The Argument Against Women 's Combat

In Molly M. Ginty’s article “Military Women: All Guts, No Glory” she explores the issue of women who serve in the army and them being included in combat with males, and the inequality they have been through serving in the U.S Armed Forces over numerous years. With new legislating, and there being new roles for females there is always going to be the debate if women should be in combat with men or not. For years’ women who would join the army were just nurses and secretaries, because of people thinking that they are not fit to be in battle. Even though they all go through the same training, the women were put in position to practically serve those who were in battle which were the men. So personally I do agree with women being able to serve

Some argue that women should not serve in combat because; they have never served in any type of combat operations in the history of the American military. Positions in the military have been designed specifically for women and how they perform their duties. No evidence can be produced that women have the abilities, physical strength, or motivation to engage in combat operations, the physical differences from their male counterparts are so extreme; women cannot maintain the agility or psychological confidence that men are capable of displaying during extreme combat stress.

If a woman wanted to be as physically qualified as a man she could be. She may have to work a little bit harder to get there but she could. Although I don’t agree fully with what was said, I have become a little skeptical in allowing women in combat as well as others.

The first argument supporting women in combat is that some or many women are more physically capable then many men. Some women are able to do tasks better than men. For example, like welding or getting in small spaces that men are not capable to go. Woman's Soldier's fingers are thinner and it would be a lot easier to dismantle a bomb or complete tasks that require you to work your fingers in small

Is America ready to see their women in combat units? For years this idea has been pondered and discussed. It was not until recent combat troops such as the Army Special Forces units: Rangers and Green Berets were open to the idea. However, after many injuries and fail outs parents of Derby High School girls are now asking if women are up to the task. America needs to make a stand; women due to physical ability, military readiness, and abuse should not be allowed in combat

Women have been enlisted in the armed forces since June 12, 1948, when President Truman signed the Woman’s Armed Services Integration Act. Throughout this time, women have served several different roles; however, women were not allowed to serve in combat forces. Arguments offer the idea that women are physically and emotionally capable of performing the same as men, Researchers have proven that only a small percentage of women are capable of performing the physically demanding aspects as that of men, although there are a select few women that are capable of completing the qualification standards to join the combat forces. With that being said women should be allowed to fight on the front lines.

So many questions linger when it comes to women being able to be in combat. Are they strong enough? Are women capable of dragging a man’s body out of gun fire? In my opinion, this is a well debated topic in the military world. I believe that women should not be allowed in combat because most are not physically capable, emotionally capable, and not experienced enough.

As a woman, a leader, a student, a United States citizen, a feminist, and a Democrat, I am a firm believer that women should be allowed in combat. Hillary Clinton and Gary Johnson also agree with my point of view.

Every reason was valid and convincing, but I stand undecided on which side to support. Women in combat involve many different varieties of combat positions and people who are in the military must follow laws that can be different from laws in which a citizen follows. These laws are placed to prevent chaos. ”(Military Law). The history of women in combat dates back

Some people question about putting women in combat and it’s whether they have the necessary strength and stamina. They also have said the inclusion of women in different combat units may harm unit cohesion, similar to the argument regarding gays. They say that Americans won’t tolerate large numbers of women coming home in body bags, but apparently it wouldn’t matter if a man came home in a body bag according to this. Some people think just because some people in the military are women that it means they can’t do the same things that men in the military which is not true. Women have

Now I know that some people disagree me and that women shouldn’t go fight in the front lines. Now some of the reasons is not that women are not capable in fighting in war with the men. For example, if all the men and women go who will take care of the children? The men would go into battle and fight, while the women stay and take care and educate the children. When the women stay and take care of the children, they are taking care of the future battle warriors. Some of the children will go and replace the warriors that have died during the previous wars.

Men achieve better roles above women when it comes to being in combat and women do not stand a chance against them. . Lisa Grossman states in her article, "The Right to Fight: Women at War," how combat roles are now open to women. Grossman states that, “Even among soldiers, women on average have about 30 percent less muscle strength and 15 to 30 percent less aerobic capacity than men” ( Grossman n.p.). An argument that is being used against opening combat roles to women is that they just do not have the strength to succeed. Statistically, men have a larger muscle mass, so women do not stand a chance on the physical strength portions of training. Some people are concerned that difference in physical strength may put teams at risk, or that women

Fears over the quality of soldiers are mistaken, because what is required of a soldier will not change, regardless of their gender. The incorporation of women into the combat roles provides an opportunity that is unprecedented, as the numbers of members practically doubles. With a population so vast, it is all but guaranteed that a whole new crop of elite soldiers can rise the ranks of combat units. Excluding women from combat roles not only alienates them, but prevents them from using their abilities and skillsets that men who are serving now do not possess. These women own strengths that are tailored for the changing landscape of combat and not allowing them to use these puts the U.S. at a disadvantage.

Whether or not women should be allowed in active combat is a serious source of controversy today. There will be more studies done to determine whether it will benefit or hurt the military to allow women in active combat. Based up the research that I found, women should not currently serve in all active combat roles. Women are not as physically strong as men nor do they have the endurance or stamina that men do. Until women can somehow change the way their body is made, there will always be a difference between male and female performance. Everybody has their own opinion on this topic and until there has been sufficient research done on this subject, it will remain a source of controversy.

Women should be integrated into combat positions such as infantry, artillery, and Special Forces. If a woman chooses this kind of challenge, then she is more than capable. Women are as tough as men. They can do what a man can do, and if that is going into combat then yes, why not? Women can fight, shoot, run, work hard, and win for this country like the men of this country do. Women have been in combat for a long time, but now women are actually in combat rather than helping the men out with injuries, being a laundresses, a cook, and a nurse. Women can go into combat, just like a man.