Some Americans feel that women should not be serving on the front lines or in "forward positions". The arguments against women fighting along side men in combat situations are varied and often supported by those in the US Armed Forces. However, many contend that women are just as reliable as men on the front lines and any arguments to the contrary are sexist. At a time when recruitment to the army is at a very low point, do you think that women should be allowed to fight on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan?
"Women are suffering post-traumatic stress disorder at higher rates than men. We know that women in general feel more negative emotional consequences from physical aggression. Surveys show that women in the military, especially enlisted women, don't want to go into combat. The percentage of women enlistees is going down, and that seems to be tied to their exposure to combat."
Kingsley Browne 2007
What do YOU think?
49 comments:
I believe that women should be allowed in combat. It is just as scarring to see a severely injured man as it is an equally afflicted woman. We must consider the affect is has on the families- the children- of the injured war veterans. The problem with seeing those who have lost limbs, etc. is not that they are a man or a woman, it is more that something like this could happen at all. We don't want to think of the population in terms of those who have been injured or killed in war.
Women have every right to fight in these wars, even if a military career is not the stereotypical job for a woman. If they are willing to risk their lives for the lives of others, it is their sacrifice to make. Most women who will willingly choose positions in combat are not as prone to emotional trauma as those women who steer clear from such stressful circumstances. These women chose to fight in the war, and if they want to put themselves in danger, they have the right to do so. And with so few people wanting to go into this war (it has lasted so long, and many lose faith- or never believed in- it), we have an obvious need for military personnel. Everyone has the right to serve their country if they so choose.
Women should be allowed to fight in combat.
First, denying the right to defend one's country contradicts the principle of equal rights. Women who want to fight should have that right. We are not discussing the draft but rather voluntarily fighting. If men have that right, why not women?
Second, as mentioned above, women shouldn't be barred from fighting just because of appearance or stereotype. Some people do not like to see a woman who, for example, has lost an arm. They need to recognize that a female soldier who is injured is not in a different situation from a male soldier.
Last, as stated in the article, there are no longer "front lines." All soldiers in war face the risk of injury and death - whether they are women or men. People willingly make the choice to serve in the army because they know that they are capable of helping the country.
I think that women should be allowed to fight in any sort of combat. The women who go to Iraq chose to enlist in the army just like the men. They shouldn't be given special treatment, or be prejudiced against, whichever way you look at it. I don't even understand why women aren't allowed in some jobs. If it is because they think women cannot handle it, they are being sexist. If they don't want women to get hurt, they are giving women special privileges.
Women are willing to risk ther lives and are just as important as the men. If they chose to fight for their country, then they should be able to fight for it in any way that a man can fight for it. The fact that many positions are barred to women is wrong. If they are volunteering to do something as dangerous as go to war, then why are we trying to stop them because of their sex?
There is an argument that it is horrible to see women injured by the war. Are we saying that it is okay for men to be terribly hurt, but it is not okay for women. Why is it okay for either sex?
First off, I just want to say it'll be interesting to see what the guys have to say on this issue, seeing as all the respondents so far are girls. I believe women should be allowed in combat. My aunt just recently returned from Afghanistan, and one of my Dad's (who's in the Navy) superiors is a woman. Both chose this line of work, and both knew it was risky.
Not only is this a choice these women are making themselves, but it would be depriving them of their rights to keep them from serving in the military. I think it's somewhat ridiculous to think that, somehow, seeing a woman missing a limb is worse than seeing a man missing one. We are all equal, are we not? Why should it be any different, if we're all supposed to be on the same level?
I think that women should be allowed to fight in combat. I agree with Hannah in that women choose this line of work knowing that it is life threatening. So why should they be denied the opportunity to fight like every other man. So everyone should have the right to serve.
Someone might argue that women are more emotional. But since these women chose to serve in the army they would be prepared to see a lot of disturbing things and be able to handle it. Also it could be putting women lower than men if we told women they couldn't be in the army. So I don’t see any reason why women shouldn't be allowed to serve in the armed forces.
I think women should be given equal opportunity to be able to fight in war if it is their own decision. They might be psychologically scarred but they wanted to join and often times that has happened to men also. Right now we don't have enough soldiers so the United States is forced to bring men back even when their term was over, and if having women fight in the army prevents the men from being forced to go back, after they thought they could go home, then so be it. Women have broken so many barriers, women can be the head of businesses and have finally stopped being categorized as all stay at home moms why should we stop our progress by saying it is mentally damaging to the women that is supposed to be equal to the man.
I believe women should have the right to join the army but i think it is crossing the line to draft women. Actually, I think drafting should not be able to be reinstated at all. Although it may save a soldier from being asked back, it forces another person who might not have the mental or psychological strength to be a soldier. It might not be right to force people who were originally selfless enough to enlist but they at least began the army with the stamina to survive out there, wherever they are needed.
I agree that women should have the same opportunities as men to fight in combat. They are citizens of this country too, and if they feel needed to protect the welfare of others in this country, then why shouldn’t they?
Women have historically played a more minor role in war, but times have indeed changed. Women should have equal rights, and it should be up to them if they are willing and ready to serve their country. Furthermore, they will know beforehand what they are facing in service, front line or not, and will be fully aware of the dangers ahead. But with proper and equal training and education, there is no reason why a women shouldn’t be left out of a war protecting own country they are proud enough to serve.
I believe that women should be allowed in combat where ever they please. America is the land of opertunity; the place of choice so if anyone of any gender chooses what they wish to do they should be allowed to do it at risk of their own consiquence. This includes if women want to battle in a war they should be able to be whatever position they please at their own risk.
Further more, if a women believes she can battle in a certain position better than another she should have the right to battle there no matter what position it may be. Plus, if she wants to serve her country and is willing to go through all the training to serve her country she should have the right to serve it how she pleases. In conclusion, women should be allowed in combat because we live in a country of choice and that includes all people living within it.
Women should be allowed to fight in the front line in combat if they want to. While I do agree that it is hard for a woman to be as strong and fast as a man, i believe that the difference isn't really enough to make that much of a difference. The women that have the drive to do that, i know some people who i know probably could survive and deal with war, should be able to. Personally, I don't think i could handle war, but i am sure many men have that same issue.
People who oppose women fighting say that they are mentally weaker, which can be but is not always true. They also say that men fighting with the women might feel protective of them and risk their lives. This may be true, but i believe that if they are trained with women and trained not to go on that instinct, i do not believe that would be a problem.
wow, so far pretty one sided huh? i agree that at the basis of the arguement, it is sexist to not allow women to fight on the frontlines, so i believe that they should be allowed to fight on the front lines, that said however, i agree from a completely objective view point, that women scientifically are not as fit as men in general, which could effect the effectiveness of our soldiers. also Women are more prone to post traumatic stress, which could also be a factor. neither being sexist to nor giving special treatment to women in the army should be allowed. I believe that if they fight on the front lines, (which they should) then they should be held to the exact same standards as men in the army, and punished for any shortcomings, just as any man in the army would be subject to.
I believe that women have as much a right to combat as men do. However, that being said, I can't imagine why anyone would want to be in the army. Since the army is made of purely volunteers at this point, and will be unless the draft decision by the supreme court is reversed, god forbid (how's Canada these days?), I don't believe there is any real issue here. Now, I don't really know at all in any way shape or form, but I think that you get to pick what kind of career or position you want in the army. Since men have this choice, I believe women should too. Since men have the option to choose to fight, why shouldn't women? If they want to serve in the army, but don't want to be in combat, coolio, go for it.
However, the main issue behind this subject would be better disscused in terms of "If the draft was re-established, should women be included in it, and if so, should they fight it combat?" If that was the question, I'm inclined to say no. Now I'm not being sexist, if women want to fight then they can volunteer, no harm done. But as Phil said, IN GENERAL (disclaimer: the following statement is not true in all senarios and situations) men are more fit and natrually better at fighting. I'm not saying women aren't good @$$ kickers, but that men tend to be more so then women. Also, I'm not impling that being good at fighting (in terms of war) is something to be proud of, in my mind, war is the weapon of the ignorant.
And agian to slightly change the subject, if we wan't to talk about issues between minorities and the army, how about the army's policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" which is their form of discrimination of homosexuals and not letting them serve, although there is no basis for this reasoning other than predjudice. It wasn't the question, but still kinda sorta relavent...
Well. To go completely against the crowd.
I disagree.
Totally.
I think this issue always gets confused with sexism--this is NOT an issue of sexism in any way, shape or form.
Women are different from men, simply put. Physically, emotionally, psychologically, hormonally, we are extremely different from men. And if people involved in the military, and other psychologists believe that woman are less inclined to be able to deal with being on the front lines, then so be it.
It's not like they're denied the right to defend our country. They can still be in the military. They're only denied access to the front lines, which I don't believe is necessarily the best place for women.
Sometimes when people get all gung-ho about women's rights, we forget the basic things. Women ARE very different from men. We deal with emotional things differently; any psychologist will tell you this. If it is to the benefit of the women, and to the rest of the army that we don't fight on the front lines, then i see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Nicole Buggy
Well the first thing I have to say is: What happened to women's rights? I believe that women should be allowed to fight on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we have the rights to vote, just like men, or be the head of a company, just like men, we should have the right to fight for our country, just like men. And if there happens to be a draft, no matter how much I'm against it, women should be drafted along with the men.
Also, if women were to be denied their rights to fight in combact many people would be outraged of this countries gender discrimination. Both men and women know that when they sign up for the army they are putting their life in danger. It's not as though women are just walking into Iraq or Afghanistan blindly. Those women are informed and, hopefully, are smart enough to know the consequences. So since we know about what could happen we might as well be allowed our rights to fight on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What ever happened to men and women are equal? Just because America isn't used to women in combat doesn't mean they have to stick with traditional methods, how many traditions has America really kept with over the past 100 years? I believe that if women wish to fight in combat, they should be allowed to. And more than just the less dangerous stuff. Speaking broadly, if women want to fight in the frontline for their country, there should be no question about their gender, only their skills.
I think women deserve to fight alongside men, but they should be better prepared and informed about the hardship they'll face from the men. They need to be willing to deal with that, or else they'll only hurt themselves. But the men also need to be more accepting. A fellow female soilder should be treated the same as a fellow male soilder; with respect and friendship, nothing more, nothing less. We're all people, no matter what gender, and we all have the opportunity and choice to serve our country however we choose. If the woman is willing to fight, let her.
I see both sides of the argument, but I do believe that women should be able to fight along men. I understand that women are very different from men, emotionally and physically, but that doesn't translate to banning women from the front lines. The idea that men are somehow tougher or anything close to that is very sexist and a sweeping generalization. Women are actually known for taking pain better then men. The army is taking anyone they can right now, because of the low number of soldier hopefuls, so it's oxymoronic to knowingly drive applicants away. This being said, I cannot agree less with the idea of a draft, whether they draft females or not.
I would argue the bravest people in our country volunteer to be in the army. It is not glamorous, fun, and there is always of course the chance of a terrible injury or death. Yet these heroic people do it just the same- who are we to turn some of them away, depending on whether thier name is Jack or Jane?
Women should be allowed to fight in wars. If women choose willingly to be in the army, they should have the right to fight. Women shouldn't be forced to fight, although if they so desire, their wish should be granted. People should not view women as weak, or less equipped for battle physically because when you're holding arms, it doesn't matter how are you punch. If they are going to risk their lives to go into Iraq, why shouldn't they help contribute to the effort so every soldier can go home earlier? It puzzles me that even though the women are there, they do not fight. In fact, why even send the women to Iraq, or even allow them to enlist into the army, if they cannot serve the main purpose of the army? Common citizens of common countries should be able to fight for a common cause (yes 3 times, PERIOD).
If women choose to fight in wars I think they should be allowed to the front lines because they wanted to fight in the war and were not drafted. If they were to be injured in a war it would have been their choice to fight for the country. The founding fathers wanted people to be free which means that women should be able to fight in wars.
Women can show potential to as capable as men. Women are considered by most as weak and that they are unable to fight in wars well that would not be accurate because some women are actually stronger than men. If there was a war that needed soldiers to fight they should allow women into the front lines instead of holding a draft.
America shouldn't discrimintate by gender. I think that if a woman wants to battle it out in the front line than she should and no one has the right to tell her not to.
I honestly think that it might actually work better if women did fight in combat because they're percieved as weaker and underestimated so i guess it could be an advantage in a way. Ultimatly i think that if a woman knows the risks and wants to brave it out for her country she should be able to.
-Hallie Wakely
Women should be allowed to fight on the front lines. If they have chosen to be in the army then that is part of the army and they know what they have potentially signed up for. Alot of women are very different from men, however as long as they have been trained correctly and proved they can do it, then I don't see what the argument is.
The article kept saying that people aren't ready to see a woman who has lost an arm. Well personally I would be just as upset if I saw a man who had lost a limb. It's a sad thing and we all know that, but gender doesn't change it.
Tommy Gebhardt
I think that since the women of the army and other armed forces are brave and strong enough to go through boot camp and go into enemy territory the people should be allowed to fight. The women can definitely be allowed to defend themselves when ambushed. Even though women are supposed to be the finer half of men, they should be allowed to fight if they wish to be confronted by the horrors of war.
There may be some reason as to why they arn't put in wars and that is they distract the men. It would be very immoral if one of the men were to be caught fraternizing with the woman who they are fighting with. This may cause unnecessary rifts in the army as well as discontent in the platoon. I think that if the women want to fight and wont be with the men in the army, let them fight.
It has been one-sided so far, and I'm proud to be of a generation that believes staunchly in women's rights.
The question, as Alex B. said, is whether women should be allowed to be in the draft. If the draft were to be re-instated, it should include women. NOBODY wants to go into war; not just the women. If the draft only called in men, it would be sexist both ways: either women can't do it, and men are so worthless that they should just go die in the front lines. (Also following that line of thought, I don't think any guy would volunteer to be shot first in the front lines, and women aren't exactly jumping for the position either, so why discriminate?)
There are physical and emotional differences between the man and the woman, but aren't there differences between man and and his neighbor as well? Fighting in battle isn't the hand-to-hand showdowns on television. I believe that it relies more on craft than brute force, especially since nowadays we've got AK-47 pointed straight at us. (But I wouldn't know. I'm not allowed to be in the front lines. :P)
Women should be allowed in whatever combat they want to be involved in. If they choose to participate in the army, that's their decision, and the should be given the same oppurtunities as men to work. In my opinion, it's just as sad to see an injured man as it is to see an injured woman- I don't really see the difference between the two. Although women can be more emotionally effected by combat, it really is their decision to be involved.
However, in respect to those who believe that it hurts more to see an injured woman or that the women in the army will forever have emotional difficulties and so are worried about that, I believe that women should not be included in a draft if there was to be one. That would be against their will, and although it is against a man's will too if he is drafted, for most women, participating in a war is about the last thing they would want to do.
Overall, I think that women should be allowed the same oppurtunities as men if they are in a war, however, women should not be included in drafts.
Women should not be allowed to fight in the front lines. This is not an issue of sexism and equality, but of scientific differences in men and women. Women react to war and fighting differently than men do, and there is a reason why men, historically, have been the ones to fight in wars. I'm not saying that women should not be allowed to fight in the army, because I think they have just as much a right as men do, just that they should not be in direct front line combat. With so few people in the armed forces right now, they need all the help they can get. There are plenty of places for women in the armed forces that are just as beneficial.
I think women shouldn't be allowed in combat simply because they are different from men, not because women are more valuable than men. I do not think it is harder to see a female amputee than a male amputee, and I totally disagree that it would be harder to lose a daughter than a son. People are so accostomed to men fighting in wars that they don't think about it as much. Women should continue to be a big part of the armed forces, but to protect their emotional health, should not be allowed front line positions.
I don't think it is up to us to decide. It doesn't matter what the statisics are; even if 99 percent of woman in the military don't think they should be in combat, there is still that one percent that does, and they should be given that opportunity. Simply because the majority of men handle combat better than women, people can't assume that no women can handle it. Although scientific studies show that most men are stronger than most women, that doesn't mean all men are stronger than all women. This is an important distinction, since so many people assume these things after hearing about statistics such as this one.
Not allowing women to fight at the same level as men is archaic. If a woman doesn't want to, that's a different story, because this decision is entirely up to them. Who are we to decide their rights? Contrary to popular belief, this is completely an issue of gender discrimination. How would you feel if you wanted to do something and the population actually voted against your rights because of statistics and "scientific fact"?
I believe that women should be allowed to serve in the front lines just like male soldiers. Not allowing women the same opprotunities as men is discriminatory. Women have the same capabilities as men to make good decisions, complete important tasks, and follow orders. Women are equally as inteligent as men. Some people believe that women are too emotional for the battlefield. That is an unfair statement that makes a generalization that all women are more emotional and sensitive than men. In the majority of cases this may be true, however it is unfair to assume that this is true for every man and women in the military.
I do think that women should be allowed to fight on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you force the restrictions that women cannot fight on the front lines but men can it is sexist. It is discrimination because of gender. Because a women is a women should not be a reason to stop them from fighting alongside men in wars. Women have shown that we can stand next to men in many aspects and men have done the same. Women can now vote, become doctors and astronauts and men can become nurses or stay at home with the kids. With today's society women should be able fight on the front lines alongside men.
American society has turned towards equality of gender and forcing women soldiers to not fight on the front lines is going backward in history and time and is gender discrimination. For this reason, I believe that women should be allowed to fight on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
believe that women should be allowed to volunteer to fight in combat. If a woman wants to defend their country, they should have as much right to do so as any man. Frankly, The US needs troops, especially at this point in time, and since we do need as many soldiers as possible, making it impossible for half of the national population to be a soldier is not a wise choice. As long as the are not forced to, putting women in combat is something that should be their choice.
Women should be allowed in combat. Men and women are the same, the only difference is woman have two private parts and men have one. We say that everyone should be created equal, if women aren't aloud to fight for there country then we would be contradicting that statement. It is the persons choice to fight, they know the risks involved, the dangers they face, as long as they want to fight they should be aloud, man or woman. It all depends on wheather they have enough emmotional strength to take in all the trama or beable to handle the wounds if necessary. In the article the women who served seemed to handle their battle wounds just fine, they also seem emmotionally intact. Woman are just as strong as men, woman are just as logical and smart as men, and woman like men are able to decided for themself if they want to fight in a war. They should be able to protect their country if they wish.
I think that women should have the same opportunity as men when it comes to serving in the army. It is a person's choice as to whether or not they want to serve, and everyone should be allowed to serve regardless of gender. Women and men are both capable of fighting in combat.
Seeing an injured women is the same as seeing an injured man. An amputee is the same no matter if they are a man or a woman. Our society isn't used to seeing scarred men, and we are much less used to seeing scarred women. We shouldn't stop women from fighting just so that they don't get hurt, we can get hurt doing anything. Army injuries are gruesome but that shouldn't stop women from armed combat. Women and men have equal right to serve their country, especially in a time like now when our troops are really quite in high demand. We need more troops, so why stop women from enrolling? Just because it's not a traditional "women's job" doesn't mean we can't do it.
women should be allowed to fight if in combat they want to. How is it not discrimination to refuse a woman to fight on the front lines simply because she's a woman? When a female (or a male) decides to join the military, they know exactly what they're getting into. It's not as if they join, and then find out that it's putting their life on the line.
If a woman wants to fight knowing full well the risks both physically and emotionally, then I believe it's fine.
The army should definantly be a choice each and every citizen of the United States should be able to make. Some people (both men and woomen) feel that it is not only their right, but their duty to America to serve in the army. I believe that if they wish, women should be allowed to join the army.
I also think that either women should be allowed to fight anywhere in the army, or not go to war at all. What is really counted as the 'front lines' anyway?
Rick S.
Huh.
It is very tempting to go completely against the crowd on this issue, except I don't really see an issue. The only reason this debate was raised (at least as I see it) is that there are less women than men on the front lines. And whenever there are fewer women than men in anything, here come the feminists. The reason for the difference between the number of male and female soldiers in war is simple: there are fewer women because less of them want to be there, and for a few very good reasons. One: well, women are more sensitive, and bluntly, it is harder for a woman to handle combat stress than it is for a man. Two: if you were a girl, would you want to be surrounded by guys for upwards of a year? We're pretty scary. And, three: bravado. A man who sees a woman in danger is psychologically compelled to help her, and this could lead to some dangerous situations.
So, that is my opinion on this "issue."
i believe that women should be allowed in combat. if a women wants to be in combat then she should be allowed because many men do not want to be in combat. arguements against this are not very strong. they say that the women destract the men but that means the men are not mentally prepared and should not be in battle. if the women is hurt and a man goes to save her because she is a women then let him do it because the man would do something like that for one of the other men that need help. as a steriotype women seem more mentally emotional about war then men. this is usually true but the women that do join the army are going to be mentally strong about killing people because they will have to be for battle and they signed up so they should be prepared. to end my beautiful blog i say,"blah tshjefkljdshfkjdsfsdhjsdljhfkdkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkdfhkjlasfdhsdfkjhdfkjhajlfkhalfhsdlkjfhsdkfljhjwyeryryeyqirykncnmzxbvmn,zxcbv,mfwiugreyiwuyer. thank you
-tobias albrigtsen of coarse
I believe that gender should not be taken into account at all in terms of who can fight, with some exceptions. Women should have a right to fight, if they choose to. I also believe that, should the draft be reinstated, women should be drafted, too. Anything else is sexist towards men. Why should your gender determine whether the USA can force you to go off into war and possibly die? The aforementioned exceptions are, in my opinion, just common sense. Pregnant women, or women with young children, should certainly not be drafted, although fathers-to-be or fathers of young children should have the same exception.
Although it is difficult to discuss this without being labeled some variety of sexist, I believe that the physical and mental differences between men and women are negligible enough that they should not alter the right to fight, in either case. Although it is undeniable that there are some differences (Men can't get pregnant, etc.) they are not always important, and often just myths (Women are not only often as strong as men, they are many times stronger. I know this from personal experience.). The possible distractions that having women in the army could cause can be countered by altered training programs. If you can train a soldier not to risk his life to save his best friend, can you not do the same in regards to women?
I do not believe that woman should be allowed to fight in the "trenches" or be on the front lines. The fact that I don’t want woman to fight on the front lines, in my opinion is not for the safety or protection of the woman, but more for the whole platoon, group, or mission. The reason I say this is because I would feel that I would have an obligation to keep her out of harm’s way, this could in many cases sabotage the mission putting several lives at stake. The reason I would feel an obligation to save her is nothing more than the fact the she is female (obviously) and me being male (once again obvious). There is just a mental thing there saying that it is more important to make sure she is safe than anything else. So I think that it is more dangerous for more people than just the woman if she is to fight on the front lines.
I see both sides of the argument equally, but i belive that women should fight alongside men. Women are generally different from men, physically and emotionaly, but that doesn't mean banning women from the front lines. The idea that men are somehow tougher or anything close to that is very sexist and a sweeping generalization.
The army is taking anyone they can right now, because of the low number of soldier hopefuls, women are a good resource. This being said, I do not agree with the draft, whether they draft females or not.
I would argue the bravest people in our country volunteer to be in the army. It is not glamorous, fun, and there is always of course the chance of a terrible injury or death.
Ok here is my opinion...I realize you don't want us to lean towards the argument of men and women are equal, and although I don't want to, it somewhat has to do with my argument. I believe that when people sign up to serve they know what they are getting themselves into and regardless of their gender. If a man signs up and is sent to Iraq or Afghanistan no one questions putting him in a fighting position when they question a woman’s ability of it. Granted I can see why the army would be hesitant on placing a woman there because they do tend to develop post traumatic stress disorder but they put themselves into this position and maybe should be given the choice of fighting or not. This way it is equal if they believe they can fight in the front lines of combat I think they should have the option just as all men are.
~Mariam Johnson~
Women have been serving in the army mainly as nurses, but now women are beginning to serve on the front lines. Women should not be prohibited from serving in dangerous positions.
War is an inevitable part of civilization and often has negative impacts on those fighting. The choice to join the army depends on the individual and the individual most likely knows what could happen to them. For instance Ladda Duckworth lost both her legs yet she still would like to be a pilot in the military. She still wants to be in the army though she has lost her legs. A woman knows the consequences arising from war and probably would not join if she did not want to fight in war. This goes for men as well; one does not join the army if they do not want to. So if a woman chooses to join the army, that is her choice and it should be respected.
The United States was also created with the idea that each person is equal under the law, all people have the same rights. The army being part of the nation’s government should treat all people equally. In doing so, the army should not discriminate against one group of people, in this case women. Women should be regarded as equals to men and should be allowed fight in the same situations as men.
Hannah Russek
In my opinion it is not a question of the sexes if there is a woman more qualified than a man in a position. I think whoever is better at a position in the army, should be in that position. For example, if there are two choices a buffed up woman who could shoot some a mile away with a pistol, or a scrawny man who couldn’t lift a gun and squealed when he heard noise; the army should put the woman in the front lines because she is better at the position. So I believe in the army the goal is to succeed, and to succeed you need the best people. So if some of those “best people” are women, it is for the good of the army.
-Nick Vincent
Although this discussion seems nearly one-sided, I feel that those who have opposed women in combat have had some really well-backed arguments. They have lead me to come to the conclusion that women should be allowed to fight on the front-lines voluntarily, but should never be drafted. I disagree with those who say that because women’s feelings are different from men’s, they should not be allowed on the front-lines whatsoever. I agree, however, with the argument of women being completely different than men, maybe not necessarily physically, but certainly emotionally. I think that a woman volunteering for the military knows exactly what she’s up against and I think through training, she can unquestionably be just as prepared as men for front-line combat.
I completely disagree with women being drafted – which, even to me, seems really sexist towards men and women alike. But my reasoning is this: women who volunteer for combat are at least somewhat prepared for what they will have to face. Drafted women, however, I believe have the potential to do a terrible job on the front-lines, and maybe even in the military in general. This is simply because they would not be able to face some of the horrors of war. Not to say some men would not be capable of facing these things either, but I think (and again, this sounds unintentionally sexist) boys (IN GENERAL) are brought up facing more violence than girls – even in something as simple as a video game or movie. Honestly though, generalizations are what make this subject so hard.
I also want to point out that women should not be drafted when they are mothers of young children or babies, and I disagree with the fact that right now, both parents of a family who volunteer for combat are allowed to serve at the same time and sometimes leave their children orphans. On the whole, I think women should be allowed to fight in combat voluntarily, but I don’t think women should ever be drafted – if a draft is needed at all. I complete disagree with the whole idea of drafting men or women in the first place.
I think that if women want to fight on the front line, that they should be able to. While women are typically not as tough as men, they still should be able to sacrifice their lives if they want to honor their country. The Army shouldn't be sexist, and they shouldn't deny women the opportunity to fight if they want to. If women are trained by the army, then they should fight, because they choose to train and fight. If a woman feels that she can fight, and should, than she should be allowed to. If a woman chooses that she wants to fight in the front line, and she trains hard to make it that position, than she should be allowed to fight. If she is wounded there, than she should be proud, because she tried very hard to fight, and while it is sad that she was hurt, she did try to fight.
I think that woman should be allowed to join the military. I think that they should be aloud to fight for our country if they want to. They should be able to fight right along side men. I understand the conflict that men will be distracted. This might be true in some cases, but I don't think it will affect a mans performance of the battlefield. Some people say that women might be more emotional during battle. I think that this might be true, but these woman should emotionally prepare themselves before they go into battle. I think that if women were not allowed to go to battle that would be very sexist because it is their decision. Overall I think that if women want to fight in battle they should have every right to pursue their goals.
Women can be protectors of their country, not just the protected. Being in the front line is very risky, but women soldiers are willing to take the job. Being in the front line helps them grow strong and confident about being females. It is very discouraging to hear that women cannot fight.
I don't think that having women in front line among men is distracting. I think it would be a good effect on men because they would want to prove that they are strong. They won't be cowards in front of women. Also, women can handle pains very well. They are the ones who give birth after all. It's scary to have your arms amputated, but I believe that women can handle these situations in war.
Women should be allowed to fight in combat, if they so desire. If all citizens are granted equal rights, women should be presented the right to fight in combat. Moreover, fighting in combat is generally defined as fighting in the "front lines." Today, however, there is much less fighting at "front lines" due to modern technology. All soldiers are in danger, whether on foot, ship or plane/jet. We no longer live in a world where two armies march at each other and fight on "front lines," as most wars before the U.S. revolution were fought.
However, allowing women the right to fight in combat differs from forcing them to, through a draft. Many people wonder whether, if there is a draft in the near future, women will be drafted into the armed forces, and if so, will they be drafted to combat? Some may argue that women are not as physically strong as men, due to scientific research. This would then be a judgement for officials of the military to make: would this difference between the genders affect the outcome of a war? Only people with experience in the army or clear scientific evidence can make a true judgement here, although many would argue that these physical differences should not affect a war's outcome.
Irrespective of a draft, however, women should be allowed in combat. It is a woman's right to defend her country and its ideals, though whether it is her duty or not is debatable.
Women have been fighting for equal rights for a long time and always complain about the male driven society that we live in. Now that people are seeing women as equal in all matters, not just intellectual pepolple are begining to think that we have gone to far. This I believe is terribly wrong. If we begin to deny women the right to fight in the army more limitations will follow and we will start to go backward in the race for equality. Also it is completly contradicting for women to be want to be considered equals but only when it is good for them. I believe women are equal to men and if that is true then women should share the same opportunities as well as requirements and responsabilities that men do. THey can not just pick the easy ones. With that said women should fight ion the army along side men in every position. If women are a distraction to a soldier when he is fighting for his life in the battlefield then he shouldnt be a soldier to begin with.
Post a Comment