Women on the Frontline - Persuasive Essay

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

It is my opinion that the ability and training of women in the military should be the base of the decision of where and how women serve in the military; rather than gender aspects. In the recent years, the subject of human rights has been the elimination of many media and public discussions. The key topic in the discussions is equality treatment and handling between the two genders. Several policies within the constitution define the expectations of law on each gender (Field & John 7). The societal setting and upbringing also has its impacts on the behavior of each gender and the perception that the genders have for each other. The American culture takes pride in the practices of democracy and justice for every person; however, this may not apply to all people.

Although these claims may be true in some cases; men have more of an advantage than women. Women can deal with some jobs better but there is no reason why women should have to go out and risk their lives in combat. We should keep the military the same because girls can just have inside jobs. The men will go out and fight in

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.

When women work in these areas they are said to be highly qualified for the job and are so good they out rank the men that have the same skills as they do. When these women worked many felt like they didn’t need to work and just refused it all together, some of the women were ashamed and didn’t feel they deserved to work, then there were some desperate ones that were in real need of the job and were proud they had one. And as for the typical 2000s children and adults that were female and still alive things began to get much easier than it was before for them. Although there weren’t big wars like WWI and WWII they still had small ones and women could have more parts in these war efforts. Although it's not as much as they wanted because there are still some officers in war that are doing everything they possibly can to remove women from the force. In an article by W.J Hennigans he states that many women are going to war in the 21st century. But they are still experiencing a whole bunch of problems. Which includes that many of the war branches aren’t too sure if allowing women to go to war is the best thing for them. And that women aren’t physically or mentally strong enough to be in war. Many women have tried to prove they were capable enough and should be taken seriously in the war but then men shoot them down by saying comments like this "There are some things

For many decades, women serving in the armed forces has been a very controversial subject, because women feel that they should have the same exact rights as men, including the right to serve their country in combat. There are many different reasons of why women have been discredited in our armed forces, morals being one of those factors. For centuries women have always been thought of being the soft side of mankind, gentle, loving, but at the same time less superior than men. No matter how hard women have tried in the past to build their bodies to become stronger, studies have shown that men are physically more capable than women, especially in something as dangerous as combat. For example, during the early years of the American Industrial

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.

Finally if we are to include women into our Selective Service then our overall military would be strenghthened. First of all, Men who wish not to apply for the draft are then punished for this. Textual evidence:

While ladies officers and enrolled workforce present with unique excellence in the U.S. Military, ladies have never been liable to Selective Service enlistment or a military draft in America. It is just established to enlist men for a draft, the Supreme Court administered on the grounds that the explanation behind enrollment is to make a pool of potential battle troops ought to a national crisis request a fast increment in the extent of the military. Ladies were prohibited from serving in front-line occupations, so there was no motivation to enlist them for conceivable enrollment into the military draft. Women have the capacity to play a big role in the military combat and selection process should not be based on gender but concrete values and personal abilities.

     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

Considering the fact that many people would die due to the skills needed, it’s understandable that many people would be joyful to pursue these ladies a new option for their career. People who are against women in combat point out that women aren’t capable of doing such a “manly” job. Their argument is that women don’t have the upper-body strength to be able to carry a wounded soldier to safety (Neven, 2015, p.) Women in combat would then won’t be able to do such a job, so they would be denied the position. Women not being able to have a position in combat would give less support to the men who suffer an accident. This topic can then close as women being denied the position saving them from death, but the finale for this argument will leave women, and others unsatisfied, and it wouldn’t be quite fair for them.

Women have been participating in the United States military since the Revolutionary War, where they were nurses, maids, cooks and even spies. They played vital roles in order to keep those fighting on the front lines healthier, and even a more important role in keeping commanding officers informed with private information stolen from the other side. Although the Revolutionary War took play in 1776, the first law to be passed that permanently stated that women have an official place in the military was in 1948, almost one hundred and seventy-two years later. Since that time there has been a lack of true growth when it comes to integration of females in the military. In 1994, a law was passed that tried to prohibit women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level. Women are excluded from more then 25% of active combat roles within the military and only in 2013 was the ban lifted which was the final barrier to allowing women into all active roles. This has been a huge step in the direction for women being considered as being equal but there are still challenges that women face within the military. Ranging from sexual assault, discrimination, bullying, and other tactics, it is clear that for many, the military is still a “boys club.”

In striving to be as physically fit as male colleagues, many women hurt themselves and thus limiting their military roles all together. “But it’s flatly rooted in the fact women biologically are not able to perform physically to the same level as men.” (Davis) “The standards of physical fitness have been best suit to men, and women attempting to reach them [men’s physical fitness] will over-stretch themselves.” (IDEA) These two sources both convey that women do not have the physical standards as men and in trying to reach the biologically impossible standards, women often out do themselves. Although women might not be as strong physically, they do offer strong mental capabilities and are more effective in some circumstances. One source claims: “If women can meet the standards as men. They should be allowed to serve in the infantry.” (Michaels, Brook and Welch) Meaning that if women can withstand the biological factors, then they should be capable of serving in the front-lines. Another source states: “There is no issue with a women’s intellectual quality or value as a human being.” (Davis) This author is claiming that there is no reason why women should not be able to serve in the military and that women, as a whole unit, should be valued as human beings that have the opportunity to serve in combat roles if they