Furthermore, frequently aligned with strength is the allegation of psychological weakness, bringing with it the masculine tagged word, bravery. This argument suggests that women, because of their supposed lack of masculine bravery, are unable to perform the basic function of infantry—to kill the enemy—and are disinclined to serve voluntarily in combat roles. However, a... ... middle of paper ... ... much like it has in civilian culture. However, as women continue to prove themselves on or near the battlefield, the established military chauvinistic traditions will fade, as it has with the recent Army and Marine Corps policy change that opened several near-frontline occupations previously denied to women. Though the timetable on this significant modification of the established military framework is difficult to gauge, and it is doubtful it will change soon.
Women should be able to do whatever they feel the need to do. If that’s fighting in combat so be it. Women may have a weak side and men may think women can’t do something’s but we shouldn’t be limited from doing them. Whether men have more rights than women. We should all be treated the same.
Are you willing to help serve our country? You are going to be reading about the pro and cons about women in combat. supporters of women in combat believe that women should serve in combat because women are just as competent as men. Critics of women in combat believe that women are more emotional than men because the way our brains work. Studies found that women feel pain, make social decisions, and cope with stress differently.
Dowler claims as well that women in combat roles are “out of place” from the acceptable gender norms. She claims that even today, combat roles are only defined as such if women aren’t in that specific role. Dombrowski as well says that it is fascinating how the male-dominated institution of the military expresses their fear of women inte... ... middle of paper ... ...en to the female soldiers. To come back to the last point, there are always sexual distractions in any career field, so why is it used to limit women’s integration in the military, when most cases of sexual based offences are done by male soldiers? Women in the military are more vulnerable than men, because they are the ones being raped by their male soldiers.
Lowering training standards weakens our offensive and defensive capabilities, that’s something only the enemies of the United States would like to see happen. Women have already proven themselves as capable of fighting in combat in the past and are still doing so now in the present. Examples of female warriors throughout history are plentiful Gudit, Trieu Thi Trinh, Boudicca and, Saint Joan of Arc to name a few. Women aren't in direct combat units now but they are seeing combat without being assigned to these units. Many women have already given their lives to protect our country; they've paid the ultimate price, they deserve the right to serve.
This was the unfortunate case for military women during World War II. Recruits for the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) were not respected as their male counterparts were. To many, their enthusiastic involvement in military work was an anomaly and threat to both men and gender norms. As such, they were treated not as humans, but as women, an inferior being who needed guidance, rules to abide by, and others to control the most intimate aspects of their lives. The belief that women are the gentler, weaker sex is one that has been held since the dawn of time.
Women believe they have what it takes to help fight and win in combat, but is putting them in fighting roles now really a good idea? According to author Greg Sheridan, “A NATION that sends its women into front-line combat, into close infantry, hand-to-hand fighting and killing, is a nation that either doesn't take combat seriously or doesn't take respect for women seriously” (Sheridan). When nations expect women to be able to fight and kill in combat alongside men who have had much more experience in these aggressive roles, they are not taking their military seriously. The job of the military is to win wars, this cannot be done with soldiers that don’t have enough experience to do so. Fighting in combat requires large amounts of physical strength, which most women do not have.
Woman in the military has been a hot topic for a very long time and still reigns true today. 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. This controversy reigns true because our society has assimilated to gendered ideologies of what the role of women should be as well as the role of men all throughout the media. Historical View (Theme) Women have always been apart of the American Armed Forces. Women have served in or with the military in myriad capacities.
Women in Combat Can a woman handle fighting in combat? Should women be able to come face to face with the enemy? Will women be able to control their emotions and take the horror that war inflicts? Should women be grateful that they are not included in such a terrible thing as combat, or is it wrong to exclude them just because they are women? I say if a woman chooses this kind of challenge, then she is more than capable.
Research from the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) shows that a positive impact was resulted from women who contributed to combat in Iraq (Women Should be…). However, women shouldn’t be allowed in combat not because of their gender but because they aren’t capable of keeping up with combat tasks. This is shown by the physical traits of an average woman. Women in combat have lower physical strength than the average man (Donelly). In this paper we will find out whether or not women should be allowed to be in combat and how capable they are of being in combat.