The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Can women be in higher positions of force oraganisations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Akash_Lakshmipathy has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 547 times Debate No: 105513
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Cons of Women in Combat

A number of arguments have been raised in defense of military policy that bans women from combat roles. Below is an overview of, the pros and cons, the key arguments put forth in support and against the enlisting of women soldiers into combat units.
CONS Overview:

There are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration? " Captain Katie Petronio, US Marine Corps, served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq

Physical Ability. While the majority of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to which women are just not physically suited. The standards of physical fitness have been set to suit men, and women attempting to reach them will over-stretch themselves. In addition, combat units engage in activities designed to suit men"s capabilities. Women serving in integrated units will suffer higher injury rates as a result of this.

Efficiency. Some women will be able to meet the required standards, but most will not. While integration of women into combat is possible for those qualified, the small number versus the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integration do not make it a worthwhile move.

Morale & Cohesion. Having women serving in direct combat will hamper mission effectiveness by hurting unit morale and cohesion.

Military readiness. Pregnancy can affect the deployability of a unit when the unit has a disproportionate number of women or is understaffed.

Tradition. Men, especially those likely to enlist, maintain traditional gender roles. In some situations, men are may act foolishly to protect women in their combat units. Harassment and resentment of the presence of women in a hyper masculine military subculture would likely become a problem.

Abuse by Enemy. Both male and female prisoners are at risk of torture and rape, but misogynistic societies may be more willing to abuse woman prisoners.

Career advancement. Men and women are both given opportunities to join the army, but with the understanding that different roles require different physical, emotional attributes. This should mean in turn that there are multiple routes to promotion so that women have equal opportunities without having to fight take part in combat operations.


I will be taking the Pro side of the argument "Can women be in higher positions of force organizations".

Beginning this, I'd like to provide the website in which Con plagiarized his/her arguments from:
It provides both Pros and Con's relative to the debate. As well as to Cons arguments.

Moving on to my rebuttals and arguments...
"Physical Ability" -
Con suggests that because the capabilities of completing some certain tasks in the armed forces mostly pertain to men, that women (even in which those that are capable of completing the task at hand) should not be able to participate in such because it 'might' be a strain to them and result in injuries. Or rather that it -would- create a strain on them.
Women who are capable should be more than able to participate in combat forces, and not restricted based on a "might" situation. While many women are not physically as strong as men, there are those who are more capable and advanced in multiple other areas of combat. However, The fact remains that, still, there are women who are physically capable and set for activities that Con mentions. Preventing the capable based on the incapable is not an option of reason.

"Efficiency" -
What roles exactly are you speaking about? In combat, there are many different jobs that have different purposes. Many women have the capability to excel in such. Suggesting that the removal of women would be the better move eliminates the chances of many potential soldiers that could create some very good use to a certain role they may be better at than others.

"Moral & Cohesion" -
This is making the assumption that the women in position are unable to fulfill their task based on the mere fact that they are women. It would make no sense for a woman to be in direct combat but be incapable of the required tasks of her in so. A soldier would not be put in a place/position she/he is ill-prepared for.

"Military Readiness" -
Majority of women in combat are not pregnant. This is not a very valid argument as to why all women should not be put in higher positions of force organizations.

"Harassment and resentment of the presence of women in a hyper masculine military subculture would likely become a problem."
So the issue here is among those of whom would abuse the situation- some men. Not that women are incapable.

"Abuse by Enemy" -
When countries resort to torture, it's usually not taken in a light matter whether the prisoner is a woman or man. Either way, the torture would be excruciating, and it is torture none-the-less. Assuming they would be more "willing" to torture the woman merely because she is a woman is a big assumption that simply is not backed up.

"Career Advancement" -
So then the most capable can go to the higher position. That's that. Saying that women should not be able to, merely because some are incapable, is not a reason as to why the capable should be held back.

I'd just like to add, women in combat increase the number of people with specific, useful strengths/skills.
Allowing capable women to be in combat helps fill positions and provides more variety of good skills that many soldiers don't have. While you look at the general idea of physical strength, there are many strengths different people hold that could be incredibly useful in combat. Including women provide larger opportunities for this.

Throughout Con's arguments, they repeatedly bring up the capability of women in certain positions. However, Con earlier stated that it's about longevity, not so much (in)capability. I'd suggest Con uses arguments that promote the idea that women won't be able to last, not that they are supposedly incapable- if that is what they are trying to get at.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Jawad_aslam 2 years ago
It depends. But you have to understand that women are a lot of attraction and i think they already have too many rights because they can make someone do anything because the are a women and giving women a higher position would make things diffrent because accroding to recently study mosty womens not all tend to spend more time on social media than on anything else.
Hey, this debate can go both ways but i think that they higher posts must be bgiven to men
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.