Wishful Women Want War!
'If not me, who? If not now, when?' These inspiring words spoken by Emma Watson at the U.N changed the whole world's perspective on women. However, the idea of women fighting in combat is still seen wrong or absurd by some people. Women deserve to fight in combat and should be allowed. Firstly, women should be considered to fight in combat, not based on their gender but on their capability. Secondly, although women are built differently, these differences could add to the diversity of the defence forces creating new possibilities and tactics. Thus, it is clear that women should be allowed to fight in combat.
How would you like it if you were downgraded and weren’t allowed to do things because of your gender? In the world
…show more content…
Thousands of women are putting themselves forward to fight for their country but officers are not allowing them to embark on their fighting. ‘Nobody can do everything but everyone can do something.’ This quote truly shows us that we must do something to allow women fighting in combat. We cannot do everything but we can do something. However, if we do nothing, it will take about 75 years before women can expect to be paid the same as men for the same work, at current rates it won’t be until 2086 before rural African girls can have a secondary education and most importantly women will not get the chance to fight in combat. Not only is this biased but it does not allow women to show that they are capable to battle. There have been examples of famous women getting disrespected and downgraded because of their gender. Both Joan of Arc and Madam Curie were discriminated because of their gender. …show more content…
You just take it.’ These wise words spoken from Roseanne Barr, is exactly how women should be acting. Even though women are built differently, people still don’t allow them to do certain things. Yet, what individuals do not understand is that these variations could add to the diversity of the defence forces generating new possibilities and tactics. Research from McGill University and University of Georgia has shown that women are smarter than men according to I.Q tests, women learn better naturally and women have better immune systems because of their oestrogen. This is exactly what is needed for combat. Women are great examples as they can understand and fight of diseases on the battlefield. With their smarter skills, women can find out easier methods of combat and striking the enemy. With their better learning, women can easily learn how to fight and different ways the defence forces have never seen before. With their better immune systems, women can not only fight in combat but fight their sickness as well. This can be a great passage for the defence forces. Hence, resulting in new possibilities and tactics to the defence
“In the Combat Zone” written by Leslie Marmon, is about how the roles of women have been taught for generations. Women are smaller and weaker, and that we are sitting ducks waiting to be victims by our prey. Women are taught to be easy targets by their mothers, aunts, and grandmothers. They were told that women should not kill, or use weapons. In this essay Leslie Marmon, explains that we can put a stop to the crimes done against women by strangers. Females must learn how to take aggressive action individually. In the 20th century woman no longer have to fit in the box that they have been put in. We can defend and protect ourselves.
Feminists and women’s activist groups would have us believe that women are equal in strength, skill level, and in every form as men. Some women are attempting to get into the front lines of combat using lines such as: “it would increase the number of available soldiers”, “women can be as strong as men”, “there won 't be any
Through the deaths and the injuries, through the explosions and gunfire, through the heartache and brokenness, women have been serving in the military one way or another. Since the beginning of time, women have been fighting for their rights. They fought for their right to work, they fought for their right to vote, and they fought for their right to be in the military. Beginning in the Revolutionary War, women were allowed to join the military as nurses and support staff. Since then, they have gradually been able to do more tasks and jobs that the men do. Today, the conflict is whether or not women should be allowed to fight in military combat. The argument is controversial, and will more than likely be a never-ending debate.
Accordingly, what these accomplishments suggest is that women should not be excluded from combat and that some women can achieve extraordinary physical feats in isolation. On the other hand, women serving in combat did not serve in offensive engagements where their mission was to locate, close with, and destroy the
Women in combat in the military is described as qualified women who serve on the war front in battle like rangers, navy seal, air force, and marine corps infantry. The Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ordered the military to open all combat positions for women on December 3, 2015 (Kamarck). The physical incapabilities, mental stress, and inadequate performance in unit cohesion supports my claim that women should not be allowed in combat.
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
Trying to hold the homefront together while there was a war waging abroad was not an
Since the beginning of war itself, there have always been men who have bravely risen up to answer the call of their country and to spill the enemy’s blood. It is their duty to protect their homeland and the ones they love. Is this duty, to fight and die for what we believe only reserved for men alone? Until recently combat jobs in the United States have been strictly men only, but now there is a movement to open up the battlefield to all sexes. Very few times in history have women engaged in battle. However, it has been done before with great success, women like Joan of Arc and the countless women who fought defending their homeland in World War Two have saved many lives and made a huge impact of tipping the scale of defeat to victory. It is
Women have played a tremendous role in many countries' armed forces from the past to the present. Women have thoroughly integrated into the armed forces; all positions in the armed forces should be fully accessible to women who can compete with men intellectually and physically.
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.
I realized that although in theory women in the armed forces seemed like a good idea, there are many obstacles that make that reality very difficult to achieve. In writing this paper I am not proposing that either position is more valid or right than the other. I only hope to present each side in an equal light to help others to understand the issues involved.
“We are all equal; it is not birth but virtue alone that makes the difference.” This insightful quote from the famous French philosopher and historian “Voltaire” seems to accurately represent the beliefs of the factions of American citizens pushing to allow women to fight in combat positions within the US Armed Forces. Though the topic has just recently been boosted into the media and congressional politics, it has been long debated. A rather current editorial from USA Today titled: “Open Combat Positions to Women” outlines the recent developments in the status of a much disputed and controversial issue facing the nation today. Though somewhat less in-depth than some opposing opinions, the
I think that women were so eager to see men go to war because, firstly