Do you think that women are just as capable as men to participate in combat roles? Women have been fighting for 150 years for a combat role in the military to fight alongside men. This has recently sparked a debate in the country whether or not women should be allowed to serve combat roles. Many people think that women are incapable of exceeding the military standards and that men are just much stronger in general. Others think that women should be allowed as character and competence matter. To sum it all up, people believe that women should be able to serve combat roles because having women creates a better force, it will bring more skills, and women can meet the standards.
To start off, citizens believe that having women in our Armed Forces creates an even better force. Having women does not only give more help to the forces but it also gives better talent and an even stronger army. In the article, “Get Women Ready for Combat” by CNN it summarizes how women will make the forces stronger and essentially many women have applied as a total of 205,000 women are occupied in the army today. Even if people don’t women in harm’s way they are still pertaining or having a harm introduced to them either way in the military. Secretary Ash Carter has also already directed the military to open
…show more content…
jobs to women with a total of 220,000 positions for them to take over. Furthermore, having women on the combat will bring more skill for missions in the military and also a variety of strategies for them to think of.
Having the most help as you can is the best thing to do as it brings up more ideas and easier jobs while getting the work needed done. In the article, “Lifting Barriers” it summarizes the fact how women have competence and character which will bring new perspectives and skills to mission. They also try to compete in military roles which gives another reason as to why women would bring in new ideas for the combat force and skills. They would think of new strategies and perspectives to overcome an obstacle or achieve a specific mission’s
goals. On the other hand, according to the article entitled, “Maintain the Combat Force” adding women creates danger and they may not have the capability to be in the military at all. However, women do meet the military standards that are required for men if anything. In the video Marine Corps Experience by CBS it states that the military does not need to lower its standards for women as they are already experienced and fit enough for the standards. Gender is not an issue as only capability/character is only really looked out in tests. Also in the “Lifting Barriers” article it summarizes that women rated highly in Ranger School which is a positive factor to as why women should be in the armed forces because they meet standards and excell very high in them as evident in school. As a result, should women be allowed to take service in combat roles? It is still a debate in whether or not we should allow them. People that say we should bring to the table that women will bring new skills and strategies, make the force stronger, and they already meet standards so why should they be thought of so lowly just because of their gender. What really matters is their capability in endurance and character of being in the military. However arguers oppose that women are dangerous for the combat forces and increase the rate of injury and illness. There is still no right side today as to whether or not women should be allowed. As the reader, analyze the information given about women in combat roles and determine whether or not women should actually serve in combat roles.
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
Women should be allowed in combat roles in the armed forces because they are just as capable as men. To begin, women such as Shaye Haver and Kristen Griest, graduates of the Fort Benning Ranger School, have shown that they can meet the same physical requirements as men. Nevertheless, these women still weren’t allowed to serve in combat positions despite the rigorous training they completed that involved grueling obstacles they had to complete all while carrying 100-pound gear. Does that make any sense to you? It didn’t to me and it certainly didn’t to women like Sgt. Patricia A. Bradford who said “If you have to be able to lift a certain amount of weight in order to do a certain job, then the weight is not going to know whether you’re male or female.” (Women at Arms: On the Ground.). In fact, in some instances women have proved to be even more
Many women during WWII experienced things that they had never done before. Before the war began women were supposed to be “perfect”. The house always had to be clean, dinner ready on the table, laundry done, and have themselves as well as their children ready for every event of the day. Once the war began and men were drafted, women had to take on the men’s role as well as their own. Women now fixed cars, worked in factories, played baseball, handled the finances, and so forth. So, what challenges and opportunities did women face on the home front during WWII? Women had many opportunities like playing baseball and working, they also faced many hardships, such as not having enough food, money, and clothing.
Men have always been looked upon as the leading sex. Looking back through history women have been the ones who take care of the home and children, while men are the ones who work and go to war. However in recent years there’s no doubt that women have become much more equal in the work force. Nevertheless men are still the ones who are forced to fight our wars when the time calls for it. Many think that women should be entirely equal to men having their choice to be drafted taken away but the fact is that they are physically at a disadvantage, too emotionally oriented, and the increase of female presence would have a more negative impact in the military in the way of social interactions.
Some people say that women should be in the draft because nowadays, men and women should be considered equal. With the advancement of equality in the American society, these people argue that the armed forces should not be excluded from the growing new reputation America is trying to get. Hence, those who support women being apart of the draft argue this point. According to “Update: Women in the Military”, women have become way more involved in the army (1). From this, supporters of women joining the draft argue that their involvement in the draft should also reflect on their increasing involvement in the army. However, those who are opposed women being apart of the draft argue that equality within men and women is an unrealistic mindset. This is proven in the New York Times with Catherine Rampell’s when she writes “Women earn 92.2 cents on the dollar of what men earn” (1). This is a statistic from 2011 that shows people that complete equality between men and women has still not fully been reached. Furthermore, those opposed women and the draft argue that if America has not completely reached full equality within the genders, then neither should the army. Both of these articles bring up good points about why women should either be in the draft or not in the draft.
Many people today believe that women should go into combat and everything will be fine. Well, that is not true. If a woman goes into hand-to-hand combat, she will create many problems for her team, which results to her team losing the battle. If you think women should not go into hand-to-hand combat, read on and find out why.
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.
Private Taibtha Allen "took careful aim with her MK-19 grenade launcher, then fired off four rounds. Down range, the carcass of an old tank exploded in flash and fury: four direct hits" (Janofsky A10). A first for enlisted women, t he shooting of live ammunition from heavy weapons during combat training represents overcoming another obstacle limiting women's roles in the military. While women are integrated into boot camps, they are not allowed to serve front line combat roles. Op ponents argue that women should not be allowed in combat roles because they are not subject to the same physical training standard as men, and women do not possess the physical strength to be effective in combat roles. Based on these assumptions, opponen ts's claim that women are unable to enhance their units and this ineffectiveness endangers national security. Furthermore, opponents argue that the public is not ready to accept women in combat and if women were allowed, it would promote the idea that vi olence against women is acceptable. However the overall issue of allowing women into combat roles should be based on equality. If women in the Military meet the same standards as men, they should be treated equally and provided the same opportunities as men to serve in combat roles (Janofsky A10).
Like with any modern point of contention, it is important to understand the history. Since as early as the revolutionary war, women have been active participants in the U.S. military. From nursing soldiers to cross-dressing and actually fighting, women have played a crucial
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.
Critically evaluate feminist reformulation of just war theory. Sjoberg (2006) defines ‘just war’ to represent ‘a discourse, rather than a moral framework’ in which we can ascertain the philosophical, religious and political criteria necessary for the use of force or participation in violent conflict, to be considered legitimate from a moral standpoint (Hun, 2014: 77). Inconsistencies in just war theory render it highly criticised by pacifist and feminist critique, with the end of the 1980s signalling the birth of substantive feminist critique of just war. Feminist critique of just war centres around 2 fundamental problems within the theory: the claim that war is an ‘undeniable fact of modern life’ and can at times be considered a precondition for a ‘permanent peace’ (Hun, 2014: 77); and, that just war is an abstract rejection of militaristic nature, and of war as a whole, based on the assumption that feminist critique must be anti-militarist by nature
Have you ever had an experience where you weren’t allowed to do something because of something beyond your control? That is what has happened to many women in the United States Military for years, and has only recently changed. Women should be allowed to hold any combat position in the US Military as long as they can meet the necessary physical requirements. Women have been long excluded from the more dangerous military roles with the justification that they are not physically or mentally strong enough. There have also been fears that integrating women further into the armed forces would cause issues with team cohesion and women becoming pregnant to escape duty.
Although men are generally stronger, we must understand that with any job position there are expectations, and women need to be able to do the job; not beat their co-workers. According to the study conducted by the Physical Education Department of McMaster University, “The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively.” Men have taken the stance that there are no females who can complete the training for special warfare positions like Army Rangers or Navy SEALs. These arguments are not valid because there are always exceptions to any scenario, as there is in McMaster study. Examples of the exceptional women are the first three graduates from the Marine Corps Infantry School of Infantry. These women are revolutionizing the military, and the world, by helping people realize the potential that women
In an advertisement published in Vogue Paris in February 2009, Steven Klein photographs fashion model Lara Stone in a manner that brought much controversy to the world about women and violence. In the photograph, a fashionably clad woman in lingerie is forcibly held down by a naked man, while a police officer poses suggestively on her legs and points a gun in her face. This advertisement seems excessively violent for a fashion magazine that young girls and the majority of the mainstream world idolize. By condoning and making the type of violence that is popular in fashion magazines ‘cool’, people begin to recreate the scenes in these photographs in real life because they are constantly exposed to it. Furthermore, this constant exposure to violence