than women do.
OEF/OIF I had several encounters where female troops though maybe physically capable of dong the job just did not have the mind set. Ex: female MP on a shared cordon from another unit one time felt it her duty to berate me for my supposed inappropiate behavior. I dont have time to be nice or mince words with ppl that could be an enemy target any given second. Sometimes in the field you have to e cold hearted and emotionally numb. Where that soldier had a problem with my adhering to security protocol and how i addressed persons at my post......my platoon was past that checkpoint....a general was past it...along with at least 100 other soldiers.....i dont have time in a possible combat situation where you dont know who the enemy might be to be polite, nice,or empathic. When women can be proven to be mentally focused on the job and willing to kill at a moments notice when nessecary to do so and not think another second about it then maybe i can vote the other way. For now...well war isnt a time to be playing or thinking of patty cake...men are the only ones able to do this job the way it needs to be done.
Its a fact that men are more stronger than women. Like if someone has a marine by a gunpoint that marine will tell this squad to leave him and protect ourselves. If its a women than even if she says that the men will look bad and then everyone dies.
The reality of this policy is that allowances, adjustments and expensive renovations will have to be made to accommodate a very small percentage of women who will actually make the cut. Why break a system that already works. Men and women are equal but lets acknowledge that they have their differences. Men are more physically and mentally suited to front line combat while women are better suited for hearts-and-minds operations and supporting roles. Acknowledge these differences and the U.S military will become a more efficient machine.
Why put women in more danger? They are not physically capable of the same things as men, it's a fact. It would disrupt unit cohesion within troops. It's not an issue of equality, it just isn't necessary for our women to be serving in these positions. It will do more harm than good.
The YES voters have watched to much Hollywood fantasy. In the real world, where the Yes voters have obviously not been, women are a handicap to the male fighters who will have to protect and carry them along. Been there and had to do it. I feel sorry for the men and women who will have to face this reality in combat as it will be to late for them.
Women are physiologically different from men. There bodies (the vast majority of women's bodies anyway) are not designed for the physical strain of combat performance. Unless the standards for combat are equal women should not serve in combat. A woman who scores a 300 on the female APFT standards is the equivalent of a male who scores a 224 for a soldier who is 20 years old. A soldier scoring a 224 out of 300 is not likely to make a great combat arms soldier. In combat soldiers can expect to march many miles in one day carrying up to 100 lbs. Of equipment. How many women do you know that can seriously do that? If women want to be in combat than we should force them to enter the selective service system. Even though 95% would probably not wish to do that. Even women that can score well above a 300 on the female APFT have physical limitations that a male can surpass. Such as rope climbing or pullups/chin ups. Have you ever thought about what would happen to a woman if she got captured by the Taliban? Think the Nick Berg beheading but worse. She would likely be raped (possibly to death) or even forced into sexual slavery. Another problem is that men in combat situations are naturally protective of women and this could lead to all sorts of problems within a unit-or men could also rape women in the same unit. As a man I find it morally wrong to have something as delicate and wonderful as a woman be forced to face the dangers and disgusting nature of combat where there are no shortage of men who can already fill that position.
Because they will distract men sexually and mentally, and women are not naturally strong like men are, they wouldn't be able to do what men do. It will also create a weakness for the United States because if a women goes into combat, there is a great chance they will get raped by the enemy or by their own people.
Ground combat units should not be CO-ED for obvious reasons. I am all for ALL WOMEN combat units. The mix of the sexes doesn't make sense and all women units should be able to excel without men. Time will tell if this was a good decision, or not, but I fear that there will be unnecessary casualties physically, mentally, and socially. Pinetta isn't concerned about common sense, just politics.
I am an E4 in the Army and before I joined I was a housekeeper on a base near my home town. I can honestly say do to experience in both worlds being in and looking in from outside along with having this same discussion with my fellow soldiers both men and women, there are certain jobs that should stay as they are even if it means women do not have the option of doing them. Yes, we are all created equal but we are all different as well. I've known to many women that play the I'm a woman card when it's convenient to them and then get mad when they aren't treated the same. One huge one is women want to be able to breast feed their kids in public in uniform, think about regulations regarding uniforms that are set for men, if we are created equal the shouldn't we have avid by them even if it means we can't breast feed are child in uniform due to it technically being against regulations... I truly believe jogs such as Special Forces (which my husband is currently doing) and others like it should be left to one sex only. In a time of chat the last thing these guys need in their unit is a woman if not for any reason but because they are a distraction. Men always will have the protective aspect towards women and if they have a woman around and she gets hurts they will become emotionally unstable and unable to concentrate on theirs session where they would not have that problem with a man getting hurt. When I was a housekeeper I couldn't believe the amount of women that caused issues with the men in their unit because they used the woman card when it was convenient to them. Not to mention some of the missions some of these men go on women could jeopardize the mission due to hormonal changes and other physical happenings that men don't suffer from. I'm happy to serve my country doing things the military offers means I am proud to say that's husband is out doing riskier things than myself and I have a sense of relief that there aren't any unnecessary distractions when he deploys on a mission and that there are still jobs out there that are closed from women because guess what, we can do everything Ana can do but we can't do everything we can do. So it's only fair that we let them have this to themselves and being quite honest I am completely in agree acne within and women should be separated completely as far as housing when away from home and as far as units. Not saying women shouldn't be allowed to serve but saying men and women should not serve in the same unit but be in separate all men or all wen units, I feel missions would be carried out more effectively and less problems within the unit as well.
Until women stop menstruating, they will never be actively ready for battle at all times, such as the combat zone demands. The emotional toll that a woman's cycle puts on her judgment, strength, and preparedness is something that would not be wanted when trying to clear a battleground. Did anyone ever think of the simple things?
Women are not equal to men, if they were we wouldn't have kids and women wouldn't need men just like men wouldn't need women there are differences and roles to fit those differences military combat is a mans role and the women's role is to support by helping save his life if he is wounded
I was an 11b (army infantry) for 7 years with three combat deployments. Please believe me when I say it will make things worse, for both men and women. I'm not saying women can't be in combat, because they can. Physically and emotionally, some women can hold their own with Infantryman. Sleeping in a fox hole for two weeks with a women IS going to cause something bad! It's human nature! Sorry, but it's the truth.
A man can not get pregnant, even if their loved one becomes pregnant they still go over seas. If a women does get pregnant they do not go overseas. Some women, not all could abuse this as an opportunity to get out of a deployment while their male unit goes and fights. Lets say that the female is an officer and is even excited to deploy, her and her husband have their pre-deployment sex, and next thing you know, bam she's pregnant. Now she can't be used overseas and gotta be sent home. Now that unit is out of a important factor because she got pregnant. I've seen it to many times in Iraq.
Many women aren't capable of carrying a fully geared casuality out of the combat zone. Also I believe they would be a huge distraction towards the other men in a combat zone. I have served in a combat zone as a MP (military police) in Iraq which allows women to be in even though it is a combat mos, and saw first hand the distractions they cause and how they weren't capable of keeping up with everyday missions. I have nothing against woman soldiers and I do think that some woman can be better soldiers then some men but I believe that it would cause too many problems having women be in combat positions. In small combat units it would cause too many problems.
No way can they be able to be in combat. If a women gets captured she gets raped. If a man gets captured he gets tortured. If my wife went to war and was MIA, and I had to live with knowing that she was probably getting raped every, day I'd kill myself. They just aren't as strong as men.
Sense the beginning of the U.S. military only men have served in direct combat occupations. There is no shortage of men who want to serve in these positions, so why change it? Introducing women to combat occupations would bring many problems than it would benefits in the military. There is no reason to further risk the lives of infantrymen like myself. The infantry is brotherhood and by introducing women to that brotherhood will mess with men's emotions and would cause our fighting force to become much less effective. Furthermore, I must say that when someone joins the military thought it may seem ironic, you give up all of your rights that you are fighting for. Soldiers are merely pawns that the military leaders simply use to ensure the military is as effective as possible. Military leaders put their soldiers where they are most qualified and where the help is needed. It is not the military trying to strip women of their rights, it the military simply trying to do their job efficiently and effectively. So all of you feminists who think it is because we don't think you are strong enough that is simply not the case. That being said, is it really worth risking the lives of our men and women to "experiment" with allowing women to join combat occupations? I for one do not think that it is.
They dont have the physical capabilities that most men have. They could be a massive distraction to the men who are in combat. They dont have the aerobic capabilities to carry 100 pound packs of ammo and supplies to be running in combat. If most straight men see a woman get shot they would be more worried about the woman than themself.
Physical capabilities and emotions: Women are more reluctant to care and tend for people. It is their nature. Therefore, they will be more against shooting somebody with a gun with means to kill. With a woman next to a man the man will want to protect her as much as possible. It is male instincts. Therefore, he would act irrationally to protect said woman. Thus heightening his chances of getting hurt or worse.
1. Women are 7 times more likely to tear a knee ligament just walking than a man. Never mind fighting or carrying a pack etc. This makes it 7 times more likely that women will need to be carried out of combat thus putting everyone's life in danger.
2. Women are physically weaker. Hand to hand combat will be lost by women and they will be captured and our missions will go uncompleted.
We need to stop thinking about what is fair. God made each sex different. Forget about yourself...And what you think is fair. Think of others...The lives you will endanger with this silly PC idea.
DO we want to be fair? Or do we want to complete missions and save as many lives as possible.
The reason the military is in place is to protect our country, our freedom and our rights. If the US Government becomes so involved in making everything "right", they are going to take away from the power of the military. Just because women can, doesn't mean they should. There are certain things men are better at than women. Intense and brutal combat is one of them. Just think about it. If you were a Navy SEAL or a Green Beret, or from any other elite combat unit, would you want to trust your life to a 150 lb woman? Personally, I would not. Equal rights does not mean that everyone has the same capabilities. Certain things should be reserved for men ONLY, one of which is combat units in the military.
First of all, I want to address the argument of supposed "fairness" to women. The military is not about being fair, but about defending the USA, its people, and its interests. In that case, let any women who pass the standards in, because that can only improve our strength by drawing from a wider pool, right? While it makes sense at first, the reality is different.
In combat arms, unit cohesion and trust are vital, as the soldiers are constantly in life or death situations, and putting a women in the mix can only make things worse. There are generally two arguments used against this statement. Many will say that the military is mature enough to deal with interactions between genders, and that when deployed, nobody has the time to about sex. This is entirely false. A large amount of enlisted troops are 18-23 years old, so right there, it is unlikely that they are that mature. When a unit gets deployed, they can be gone for months at a time, and the only female interaction these young men will get is going to be sparse. Put a female in with them, and many of those men will by competing for her attention, which can very easily sow mistrust and anger amongst the unit. Infantry units are not constantly out on patrol either, they are often back at the Forward Operating Base, waiting for new orders to come down, so there is PLENTY of time for sexual encounters, as well as time for these 'competitions' to take place.
There are also the psychological effects a wounded women has on men. Male instinct is to protect females, so when he hears a women scream or sees her injured, his first instinct will be to aid her, even if it will be a detriment to himself, the unit, or the mission.
Now, people might say that this is all invalid because women have been in combat for a long time. First, the issue with sexual relations and competition hold, because it already occurs in mixed units. Second, just because women have been shot at and shot back does not put them on par with the infantry or special operations. They might have engaged in some firefights, but none of those units have gone looking for a fight, and none have had to hump a 100+lb before even getting to the area of engagement. Combat arms is a different breed of warfare then the sporadic firefights MP and transportation units get into.
All in all, it's not risking such a large drop in readiness just for the sake of fairness, especially when the institution isn't in the game of being fair. Not to mention the amount of money this will cost us, and during sequestration no less.
For one, women on average do not have the physical strength required to handle the stress and requirements of combat, and for two, the emotional and psychological stress of combat would have an adverse effect not only on the female, since they are more susceptible to PTSD and other psychological afflictions, but the presence of a female on the battle field has the potential to trigger a "guardian-angel"-esque reaction out of the male squadmates that could put their lives in danger.
I am not sure who is posting in the yes column if it is females and males from the military or outside the military but women should not be allowed into combat positions. I have no issue with them serving they don't need to just be nurses and desk clerks they can do technical jobs and can even go in country like everyone else. But why do they need to feel as equal to go through everything that a male combat infantryman would need to go through. When overseas we spent the first month in country in the middle of the dessert no tents, showers, bathrooms, slept in our vehicles while in constant freezing temperatures. In this situation would the females need to protect would they need there own vehicles to sleep in so they are not in a confined space sleeping with all the other men who will stink and be dirty and taking baby wipe baths in the vehicle to get out of the wind and even staying out of the line of fire by reducing time spent outside in the open. If the females are ok with all those situations and would not need special accommodations so they are all exactly equal then we may be getting somewhere. But during my time we went out on a mission with a few females and we did run into an issue on long haul convoys if a male has to take a leak he finds a bottle and goes would that bother the female to be sitting next to him while this happens. The convoys don't stop for a bathroom break so modesty is out of the window. When on security details we were asked to leave the vehicle so the females in the back could pee in privacy since they did not want to pee outside the vehicle like everyone for fear of being seen by us and the local villagers in the area. So having everyone leave a vehicle and closing it up for privacy leaving all the males outside the vehicle including the gunner who was asked to step-out putting everyone else at risk for there privacy. Take it or leave it has passed and we will see if it is a good or bad idea we could be all wrong or all right.
What happens when a female soldier is captured in combat? I think she could be tortured and beaten just like a man ... Only raped as well. How will the country react when this ordeal is filmed over the Internet and exploited like al Qaida often does? How will it impact morale? It used to be that women and children were kept safe from the battle field because it was considered crossing the moral line even for war.
Women would not be capable of carrying a soldier to safety if wounded. While there will be anywhere from 50-140lbs of gear on her, in addition, the added weight of the average 160lb soldier with 50-140lbs of gear would equal over 400lbs for a woman to lift and to walk/run with over her shoulders. Fewer than 1 percent of females could realistically do this - even fewer, when longer distance is involved.
There’s more at stake here than equal opportunity and political correctness. Why should we let women - most of whom cannot carry 125 lbs for 10 kilometers and then effectively carry out a combat mission - be in combat when there will always be a man who can out perform her in the physical tasks and be just as effective in the mental ones?
This discussion has been emotionally driven since its onset. The conversation should be about Warfighting and capabilities. The common argument is that women have already been doing it; this logic is absolutely flawed.
The fight we have been in over the past 10 years has not been a kinetic force on force war. Any argument that relates Counter Insurgency operations and non-kentic partnering with combat is flawed.
To better frame the argument we need to talk about kinetic operations and closing with and destroying the enemy. The infantry is built around closing the last tactical mile and destroying the Enemy with fire, maneuver, and close combat. The physical, mental, and emotional strains on being able to inspire and lead humans to accomplish this is the ultimate feat. All discussions of integrating females needs to focus on will this improve the infantry's ability to accomplish this most demanding mission essential task.
1. There is no argument that woman generally have different physical attributes and are generally possess less physical strength. The standard of strength is not relative to a woman's weight; but absolute and based on the heaviest individual in the group. At this most demanding time, the group relies on each other and a weak individual becomes a liability and costs lives.
2. Decision making in the most demanding times cannot be affected by emotional relationships. Integration of women into combat roles will lead to lust and love relationships within the organization that will affect leaders' ability to make life and death decisions in combat. Decision makers must not be clouded at that most demanding time.
3. Austerity, Austerity, Austerity... living in close confines with limited resources and hygiene. This is the combat environment that the infantry operates in. Woman hygiene needs exceed those of men and can become combat ineffective affecting unit readiness.
In closing, I recognize that there may be the few that can and will succeed in the infantry. However, what needs to be the focus is the impact on the unit and the ability to close with and kill the Enemy. We must be honest about this conversation; this is not a right, it is a discussion about national defense and what is best for the warfighting capability.
Women are fragile creatures. Some take that into consideration, but others want to use their strength and fight for what they think is right. If women want to be involved in combat, they should be able to follow their dreams. It is the 20th century and if they want that right, they should be entitled to it.
I don't mean to be sexist, but there is no denying that men are different from women, and I find it pretty obvious that not all combat roles are suitable for women. There's nothing wrong with women in the army, but certain roles should be left to men. Men can just do some things better, while women can do other things better.
I was an infantry man that served in combat zones and did combat tours. To me say there are two people wounded a man and a woman and there is a man that needs to save them. The man will be going after the woman even if the man is better than the woman... Its a fact of life
The final test for a Royal Marine, so that he (and I say he because only men serve) might earn his green beret is a 30 mile forced march through the Welsh mountains. This is tough terrain, and they have to complete the march in under 8 hours, carrying 15 kilos worth of equipment. Assuming the average woman (about 5'8 tall) weights 130-140lbs, that's a quarter of her total body weight. And that's standard equipment, including a rifle.
I'm not suggesting that every woman could not potentially serve, but this single test (which is only 1 of 4 that must be passed in order to pass out) is beyond most men, and it would be difficult to argue that women on average would not find it more difficult.
Furthermore, do women possess the ability to kill? Kill instantly, without question or remorse? Personally I doubt it. Without completely relying on gender stereotypes here, most women are extremely emotional under normal circumstances, and under the highly charged situations of the battlefield any emotional instability is dangerous, to you and your comrades.
A note on the argument for equality; just because some piece of paper, written several centuries ago says that 'all men are created equal' does not mean that women automatically get a place in the military. If they were allowed to enlist, they would still need to pass the basic training.
Finally, thinking about it, if women were suited to the battlefield, why wouldn't over 2000 years of men killing each other have thought, 'the women would make this a lot easier for us'. And if you're response to that has the word "patriarchy" in it, well think about this; surely it'd be a lot clever of us conspiring men to make all the ladies kill one another then reap the rewards, rather than men killing one another to reap the same rewards.
The political correctness of the modern era is completely counterintuitive. I dont care if a women is as strong, or stronger, than a male soldier. It boils down the fact that we have been raised as males to be the provider and protector of females. If a female is shot and killed, that squad/platoon's morale will be crushed. Don't even try the argument "Its our lives, why can't we risk them, we're in charge of ourselves". Its not just a woman's live she is risking by going into combat. If she dies, the rest of her squad is at more risk of taking casualties. It is completely selfish the way woman are treating this issue today. To think that your life is worth more than the males life next you is just straight wrong. So women, rethink your arguments next time.
SHARP! Think of other Military forces. We can't control what would happen in black out FOB's when you have other countries sharing the same area. Let alone some of our bases we share with the Afghanistan National Army and all we need our stories of rape or even worse floating through are Army.
Women do not have the strength or endurance of what it takes to be in military or law enforcement. A woman will argue this OPINION like nothing else because they think equal rights means that they can do anything a man can, which yes, of course they could and probably in some aspects better than a few males. But the majority is not, and it becomes a liability. Now of course women deserve equal rights and I believe one who thinks they shouldn't to be uneducated. But the plain and simple fact is that men are not only stronger but can think clearer in tricky situations and for the most part don't let emotions get the best of them. This is highly evident throughout history and I don't see much to argue about because it's in history books for Pete's sake. Men when they are boys for the most part have all wanted a toy gun, water pistol even a BB gun. They all role play as law enforcement and what not, They have a high interest in the topic of military or law enforcement. This is very important because interest in what you do for a living will either make or break you. Women are generally frightened by abnormal situations and certainly have a harder time getting by in life due to hormonal complications once a month when women will go into an altered physical and mental state of well-being. This hinders them from certain normal daily activities and I strongly believe that war would be too overwhelming for one in that situation. 99% of the U.S. military is composed of males and I also think having a women around could complicate things and cause some to not "keep their eyes on the prize" so to speak. YES, women do work hard and some even harder then their male counterparts. BUT although this will sound cliche, women are simply not as strong. And this is a problem when you are serving our country. I think a woman should be allowed to help in the protection of our country by doing medical work, chef, headquarters, basically anything besides combat. Because it is a liability and I have just made that evident. A women could never play in the NFL for obvious reasons and have even been given their own basketball league for something more in their lane. So why should they be able to fight side by side with men in combat? I understand the anger of being a woman and being told you can't do this or that. But there is a line which should not be crossed and deep down women know. I am not sexist, I love women and without them we'd be nothing, But I think the military is a serious outlet which should be treated with respect and women should not join just to prove to their friends that they're tough or that a woman can do anything. That's how one dies.
Since the beginning of mankind men have always fought, not women. If you ask every woman from the beginning until the 1970´s " who is stronger," they will point at the men. Nature doesn't change because some women don't agree with it. Just because it is "not fair" doesn't mean it is not true.
I believe that troop morale can potentially take a hit from adding women to a group of service men. There is something about just being with men that makes things more comfortable and open. Add women into the picture and we have to worry about separate sleeping areas, different areas of going to the bathroom, exc. I don't want service to run into the line of fire to try and help and fellow service woman and get shot. With women on the battlefield, men are much more likely of making a dumb decision to try and help her out. The death of a woman is also much harder on people. Not saying that when a man dies people are not sad, but there is just something about a woman that breaks your heart. Currently, women also have lower standards in physical fitness across the board. I do not want to risk human lives by trying to force social equality onto the battle field! Keep our American women safe and off the battle field!
This is a simple question to answer; women are held to lower PT standards and don't have the necessary chemicals (primarily testosterone) in their bodies to grow muscles as fast or as large as men. Imagine; a man gets shot in combat, a female who is held to lower standards is going to have to carry him off the field. This puts both in danger because by current standards in paramedics women are forced to be with a larger male to help hoist someone to safety, disregarding the physical aspect, it can endanger men as well. If a man sees a woman shot due to his instinct he is going to rush to her aid, even if he may have a more heavily injured comrade. Lastly, financially, women have to be placed in separate barracks have to have separate showers, which have to be carried by the men. This means that it will take more time for them to move about and cost more money for these separate quarters.
First of all women are weaker. They are designed to be a child bearer, not a fighter. Since the start of man, the fighting has been left to men because they are more physically built for fighting. Also if all our women die in combat, how will we be able to keep our population from diminishing too much?
Men are usually larger and stronger than women. Also, it would be unfair because women would not be required to serve in combat if they don't want to serve - men are required to serve in combat roles if they do not want to. Also, most of the women do not have experience in combat.
Women do not belong in the infantry. It’s a simple statement and one that, until recently, nearly every civilized culture seemed to accept as a truism. For reasons as multitudinous as they are apparent and profound, in time of war men have shouldered arms and marched to the clash of legions or the sound of the guns. Women as a rule have not. Even in those scattered and wretched societies whose women prowled the battlefields to torture the wounded and desecrate the dead, no woman was thrown into offensive action against the massed ranks of the enemy. Show me an exception and I’ll show you savages. Yet now, in the bosom of modern democracy and in the heart of its most disciplined warrior elite, the prohibition against employing women in the infantry has changed under the current administration. The mission of the infantry is and always has been, to physically close with the enemy to kill or capture him. It is a physical job. Infantrymen are affectionately and accurately known as “grunts” because of the sound made when shifting a 120-pound pack closer against one’s agonized shoulders. It isn’t good enough to survive the physical requirements of a 12 mile mountain ruck march if at the end of it an infantryman cannot fling down his pack and sprint in short bursts of speed across an undulating farm field while delivering effective and disciplined fire against a concealed enemy who is desperately trying to kill him. It would be the rare woman that could meet such an exacting physical standard when many men can not. During a training exercises years ago, evaluators “killed” a 6’1”, 195 lb. male Marine Officer. He was within prescribed height and weight standards, and in an excellent state of fitness. He was also 30 years old. The evaluator then assigned the only available Marine, a female officer to carry the “dead” officer from the training battle field. The female officer was within the “normal” or “average” range for size; she was 5’4” and 125-130 lb. She was in superior physical condition, was 23 years old, and had a perfect physical fitness score on her most recent test. Both were wearing typical combat loads of 65-80 lb. of gear. What happened? The female could not lift the male Marine. She could barely move him. She removed her gear to improve her strength-to- weight ratio. She still was unable to manage the weight.
Military gender norming is the practice of judging female military service members, applicants or recruits by less stringent standards than their male counterparts. Physical standards are lowered, modified, or just plain overlooked. Norming is all about fairness and equity. But there’s nothing equal, normal or fair about war. Anyone who’s ever fought in one can tell you that.
Women should be able to serve, but I have reservations. For instance, what if there is a 6`4" 250 pound man who is wounded in the front lines, and next to him, you have a 5`9" 135 pound woman and she needs to take him back to base 10's of 100's of yards away, it is relevant. There are some cases where it is for effective to have a man in the battle field rather than a woman. The military is not a place to make social changes, so don't treat it as such.
First off I ant to say that I believe a women should be given any job she wants, but not at the cost of jeopardizing others or the end desired result. One of the things you don't do is give your enemy anything to aid them. With that in mind, how will the American public react to female POW's shown on the network striped and tortured? This any way you try to down play it would bring enormous pressure on our leaders giving our "news" media a lot of "news". If you don't believe me study the history of why we "lost" the Vietnam war. Twice the NVA were knocked to their knees:once after Tet and again during the bombing of Hanoi. Both time the "news" media gave credit to the NVA. Proclaiming the Tet to be a victory for the north was news; ( TO THE NORTH). That gave them enough hope to keep up the fight. The bombing was stopped because U.S. of public opinion, from "news" that it was ineffective. By their own admission the NVA were within days from giving up.
Should we also eliminate women's sports If we are both able to perform the same why should the women have their own team or why should men not be allowed to compete on women's teams? This brings me to my own internal conflict; are women getting to chose what they want and don't want to do to protect this country and at the same time men are told what military jobs they should do. My war was different, we had a draft and I was not given a choice. Hey you you're infantry. If a big enough conflict comes the draft will be needed period. Do you really see all women told they are going into the infantry giving in to" well it's my duty". Non would become a crying wreck over that? Would there be an out cry if it came down from command that all woman combat infantry were going to be formed? For you who believe in women in infantry, do you see an 8,000 woman unit not having it's "fair" share of drafted assigned to infantry becoming a problem? Be truthful with yourself how do you think that is going to work out for those that wanted in the infantry? If you have the right to be in the infantry should men have the right to not be in the same unit? You say there isn't a draft, that is true but in case of a large enough conflict (war) there will be rest assured. Is it right to have women in the infantry when they want and only then women given a choice when there is a draft? In closing, women should be in the infantry when it becomes the last line of defense, but until then please allowed men to be what they have evolved into, the protector.
I understand that many women see it as unfair. If we were judging things based solely on equal rights, then of course women should be allowed in combat. But we don't judge things based on just fairness in an issue as crucial as this. The fact is that women, in general, will never be as physically capable as men, and combat is a physically intense endeavor on a gruesome scale. Some very rare women could handle it, but they are too few and far between. In combat, where the slightest incapability could mean the difference between life and death, women simply would not fit. Should we place the lives of our troops in less capable hands? We cannot afford to lower our standards. Just to restate a fact, most women are not as capable as men. History, the Olympics, and nearly all, if not all, sports are separated into men's divisions and women's divisions. There's a reason for that. Of course, the dynamics of a unit would change. Likewise, considering that there would be few women, in a group of many men, I mean, come on, does that sound like a good plan?
So If you must release legal action allowing women in combat, it should be under the terms that they must meet the same physical requirements that men must meet, and that they understand fully the risk of being a minority in a unit. By all means if a woman feels that she can contribute with the same efficiency that a military man can, then she can. But I feel that for most women, even in the military, it is simply too much to ask for, and that's just from a physical standpoint, not counting emotional and psychological points.
As beings, women are more gentle creatures than males, correct, no? Also, women, in general, do not match-up to the physical standards that men do. Am I saying we shouldn't treat women as equals? No, mentally they are equivalents, but physically, and that is what a majority of war is about, they are not equal. We need to set a precedent, for we can't just let some women of supreme physique in, and then the rest out. It's either every female, or some females.
If women are to be given the same opportunities as men, they should also be expected to bear the same responsibilities. They should not simply be "allowed" to volunteer for combat roles, they should be required to fill them even if they'd rather not.
Alternatively, allow men sign up for the military but opt out of combat roles, the way women have been able to for decades.
Of course, women should also be subject to Selective Service and any draft.
It just so happened that women carry and give birth to children, while men do not. So, we ARE different.
Historically, men have always protected women because a man's life is less valuable. It is easy to talk about rights, when less than 1% of population serves in the army. Especially, if one writes a post after post, but never actually goes to war.
In the extreme situations, if the whole nation is under threat, men will have no choice but to protect women. Otherwise very few or no children will be born and such nation will cease to exist. This is how Nature works, whether you like it or not.
Of course, this is a hypothetical situation for the modern United States, but it just demonstrates that we are different. So what? It is not about "rights", it is about what makes the most sense for survival.
This is a very controversial topic. As a woman, I agree yet disagree with it. I agree on the fact that a woman should have equals rights and not be discriminated against for being a woman; however, on the front-line, is where it gets fuzzy.
Here are the reasons why I don't agree:
-Hygienic: Having an "in-y" instead of an "out-y" is more harmful to our health in a combat situation; being out in the field for days, weeks, and months without a shower - yeast infections would set in fairly quickly. Baby wipes are a good go-to, but they won't last very long... especially with all of the other gear you have to lug around.
-Strength (physical and mental): Yes, women are strong and other women are much stronger than others... but not many. Even using the 'buddy system' would be a challenge. Let's say a woman is paired up with a man in a combat situation, the man gets injured and can't walk. Will that woman have enough strength to pick that soldier up and carry him to safety? And if a woman is captured, will she really be able to hold her own without breaking; if so, for how long? A woman's pain threshold is a lot weaker than a man's, in my opinion.
-Distractions... and this also applies to "Don't ask, don't tell" (which is a whole 'nother can o' worms). Rape is imminent and goes on now in the Armed Forces, even without the "ok" for women to be in combat. Pair a woman up with a sex-deprived man on the front line and you can't honestly tell me that nothing will happen. Not all men or women, for that matter, has self-control especially when faced with temptation. There are so many other factors to add as well... pregnancy, for one.
I have to say, though, when I first joined the military I really wanted to be in infantry; this was only because I wanted to blow stuff up, but because of my gender, I didn't qualify. With that said, I was slightly disappointed, but it wasn't devastating for me to hear that news. I was ok with it for all of the reasons listed above. But more power to ya if you're a chick willing to give it a shot. Good luck!
Women can not do what men can do physically. It is not safe for the other men and women fighting around them. Women get easier testing than men do to pass and graduate from boot camp. The times that they have to run and the strength tests are lowered to compensate for a women's physical attributes. This is a problem when in the heat of war. The women become a danger to have around. If a squad needs to run somewhere then they're putting their lives on the line because they have to run slower for the women. If a 220 pound guy gets shot and needs someone to save his life a girl can't do it. The woman is not going to be able to dead-lift his 220 pound body on her shoulders and save his life. Women have always been physically weaker than men. To be in battle both sexes should have to pass the same test so that the person next to you can be trusted with your life.
I spent 14 months as Airborne Infantry in Iraq. We would go weeks and months without showers. Baby wipes and alcohol pads only last for so long. What female would last that long without getting a yeast infection? Small kill teams require you to lay there for days. Can a girl roll over and urinate? If you tell me you know a girl that can last that long, I pray I never meet her.
Maybe in a motor company you'll last. But being put in a weapons squad, carrying all your gear, plus your weapon, being ammo bearer...You physically can't last. Physically your bodies can't support it and don't have the stamina to trek on like male bodies. Don't be an idiot saying you know girls that can do more than some guys, because so do I. That statement makes you sound ignorant. Its just fact that the male body is built to withstand more physical punishment with the need for stamina.
Men and women are physically and physiologically created differently. Boys grow up fighting, hunting, getting dirty, working out, learning situational awareness, killing things, and not thinking twice about any of it. Girls grow up crying, emotional, fragile, full of anxiety, and always caring what other people think. There's nothing wrong with either path, but would a woman be able to handle seeing severed limbs? protruding organs? all while bullets and bombs are flying everywhere? Would they have the mental clarity and strength to not just handle it, but push on through to the next task? Really be honest with yourself. In my opinion, I have never met a woman that would be able to. This is even leaving out the physical demands of combat. Testosterone and estrogen are body chemicals with different resulting makeups... for a reason.
We as humans have too many primal instincts. The possibilities of a man risking his life for a woman are too high. Not only that, but other situations could arise. Instead of combat roles, women should still be given the opportunity to be promoted and serve their country in other forms of service instead of combat.
Women have a role to play in the military and have served in a variety of capacities, throughout various wars. There are some roles, however, that are better served by men, due to physical and cultural considerations. Men are physically stronger, for one, which is still a consideration in many military positions. Furthermore, the capture or death of a woman, or possibly a mother, has a much more profound psychological impact on society, which is something that can easily be exploited by less enlightened foes.
If a woman can deminstrate that they can perform the same tasks as a male physicaly and mentally then i will be glad to accept them in and trust them. But most of them would be too caring. If they can't shoot an animal or stuff like that there is NO way at all i would trust them. also like the infantry man said before me they would get priority over males to show that they will be treated the same but will actually be treated better. Also emotional ties towards women could be greater than man and man relationships and they could get a little reckless and not think clearly.
I believe that women should not be able to serve equal combat roles as men because there might be a shortage of women around the world. Already in China, there is an unequal ratio of men to women, and we need women to keep our human population going. Also, women need to be able to produce babies for this reason, and the only way they could do that is if they are 18+ years old. If a women decides to go fight the same combat roles as men in a time of war, we will lose a percentage of women worldwide, it is not like after the war only 10 women will die throughout the time of war.
If women want to man up they should have to fight a man and see who will win. In a hand to hand situation a woman is no were near equal to men. It will cause "emotion" in men. A man has 40 to 60 percent more upper and lower body strength than a woman. And women want to do everything a man does they don't want men to even remotely have anything that's just them. Women can be easily interrogated. Women lack testosterone. Women are more timid and cautious by nature which could fill more body bags. And result in more families having more funerals.