Would World Affairs Be More Peaceful If Women Dominated Politics?

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.

Many people question if women went into the war because of patriotism or because they lacked other opportunities. Women responded to the call differently depending on age, race, class, marital status, and number of children. They switch from lower-paying female jobs to higher-paying factory jobs. While patriotism influenced women,

Throughout world history, there have been countless numbers of war that each occurred under very different circumstances for the countries participating. However, each war commonly took the lives of millions, breaking apart families and destroying cities. The 1900’s was a very unique time period because of the dramatic changes in warfare. New weapons were gradually introduced that increased the amount of damage that could be done with each addition. Over time cannons were replaced by machine guns and eventually nuclear weapons were experimented with. As stronger weapons were introduced, death tolls increased drastically. From the years 1910 to 1990, women across the globe passionately took stands not only against war, but against the extremities of the nuclear arms race.

In an event where emotions should be pushed aside and one must do what is best for their country, women may not be able to stand up and do whatever it takes. Often women react to situations based on impulse and do not take the time to thoroughly think a situation through without reacting. According to David Schmitt, sexual personality expert, “Most studies show women tend to score higher on the personality trait most closely associated with negative emotionality – neuroticism (Schmitt, 1). If women are often associated with neuroticism, which is a tendency to often be in a negative emotional state, having them involved in a war where the whole country is told to have wishes for a positive outcome one would rather have individuals with a positive outlook participating in the actual battling. When involved in a life or death situation the women would need to be strong to show the enemy that they are not as timid as they may think.

She mostly had students in her class right before they hit puberty, which eliminated many potential issues. Still, she noticed “girls tended to be better behaved. Boys [were] more of the troubled, really difficult one” (Huffman). Of course, studies have shown that, for most boys, “testosterone isn’t causing aggression, it’s exaggerating the aggression that’s already there” (Testosterone Rules). Carolyn also observed that “girls tended to be more studious; but a lot of the time really brilliant ones were boys. Girls tended to work harder, so more of them would have been better” (Huffman). This observation aligns with current interest in why girls perform better academically. The “last decade has seen a growing popular and academic obsession with boys’ underachievement” (Reay). Carolyn made specific efforts in her classroom to treat students fairly and equally, regardless of their gender or academic success. She also intentionally taught units on famous women and famous African Americans, hoping to ignite the same desire for equality in her students that she herself

In terms of modern-day combat, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive."(Messay, 3) Some argue that it is a women 's right to be in combat, but anyone will agree that equal opportunity does not play part in combat. "Feminists and their supporters want to gender-neutralize the military be incrementally ditching common sense policies. This latest study, which claims that women can be trained to be like men, contributes to this misguided ideology, weakens the force structure at its core, and puts America 's military personnel in peril." continues Lt. Col. Maginnis. (Messay, 3) When we try to force and shove women into dangerous situations, we are ignoring their rights instead of protecting them. The dropout rate for women is higher than for men. Leading the dropout rates are white women with an average rate of 43%, followed by black women at 33% and Hispanic women with 31% (Park). This can be directly pointed to the physical demands that a women faced in basic training.

The majority of my pro sources are in agreement with me that women should not go into combat and the con sources are not in disagreement they are just expressing another viewpoint, like should the government mandate the decision on women entering the infantry. Most of the authorities on this issue and authors believe that America will take a second look at this issue of women going into combat when our mothers and daughters are sent home in body bags and in pieces. It is worst enough to see your sons come home like that but your daughters are a whole different ball game.

“Should Women Head Into Combat?” National Journal, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints In Context, go.galegroup.com.catalog.stisd.net:2048/ps/i.do?p=GPS&sw=w&u=j031916004&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE|A295443049&asid=8445d2f3fc63af3ae9ac94cfdd3067fd. Accessed Dec. 2017.

Evidence to support this claim is that for males it is genetically designed for males to be dominant because of production of testosterone. The hormones in males causes them to compete for dominance. Since men have more hormones than women men are more prone to compete for dominance. Reason why is because of reproduction system. The testosterone gives a masculinizing effect on the brain. Compete for dominance is shown in politics. Men have more position in government. The British government has been mostly ruled by a female leader but is in control of a male dominated government. There is a female position in British politics but is small compared to the amount of males position. There are more men running the government than women. Indicating more male view in the government. Some societies were women have more of an economic impact but men are still given high status than women. Women work more but men are still dominate in power. Because men give men the high status. Also because men are incredibly determine to gain the high status they would backstab to gain high status. On the other side of the argument they disagree because of evidence of no competition between men and

In “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” Joan W. Scott provides many angles to explore the relevancy of gender. The first thing that needs to be examined is her argument. The main argument that Joan W. Scott is trying to make is how beneficial to history using gender as a category for analysis would turn out. Another factor that needs to be made in assessing her article is how she presents her argument and findings. Scott formats her article with a beginning, middle, and end. She begins by defining “gender,” and how that term has been used in general. She goes on to describe some of the theories that have analyzed gender. The next part that she explains is how, of late, politics has been coincided with the analysis of gender. Finally, she ends her paper by providing her bottom-line opinion about the analysis and approach of gender.

Although many people argue against integrating women into military combat there are many reasons why women should be allowed to fight for their country. 1920 was a big year for women, it being the year women were able to vote, thanks to the 19th amendment. Being the year women were allowed the right to vote, thanks to the 19th amendment, 1920 was a big year for women. After this monumental achievement numerous other barriers were being broken down and as time went on women were slowly gaining power and equality. However, even though the rights of women have increased over time there still are a few hurdles that have to be overcome; one of which is being able to fight in military combat.

War is inevitable because of opposing views and conflicting opinions. During these hard times, women, although rarely recognized, played a big part in the success of our country. They made their mark during World War Two when they took over the jobs of men and proved they are just as efficient in the workplace. There has been a dramatic change since then. Women have found their identity through these hardships; which in return, has set the pace for the years to come and narrowed the gap of the social norm of women in the work place.

One study (Binkin & Bach) found that many NATO and several WARSAW PACT countries employed women in combat roles during World War II. Russia was reported as using military women on the front lines. In Israel, where they are actually conscripted, women have also experienced armed combat. (Binkin & Bach) found that in the first phase of Israel’s war of Liberation, one out of every five soldiers was female and they shared equality in both offensive and defensive battle situations. Holm found that some 7,500 military women served in S.E. Asia during the Vietnam War. She maintains that these women proved the modern American military woman is fully capable of functioning effectively in a military role in a combat environment, even under direct hostile fire.

Through this written piece of work, I want to examine the ways in which the dominant ideas of gender and war, from a Feminist perspective. I will be contributing an understanding to the role of the Kurdish female fighters in the field of war and politics, that have broken the taboos of gender roles within the community, and the national movement. The concept of gender, war, and conflict has lightened the issue of women in war. The image of war is associated to masculinity, and in many cases women are not welcomes in the field of war, as “she is exposed as a victim of war by drawing the idea of women being helpless (Sjoberg, 2014, p. 10).” Laura Sjoberg; Gender, War, and Conflict, states that “war-making and war-fighting have been traditionally

Through much of our time as a nation, there has been a major question asked when our people and allies are faced with evil. That major question is “do we go to war or do we engage in diplomatic solutions?”. This is has been a point of contention that varies depending upon where a person was raised, what the person’s basic belief structure is, and even what demographic they fall into. One thing is for certain, partisan affiliation in America has a great deal to do with how a person will answer an affront to the United States. Since most women tend to go the Democrat route due to the standard beliefs of women versus men, I will be highlighting women’s roles; but mostly leave the discussion as one between Democrats and Republicans.