Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Negatives of women in the military
Negatives of women in the military
Women in combat roles essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Negatives of women in the military
How would you feel if you joined the army and passed every single task with flying scores and were told that you could not fight in combat? I think that women should be allowed to fight in combat. Where and how women serve in the army should be based on how they train not their gender. For example, if women can meet the same criteria as men can then why not let them fight in the front line. If a woman is willing to help serve her country and fight in combat, who are you to deny her from serving her country.
Although women aren’t allowed to fight in combat they are still found in the line of fire even though they are not officially designated as combat troops. This is to say that even though they are not fighting and just helping as medics and other things they can still be harmed. Women also train for the same thing as men and yet men are the one’s that are allowed to fight in combat. Women are highly trained war fighters and leaders. Women have fired lethal weapons, been hostages in war, lead men in battle, operated our most sophisticated systems, flew combat aircraft, and served
…show more content…
Women have accepted the challenges, responsibilities, and dangers of military services, just as men have. Not allowing females to fight in combat is like surviving medical school and being told you can’t become a doctor because you female. It no longer makes sense to not allow a women to fight in combat when she might be the one who saves a platoon. Major Eleanor Taylor, the first women to lead an infantry company in combat has this to say “My personal experience has been that the principles of leadership and team building apply equally to women as to men. As long as you protect qualification standards and give no impression that anyone is getting a free ride, integration, while not without bumps, will be less dramatic than people
The military is trying to find new ways to recognize the fact that women now fight in the country’s wars. In 2011 the Military Leadership Diversity Commission recommended that the Department of Defense remove all combat restrictions on women. Although many jobs have been opened for women in the military, there is still 7.3 percent of jobs that are closed to them. On February 9, 2012, George Little announced that the Department of Defense would continue to reduce the restrictions that were put on women’s roles. The argument that “women are not physically fit for combat” is the most common and well-researched justification for their exclusion from fighting units. It has been proven if women go through proper training and necessary adaptations, they can complete the same physical tasks as any man. Though there seem to be many reasons from the exclusion of women in the military, the main ones have appeared to be that they do not have the strength to go through combat, would be a distraction to the men, and that they would interrupt male bonding and group
In the Upfront Magazine Article “Women Warriors”, author Rebecca Zissou told the story of two women who recently graduated the Army’s Ranger School, but whether they would be able to serve alongside their fellow male graduates was unknown. Zissou also delved into the issue of whether or not women should be allowed to serve in combat positions. However, I believe that women should be allowed to serve in combat positions in the U.S. armed forces.
With society’s past and present it is apparent that women are still not equal even if they have the title. Men are observably stronger and have a different mentality in situations than women. This is not to say that women should not be in the military but they should have the choice that way they can accept the responsibility and train themselves mentally and physically to achieve the responsibility and respect needed to fight for our country.
Should women serve in combat positions? The Combat Exclusion Law has dealt with this question since the 1940’s. As time continues, the question remains. The military has increased the percentage of females allowed to be enlisted and commissioned in the services as well as increasing the positions allotted to them (Matthews, Ender, Laurence, & Rohall, 2009). Keenan posits “women have served with distinction in … the Revolutionary War…as volunteer nurses and were only occasionally in the direct line of fire…four nurses evacuating 42 patients while the Germans bombed their field hospital…” (the DoD Combat Exclusion Policy) pg. 21.
There was a time when women were unable to enlist and thought of as one who maintains her home and keeps her husband happy. That has changed along with the growth of our nation. Women are now able to join the military as well as serving in jobs of combat. Our servicewomen have gone through plenty and fought for where they are within our military ranks. So why are they feeling punished for being a female in the military?
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.
Many women around the world have big responsibilities in the military, and although some people may disagree, I believe they can handle anything a man can handle when it comes to being on the battlefield. Some people think that women should not be able to fight in the military, where as other people think they should be able to fight in the military. Each supporter and non-supporter has their own reasons. Some of the reasons for the non-supporters are because of their gender. They think that because they are women, they cannot handle the challenges that being on the battlefield brings. Women are willing to fight, and they know what can happen, they know exactly what can happen. They are willing to fight for their country, and I believe they should be able to. The men that fight for our country are against women fighting in combat. They believe that women are not capable of doing what they do to defend and fight for our country. The men feel that they cannot trust women to help back them up at war simply because of the fact that they are women.
Historically, women’s participation in combat roles was limited or hidden, with the exception of a few individuals. Although women had fought unofficially in the U.S army as far back as the Revolutionary War, which they usually disguised themselves as men in order to avoid the rules that excluded them. The gender war and integration in the military has always faced the question of social acceptance, were as society can accept how women will be treated and respected in the military. Throughout the history of the military, our leadership has always sought ways of how to integrate without upsetting the general public to believing that women are capable and created equal as any man.
Today I will inform you why I think that women should fight on the front lines with men. In 2011 there were 203,000 women serving in the USA military. So women are already serving in the military so why not let them go on the front lines? I believe that women should be able to serve on the front lines along-side men If the women is already in-listed they already took that first step.
The problem of women fighting in combat along with their male counterparts is not a one-sided problem. Elizabeth Hoisington has earned the rank of Brigadier General in the U.S. Army, leads the Women’s Army Corps and believes that women should not serve in combat because they are not as physically, mentally, or emotionally qualified as a male is and that ...
Trying to hold the homefront together while there was a war waging abroad was not an
Both men and women fought on the battlefield. Hundreds of women served as nurses, laundresses, cooks and companions to the male soldiers in the Continental Army.6 In addition, there were some that actually engaged in battle. Seeing "no reason to believe that any consideration foreign to the purest patriotism,"7 Deborah Sampson put on men's clothing and called herself Robert Shirtliffe in order to enlist in the Army. "Robert Shirtliffe" fought courageously; "his" company defeated marauding Indians north of Ticonderoga.8 There is also the valiancy of the water carrier Mary Hays, otherwise known as Molly Pitcher, who took up arms after her husband fell.9 As a six-foot tall woman, Nancy Hart was considered an Amazon Warrior. Living in the Georgia frontier, this "War Woman" aimed and, with deadly accuracy, shot British soldiers who invaded the area.10 Mentioned in the beginning of this essay was Margaret Corbin, another woman on the battlefield.
Many agree, that in certain military occupations, women can function at the same level as men. The controversy about having women fighting with men in wars is the fact that they have a different physical structure, deal with stress and emotions differently , are more susceptible to injury and just don't have the killer instinct necessary to get the job done. Although the last statement might appear to be a stereotype, most women would not be capable of supporting the demanding rigors of war-like situations. It would be a great mistake to allow women in these stressful and dangerous situations.
Across the history, women Suffer from luck of their right. Culture and civilization was not respect women and put them in the lower layer in their social pyramid. Kill them were they alive, while other give them a life with a lot of misery and obstacle, which is the same thing or killing them better than these life . At the few previous centuries, the world growth and become more opening. people understanding that they are needing women in a lot of job outside their home as men. Sadly, when we came to combat sector, we stop thinking logically. It is men major one hundred percent . If we look to the book (1001 things everyone should know about women's history) which written by Constance Jones (2000) we can find that only 88013 women among history had the ability to take part in military by give a variety of services. Some country actually these day try to make it happen. For instance the first country was allowed women in military was Norway around 1985. Then, it followed by thirteen other countries. It still small percentage compared with the world. It is the right of women to join army and take part in combat, because they are capable as men in adapting with situation. Also, they have equally amount in cerebration and they have the right to decide their own destiny.
Should women be allowed in the military? My answer was at first a resounding “no.” However, once I started my research, my opinion changed. In 1948, Congress passed the combat exclusion law that prohibited women in the Air Force, Marines, and Navy to hold combat positions; however, the Army can assign these duties as they see fit (Schroeder). Some people assume that Americans are not ready to see a woman wounded or killed in war; however, there are female police officers that are wounded or killed daily (Schroeder). How can we rationalize that a woman has the right to die protecting our local communities but not our country? If a person chooses to be in a combat field, and can pass the physical demands required, gender should not be an issue. The arguments of physical differences and cohesion among the troops are valid arguments but not substantial enough to prevent women from serving in frontline combat roles within the military.