Why Women Should Not Fight For Their Country

I agree with women participating in combat. I feel women are sometimes minimized and overlooked to the things that they can and are capable of doing. If I was to serve in the military I would not be affected by someone of a different gender. I believe that can only happened if a female does not have the self-esteem and confidence that they need. When someone has these things, there is nothing that can bring someone down or have a person feeling less than what they are. Years ago, a lot of the jobs women did in the military were not at all dangerous. They were not allowed to do certain things in the military because they are women. Today women and men are put on for the same jobs. I think although we as a society have not reached the level

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

Including women in war is critically unwarranted. The female gender does not have rights, therefore, they are against being pushed into war. Women did not want to send their sons to war due to the possibility of them being affected by the war. Since the draft started at 21, women do not want their children risking their lives at such a young age.

Women now make up 14 percent of the active-duty military in the United States, which is up from 1.6 percent, 25 years prior. (Christian Science Monitor, 1). In 1948, President Truman signed the Women 's Armed Services Integration Act which created the role of women in the military. This law meant that each branch of the service was allowed to have one female Colonel (Byfield, 12). As of 2015, there are many women who serve as Generals and Admirals. All of these roles are non-combative. Even though some women can do anything a man can do, the vast majority can not, therefore making it an unsafe idea to place these women into combat positions.

Women are different from men. If a woman is carrying 130 pounds of equipment into combat, there is a high risk of them getting hurt. If a girl gets hurt in the military this can cost more money for medical bills. Also if a woman gets hurt in battle just because she is carrying more than she can handle, someone else is going to have to put themselves at risk to help her get back safely. With this being said, there is no reason to have women on the ground and in battle over men.

The author instills emotion in the audience by using many true cases to create a lasting impression on them about the reasons for “fears of putting women in the trenches” (Collins 2) that could contribute to the lack of respect they are getting for wanting combat roles because of them. She mentions a true scenario case involving “Shoshana Johnson, a cook [who] was shot in both ankles, taken captive and held for 22 days” (Collins 2).

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.

There are many grounds on which this argument could be disputed, but women have contributed greatly in past wars. They have served in combat in many skills during World War II, Korea, and Vietnam (Holm).

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

When it comes to combat assignments and the needs of the military, men take precedence over all other considerations, including career prospects of female service members. Female military members have been encouraged to pursue opportunities and career enhancement within the armed forces, which limit them only to the needs and good of the service due to women being not as “similarly situated” as their male counterparts when it comes to strength or aggressiveness, and are not able to handle combat situations.

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.

Women in point of fact, have been serving their country since it began - Molly Pitcher fired her cannon in 1778 without congressional sanction. In the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, women fought disguised as men. In World War One. their medical services were indispensable. During the crises of World War Two, when women were

It is worthwhile to reflect on the social and political advancements of women during the past one hundred years. Women now have the right to vote and to own property. They let their voices be heard instead of sitting silently in the kitchen. Women hold jobs previously restricted to men - police officer, firefighter, construction worker, doctor, truck driver and scientist. Obviously, this list is not all inclusive. Unfortunately, there is still one area that remains restricted to women. Women have assisted the military forces as far back as the Revolutionary War and yet there remains positions that women are excluded from. Female military personnel, having proven their ability to handle combat situations and having

Ninety percent of all military occupations in the military include all genders, but the top ten percent of roles are excluded to women. Women have already felt the misogyny with unequal pay and unfair treatment by men, now women have to face the discrimination for fighting for our country. Women should be able to serve in the front lines because it makes the military stronger as a whole with more diversity, women in other countries fight on the front lines and women have made significant contributions in the military so far.

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.