Should women be allowed to serve in the military, but only in more suitable combat roles like reconnaissance, sniping, artillery, etc?

Asked by: Tes95
  • Women are more effective in some circumstances than men.

    Allowing women to serve doubles the talent pool for delicate and sensitive jobs that require interpersonal skills not every soldier has. Having a wider personnel base allows militaries to have the best and most diplomatic soldiers working to end conflict quickly. Thus, women should be in the military because they are sometimes more effective.

  • Wwho want to servieomenWomen and men are equal.

    Women should be able to do anything men can do. They are both human just one is male and the other is female. Women can fight if trained. And if they really want to fight, then they won't have children. This is unfair to the women who WANT to serve their country.

  • Women join army?

    Yes women should join the military they are just as strong as men and fit as men. They aren't given the credit for what they do. They are stereotyped people think they are house maid's when they can fight on the front lines like everybody else. Women are strong Believe.

  • Yes, they can contribute.

    Yes, women should be allowed to serve in the military in roles that are suited for them. Women should have the opportunity to both serve their country and collect a government check. But the military also needs to put them in roles that serve their abilities. There is nothing wrong with making placement decisions based on gender in the military.

  • Women in the military are accepted under standard military structure

    If a woman is "butch" and can train for foot soldier operations, then there is no need for a problem. The problem here is barracks. Is there enough material and manpower to have a barracks and/or tent for women? Because it can be tedious to build a barracks or tent for just one woman.

  • If they are able

    The military has several tests for fitness and skills in order to see if their soldiers are prepared to be in war. If women can pass those tests at the same level as men, then they should be allowed to be put in those military roles just like the men.

  • Yes, No Front Lines for Women

    Women should not be on the front lines of battle in the military. In the front lines, many soldiers will be wounded and they will need to be aided by their fellow soldiers. Women, scientifically speaking, are weaker than men on average. Thus, the average woman in the military is weaker than the average male soldier. Having women on the front lines is a liability.

  • To be perfectly honest, WOMEN ARE NOT SHOCK TROOPS! They do not have the same physical power as men for heavy damage.

    So roles such as these would be perfect for women. They'd still be fighting, just not in an ill-suited position. One woman, even with military training, cannot be as physically strong as one man with military training. Maybe in some anomalous case they could be a near match, but it's just truth. Women are more suited for stealth, Spec Ops, artillery support and operating vehicles, flying jets. It's just not effective to put them on the middle of the battlefield.

  • No, they should not be singled out for special treatment.

    While it may seem practical to separate women out and channel them into specific jobs that it is believed they could more easily handle, it would create an unfair sexist situation that would cause more unrest among the troops. This would just reinforce the idea of women being the fairer sex and the idea that they have to be protected.

  • All roles for all people - if they're fit enough.

    I think that a role should have set entry standards (run a mile in this time, do X push ups etc.) and anyone meeting those requirements should be selected without discrimination on gender, religion sexuality and so on.

    Obviously this would lead to more men in the physically demanding jobs but everyone would have the comfort of knowing that the people who are doing are the best because of what they can do, not what they are.

  • This is an issue of equality.

    Women and men need to be equal in this. I think that they should be allowed front line combat roles without being ushered into certain jobs. I think that maybe the ones who want to do sniping, reconnaissance, etc, should have that choice, but the ones who want to do front line work should be able to do so. Same with men. Lots of those jobs might be taken by women who don't want to do it, and men have less of a chance to do the job if they want to. There needs to be variety, and in the end it doesn't matter what gender you are. You just need to do the job

  • Women Can Be on the Front Lines Too

    There is no reason why women can't serve in full-fledged combat roles in the U.S. military. As long as they can fit into the same roles as men, there shouldn't be a problem. Women have equal rights with regards to traditional male roles and they are just as capable warriors as men.

  • Women should be allowed to serve in the military.

    Women should be allowed to serve in the military. However, they have already proved that they can fight in the front of the line alongside the men. So I think that women should be treated just as equally as men and be able to do any job in the military.

  • An outdated and sexist argument

    The people who support this say that since men are stronger than women that women shouldn't be allowed on the front line. While i don't disagree with the fact that men are stronger, a woman who is military trained is A LOT stronger than your average woman. Not to mention that strength doesn't really have anything to do with being shot. If you're shot, you're shot, you don't have a strength level that decides how badly you're hurt

    Posted by: WSB

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.