Why All Combat Roles: Should Women Be Voluntary?

Women should not be in military combat because most women have babies to take care of at home. No crisis requires our government to send women in military combat, the author is dani martinez she is an author of many books and went to william woods university. Females are only 60 percent as strong as males. No female officer was able to complete the marine corps training course, the author was phyllis schlafly and she is a lawyer an activist and graduated from washington university . Females aren't as strong as some people think. Marine generals predict that women in combat jobs won't last, the author is rowa scarborough who is a news reporter and went to the university of maryland .Men are just stronger than most women and are made for 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

There are many different arguments from various feminist groups, politicians and even average Americans. Many of these individuals have never experienced day to day life in a war zone and generate their opinions based on social concepts developed in the safety of a free country. The primary argument I have against the integration of women in direct combat roles, are the physical characteristics of women verses men.

The big worry stems from an idea about the degeneration of the combat community structure. So, with that in mind, let 's suppose that women are granted full entry and that the requirements for men and women are exactly the same. Let’s also suppose nobody tampers with the vetting process, meaning no overseeing, “Yes Men generals,” pushing women through, as well as no misogynistic gate-keeper putting an extra sandbag in a girls’ rucksack prior to some training

Over the years the United States has grown to love each other as the way people are, especially women. Women have proven to be even stronger than what people expected them to be. You can see the strength, the courage, and the confidence they have gained. It has been discussed many years that women shouldn’t be allowed in combat for not being “strong enough”. Men have shown that they can be “manly” enough to do women or girl things, so why can’t women do “manly” things? If women feel like they can handle being on the frontline then we should respect their decision and allow them to go.

Women have always served in the United States Military, since the beginning of the existence of the United States. I will make the argument, that women can and should be allowed to serve in combat roles, that are traditionally open for men only. Combat does not distinguish between the sexes. This is an important issue for everyone. The main reason, why women have never been allowed to be in combat roles, is because the sight of a wounded woman on the battle field makes for heart breaking image. It should not matter what the gender is, as long as they get the job done on the battlefield. The conventional ways of fighting a war, does not exist anymore. We all have a part, women and men. There is only one

Throughout the history of mankind there has always been a debate regarding the equality between men and women. A more specific detail in this argument is the conflict of women should be on the front line of battlefield. This topic is significant congress is currently passing legislation on whether women can serve on the front lines of combat. It is also significant because the army rangers has opened its camp to women for the first time in early 2015. This essay will argue the point that women should not be allowed on the front line of combat but allowed in the military. In order to argue this point this essay will demonstrate how the role of women changed in combat over the past 100 years. It will also show what the differences are between

Our military is in desperate need of soldiers and denying women positions is eventually going to take a toll on our military. Women are more effective in some circumstances than men are, allowing women to serve alongside men doubles the talent pool for delicate and sensitive jobs that require interpersonal skills not every soldier has (“Should Women be Allowed in Combat”-Sister in Arms). Men and women work best when they are together it is how nature intended things to be they each have skills to bring to the table that the other does not, not allowing men and women to work together is automatically setting us up for failure. If we are not allowing women in because society thinks they are incapable of protecting our nation we need to address that cultures change over time and the masculine subculture can also evolve (“Should Women be Allowed in Combat”-Sisters in Arms). Training will not change because of gender, the proper training will be required to facilitate the integration of women into combat

The article “All Guts, No Glory” by Molly M. Ginty talks about how we should recognize women in combat. Women being in the military should be respected to the same amount that men are respected. Being in combat should not have anything to do with your gender; I believe it should truly be based off your ability to fight. With that being said, I agree completely when it comes to women being in the military. The article mentions that women go through a lot of harassment and assault, all because they are female in combat. I find that to be sexist, women are capable of doing just as much as men are, and maybe most of the time even more. If I were to ever serve in the military that is one thing that I would fear. I would not fear being harassed because

Men fighting with the women would not be the only ones affected by women in the US military engaging in combat. According to Clinton W.: “ The women would be affected; they would be emotionally affected because they would be exposed to combat situations such as shooting, killing, etc.” This means that if women were to be put in combat situations, they would be exposed to emotionally scarring things that they are not used to seeing because they have not been in combat as much.

No job should be classed as gender specific even in the military, only some’s personal preferences causes the main decision on if they can or cannot do that job. With this said I do agree with the act of women participating in military combat.

Throughout history, women have played a role in the defense of their nations. In 1429, Joan of Arc successfully led the French Army into battle against the English at age 17. In 1588, Queen Elizabeth I traveled to Tilbury, Essex to fight beside her Army during the Spanish raid. And in 1788 at the Battle of Monmouth, Mary Ludwig Hayes, also known as “Molly Pitcher”, took over her husband’s cannon position and continued to engage the enemy after he had fallen in battle. While these are extraordinary accomplishments made by these most admirable women, should this level of close combat be expected, or possibly

Since 1901, women have served in some form of the military, however, dating back to the American Revolution women have had an unofficial role. Women have had and will continue to have an important role in the military, the question is whether women should be allowed to occupy specific combat positions. Traditionally women have not been allowed in combat occupations, but recently these restrictions have been somewhat lifted, making certain occupations available to women. Despite the lift complications arise from women being in combat vocations and it’s not just because of the physical differences, there is also the increased risk of sexual assault. Due to the detrimental impact on the military, soldiers, and society, women should not

After years of discussion and debate it appears that soon women will be sent into combat operations in the United States military. This is the way it should be because women are ready and competent to be put into combat roles in the U.S. military. Indeed, slowly but surely, the Defense Department and Congress have been inching towards a decision that will formalize the policy; in fact the National Defense Authorization Act, put before Congress in May, 2012 by U.S. Senators John McCain and Carl Levin will in effect order the military "…to come up with a plan to send women into battle" (McAuliff, 2012). Hopes are high that this will be approved by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

I am in favor of equality for women, just not when it comes to women in combat. There have been women in society doing heroic things since the Revolutionary war. There have been brave women in war posing as men so they could fight. There are a select few women who could handle war and combat. The negative aspects of women in combat outweigh the positive. Women should not participate in military combat. However they may join the military and served in traditional roles such as nurses and office staff. The difference between men and women is women are physically weaker, they have vital personal needs, and they attract male troops.