Women 's Rights Of Women

The idea of women in the military has caused much controversy over the years. Some people believe that women don’t have what it takes because they are too frail and weak, and therefore, should not be allowed to enlist. While others, believe that women can definitely handle themselves and can actually be a benefit to the military. I happen to be in the latter, but only to an extent. I firmly believe that certain women have what it takes, but not nearly all, same goes for men too. You may have the passion and determination, but it still goes to stand that the military is indeed a vicious place, and not everybody has the required mental and physical ability to make it, no matter how much they try. Given this unfortunate, but crucial fact, I can understand how some people believe that no woman should be allowed to enlist, however, even though the military is extremely trying and never to be taken lightly, I believe that there are women in the world who can deal and hold their own

Women serving in the military is a topic that most people have very strong convictions on. Rather you are for or against women serving, you can find strong opinions that support both sides in this contentious dispute. Women have struggled to fit into the military life for years. Even though woman have fought alongside men in each key battle from the start of the American Revolution, they still find it hard to shake the stereo types about woman who serve. Woman have always had to cloak themselves in a masquerade of sorts to serve alongside men. When woman were finally accepted into the military, they were given secondary roles to the men. The Pentagon has just recently began to realize that gender really do not matter on the battlefield. Since the Pentagons enlightenment, one can now see progress in the integration of women in all expanding military careers. Women have always proven that they are not only an asset to the military but they are the strength of the America’s military.

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.

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.

ecretary Panetta 's decision to repeal the Department of Defense policy preventing women from serving in direct ground combat units opened Pandora 's box. We have since witnessed a fierce debate over whether women should be allowed to serve in specialties previously opened to males only. The media promptly rushed to side with those contending that all direct ground combat jobs should be open to women, suggesting that women proven had themselves on a "nonlinear" battlefield, where there were no distinguishable front and rear lines. Furthermore, many have rallied behind those women who have been able to demonstrate superior physical abilities, such as the two women soldiers that recently completed Ranger School. I would submit in line with the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces that neither accomplishment demonstrates that these women or women in general are the "best-qualified and most capable" to serve in direct ground combat arms specialties. This issue is not about what women should be allowed to do, it 's really about what are they capable of doing. The bias is not institutional, the bias is physiological.

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.

American Society has changed and evolved at a record pace over the past decade. Technology, social media, sexual orientation, and race relations have all been hotly debated topics. On January 24, 2013, when then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta rescinded the rule that restricted women from serving in combat units and directed the Armed Services to review their occupational standards and assignment policies, the discussion of women in Combat Arms was thrust into the limelight. The debate on whether to allow women in direct combat roles is an emotional topic for most and it appears the latest policy change could very well be a mistake.

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.

Women have played a large part in our military forces since World War I and will continue to be a vital part of our military forces. Nonetheless, it was not until this year that the military allowed women to be in combat positions.

The history of women in combat is somewhat controversial; and women have always seeked equality in combat and military forces (Women’s Actions). Women have been

Woman in the United States are equal to men and the stigma that war is a man’s thing, has created a lot of controversy, especially in the society that we live in now. Women in our society are breaking away from the limits set from the past generations; redefining what they are made of. Women are now taking and seeking roles that were once considered only for men. Just like in our society, women are trying to advance in the military. Advancing in the military, not only being able to fight in combat, but also reaching some of the highest military rankings. The leap for women being able to fight in combat came this past January, when the United States Department of Defense, uplifted the ban on women being able to fight in combat. A woman representing her country by joining the military is something that not only takes great sacrifice, but courage as well, and they deserve the utmost respect. If women are willing to risk her life for the sake of her country, just like men, shouldn’t they be allowed to partake in combat? War is as much physical as it is mental.

The equal rights gained by women a long time ago should be applied now. Those who volunteer for front line jobs will be willing to put in the work to meet the standards. The women who are dedicated will do what it takes to become a perfect soldier. With different training efforts, physical differences will be addressed prior to entering war situations. To reduce the likelihood of injury, women would get extra pre-training so that they would be build up enough strength. In today’s frontline warfare, intellect is more valuable than physical strength. Women help with team building and leadership skills beneficial to front line combat teams and success. Therefore, women are just as suitable as men if they tried hard enough.

After reading several articles, I noticed several issues are recurring in the argument against women in combat or direct combat roles. Females sustain higher rate of injuries then men, females’ physical capabilities to move “wounded” soldiers to safety is significantly lower, and their accuracy and effective use of weapons is lower versus their male counterparts. Multiple studies continually show lower performance of women in training based exercises, often women incapable of finishing the tasks and exercises presented. It can be noted that even though women are in the military now and accepted, the physical standards set for training and requirements are not the same and below that of men in the military. These things help enforce the argument that women

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.