People may think its ok for our women of America to participate in combat, but I do not agree with that at all. I think woman should leave combat to the men of our country. These women can get hurt or anything it’s too much of a risk, also as a man I don’t think anybody would feel comfortable fighting a woman. We should be trying to do everything we can to protect the women that is proudly serving our country, and not putting them in harm’s way. Women should be protected at all times as well as being respected at all times also, putting women out there in danger is basically concerning and mind blowing. Then say if the woman gets badly hurt on duty or anything the man or men would feel bad about it. If I myself was to serve into the military,
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
Thousands of men enlisted and were sent to fight during World War II. However, many people are unaware of the role that women played in the war, not only in taking over the jobs that would have previously belonged to men at home, but also in combat. D’Ann Campbell’s article “Women in Combat: The World War II Experience in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union” explores this topic. Campbell argues that the role of women in combat has been overlooked in the study of the Second World War. She states that, in fact, “the history everyone has learned about the greatest and best-known war of all times has airbrushed out the combat roles of women” (323). In the article, Campbell compares the methods of the four major powers involved in the war, the Unites States, Great Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union, of involving women in combat, and what those methods used say about gender roles in that particular country.
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.
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.
When it comes to being in combat I believe that women and men should have the same opportunity to do whatever they want in the military. So therefore, I agree that women should participate in combat. I believe that a woman is capable to do anything that a man can do physically and mentally. If I was in combat and had to fight with a person of a different gender I would not mind it at and would treat them just like another person I fight with. If someone is willing to give their life for our country I’m all for it does not matter their gender or race. As you read “All Guts, No Glory” by Molly M. Ginty you will see that women have made great sacrifices for their unit they served in and for our country. A women that is willing to go to the front
Trying to hold the homefront together while there was a war waging abroad was not an
There are growing feelings in the United States that, as women are having more rights given to them that were previously restricted, women should be given everything that is offered to men. This is becoming very true in the military, where much sentiment is that women should be given the opportunity to serve in combat arms positions. Women are currently allowed to serve in combat support positions, such as military intelligence and air support positions, but they are not allowed to serve in positions such as infantry, armor, or field artillery. Many believe that it is time to open these positions to women soldiers and allow them to serve in the front lines of combat. Although women are currently allowed to serve in combat support positions in the military, women should not be able to serve in combat positions, because women do not have physical capacity to serve in these positions, would have trouble dealing with the emotional restraint involved in war, and could cause a decline in the morale of their unit.
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.
Do you think it is fair for women not to go into battle even if they want to help out the military? Even though women are thought of being weak, some women are more capable than other men in battle. The issue is that people never think of women strong. They just think of men and how men are stronger. I think that women should go to battle because they train for the same thing as men. If people need examples and why women should be in combat, I will explain and show you why women should have the same rights as men to serve in the military.
Women primarily raised the children and supported the troops from the home country. The times have changed. Women have an equal right to fight for their country. Adversaries of women in combat claim women should not fight in the infantry because of their value to the recreation of human life (Wojack). The previous statement is based purely on emotions, and provides no physical evidence as to why a woman should not take part in combat.
Gender integration in the military has always faced the question of social acceptance, whether 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 in how to integrate without upsetting the general public if our females were captured as prisoners of war, raped, discriminated or even blown up in combat. My paper will discuss three situations pertaining to the first female submariner, fighter pilot and infantry graduate. I will also discuss some of the arguments that male military leaders and lawmakers opposed the integration of women: lack of strength, endurance, and the disruption of unit cohesion. I will end this paper with my personnel experience as a female NCO responsible for other female subordinates within my command and share some of their experiences while deployed in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States has made it very obvious that women have a hard time in the military with gender discrimination while serving their country. According to McSally (2011), “women now make up 14.6 percent of the U.S. military” (p. 1). Women are restricted from serving in more than 220,000 of those positions in the military. Some of these positions are artillery, tanks, Special Forces, and combat engineering. Since 2001, more than 255,000 women have been deployed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where more than 120 have been killed and 700 wounded (McSally, 2011, p. 2). The biggest problem with women being in the military is that they’re viewed as sexual prey. Also, women are paid lesser than men no matter what position they have.
However, I disagree because those isolated reasons do not provide a solid basis as to why women should not be allowed in combat. There has been indisputable evidence that shows women who have served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that they are not only fully capable; but they have excelled as capable soldiers. Modern day technology has provided the ability to document war at a more intimate level. We are able to see through the eyes of the military and are able to see just how women have adapted in combat situations.
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.
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.