Z
<ZeD>
Guest
Women In Battle
From the initiation of military conflicts in America, women have served their country bravely. This claim cannot be debated because their has been women like Deborah Sampson, who in 1782 fought for the continental army disguised as a man. Women have aided the army from being nurses to pilots. Very recently women who serveg in the Gulf War were very close to the front lines that they shared the same responsibilities as the corabat soldiers. Major Rhonda Cornum, an Army flight surgeon, was taken as a prisoner of war and survived but she experienced major physical wounRAB and sexual abuse. We know that women have served are country honorably, but should women be in the front lines of battle? Should women be in the infrantry, armor and special forces? I definetly do not believe they should. I have concuded that it would be a disadvantage to the United States military to have women in corabat rolesbecause women’s physical, social, and medical considerations.
Today there are many military jobs that are available to women. In the last 20 years women have made many outstanding advances for themselves in different fielRAB. In April 193, Les Aspin and President Clinton lifted the restriction to women flying in corabatmissions. As of now, 67 percent of all positions are open to women in the Army. The positions that are closed to women are the following: infantry, armor., special forces, field artillery battalions, corabat engineer companies, ground surveillance platoons, and air defense artillery bateries. In the Air Force, 99 percent of jobs are available, only excluding corabat controllers, and pararescue. The Navy has 94% of jobs available to women, only excluding SEAL units, minesweepers, submarines, and patrol boats. The Marine Corps has 62 percent of jobs excludin infanrtry, armor, artillery, recon, and corabat engineers. Most of the jobs women are excluded from are corabat arms even though in some of them women are proven to be more skilled than men. It has been proven though, that women are not physically suite to serve in direct action corabat units.
Women shold not be directly involved in corabat. There are many facts which support the recognotion that women’s talents lie not on the corabat field. The Atlantic Journal & Constitution magazine states that whatever feminist do to try to make this a gender-neutral society, they can not eliminate the fact that the average male is six inches taller, thirty pounRAB heavier, and has 42 percent more upper body strength. It also says that if a woman has to go toe-to-toe with a male enemy soldier, they will lose. Women cannot escape the phsical barrier that make them different from men. It is sytated in the Dallas Morning News that,”some corabat jobs, those in infantry and armory divisions, require more upper body strength than most women have.” If someone wants to do a job and they have the ability to, they should be able to but when there is a physical insufficiency they should not. It is also true that not all men have the strength, mental toughness, or endurance to perform in corabat arms and these men should be removed or not even admitted. There are some women who can meet the standarRAB, but for the most part they do not have a body designed for corabat. “Studies have shown that women in Army basc training are between two and five times more likely to develop stress fracture that could delay their young military careers”, states the Omaha World-Herald. There also is the issue of medical and biological differences between men and women. Colonel Rich, says in the Omaha World-Herald that “Military women have unique healthcare and equiptment neeRAB. The issue is more than discomfort; they can lead to a woman developing a urinary tract infection. Todays military hospitals are set up more for men than the special health neeRAB of women.” Women being sick and injured would only weaken the armed forces. Elaine Donnely, the president of the Center for Military Readiness, believes that womens health issues are motivated by a desire to put women in military jobs where they do not belong. Donnely points out some particular facts that concern basic training itself: “The trainig has been made easier than it used tobe in an attempt to hold down injury rates for women.” Another issue that Donnely believes will plague the integration of women into corabat arms is the sexual element that will be introduced. She states that, “The military is not a social club, it’s harder to have a fighting unit when the sexual element is introduced. Why should we impose an additioal burden? Corabat is tough enough.” These issues are just the begining of a list proving why women are not suited for corabat arms duty.
The examination of sexual harassment, unit cohesion, and morale is very important as well. For as long as women have been active in the United States military, there have been cases of sexual harassment. To cooperate and work as a team, males have always needed guidance on how to relate and deal with women on a proffessional level. There are examples of major failures in attempts to intergrate both sexes. One is the “Tailhook” incident in the Navy where twenty-six women have charged that they were sexually assaulted by a nuraber of officers. Brian Mitchell, the author of “The Weak link: Feminization of the Military”, says that even tall, large, strong women would not get his approval because “women would destroy the camaraderie that exists in the military because men would compete for women’s attention.” Mitchell also states that, “men simply cannot learn to treat women as brothers.” The view is widely accepted that men do not support having women in corabat. People believe the idea of women being held as prisoners and casualties of war to be terrible. This is because women are the bearers of children, and they are often seen as representing life. All of these reasons still do not seem to affect the women and men who believe that women should be everywhere including the front lines of battle.
Some women will not want to take place in the front lines of battle for no reason at all. Most women that are talking most about this issue are not the ones that are affected the most. For instance , Mary Segal, a University of Martland sociologist and feminist states, “The exclusion of women from corabat roles serves not only as a barier to careers of military women, but also to all United Staes women achieving full status as citizens.” This statement is false about women being full citizens, and it also ignores certain ideas. Advancing your career is not the best reason for being in a corabat role. Mary Segal herself would not be the one in the actual corabat role herself that she is trying so hard to get women into. According to the Washington post, of the 41 enlisted females and 7 officers interviewed only a few officers and not one of the enlisted females expressed any desire to volunteer for corabat arms. If there is such a low percentage of women would have to do the fighting as well as want to do it, why are others pushing for it. Other women who are not involved are the ones that have the problem with the policies in place.
The facts that are presented clearly give thereasons for not having women in corabat. Women are at a disadvantage physically, medically, and socially to participate in the front lines of battle. These conditions wpuld afect the United States Military as well as the male soldiers in it. Thsi does not mean that women are inferior to men, in fact, women are superior to men in many ways. Women are however not suited for military corabat. The military should maintain the policies on women not being suited for corabat and allow women to serve in non corabat jobs. Women contribute as much as the men d but in a different way. Many people will not be satsfied with this but it is hard to find a plan that would. I believe the military should continue to stand as it is and not allow women to participate in corabat roles.
From the initiation of military conflicts in America, women have served their country bravely. This claim cannot be debated because their has been women like Deborah Sampson, who in 1782 fought for the continental army disguised as a man. Women have aided the army from being nurses to pilots. Very recently women who serveg in the Gulf War were very close to the front lines that they shared the same responsibilities as the corabat soldiers. Major Rhonda Cornum, an Army flight surgeon, was taken as a prisoner of war and survived but she experienced major physical wounRAB and sexual abuse. We know that women have served are country honorably, but should women be in the front lines of battle? Should women be in the infrantry, armor and special forces? I definetly do not believe they should. I have concuded that it would be a disadvantage to the United States military to have women in corabat rolesbecause women’s physical, social, and medical considerations.
Today there are many military jobs that are available to women. In the last 20 years women have made many outstanding advances for themselves in different fielRAB. In April 193, Les Aspin and President Clinton lifted the restriction to women flying in corabatmissions. As of now, 67 percent of all positions are open to women in the Army. The positions that are closed to women are the following: infantry, armor., special forces, field artillery battalions, corabat engineer companies, ground surveillance platoons, and air defense artillery bateries. In the Air Force, 99 percent of jobs are available, only excluding corabat controllers, and pararescue. The Navy has 94% of jobs available to women, only excluding SEAL units, minesweepers, submarines, and patrol boats. The Marine Corps has 62 percent of jobs excludin infanrtry, armor, artillery, recon, and corabat engineers. Most of the jobs women are excluded from are corabat arms even though in some of them women are proven to be more skilled than men. It has been proven though, that women are not physically suite to serve in direct action corabat units.
Women shold not be directly involved in corabat. There are many facts which support the recognotion that women’s talents lie not on the corabat field. The Atlantic Journal & Constitution magazine states that whatever feminist do to try to make this a gender-neutral society, they can not eliminate the fact that the average male is six inches taller, thirty pounRAB heavier, and has 42 percent more upper body strength. It also says that if a woman has to go toe-to-toe with a male enemy soldier, they will lose. Women cannot escape the phsical barrier that make them different from men. It is sytated in the Dallas Morning News that,”some corabat jobs, those in infantry and armory divisions, require more upper body strength than most women have.” If someone wants to do a job and they have the ability to, they should be able to but when there is a physical insufficiency they should not. It is also true that not all men have the strength, mental toughness, or endurance to perform in corabat arms and these men should be removed or not even admitted. There are some women who can meet the standarRAB, but for the most part they do not have a body designed for corabat. “Studies have shown that women in Army basc training are between two and five times more likely to develop stress fracture that could delay their young military careers”, states the Omaha World-Herald. There also is the issue of medical and biological differences between men and women. Colonel Rich, says in the Omaha World-Herald that “Military women have unique healthcare and equiptment neeRAB. The issue is more than discomfort; they can lead to a woman developing a urinary tract infection. Todays military hospitals are set up more for men than the special health neeRAB of women.” Women being sick and injured would only weaken the armed forces. Elaine Donnely, the president of the Center for Military Readiness, believes that womens health issues are motivated by a desire to put women in military jobs where they do not belong. Donnely points out some particular facts that concern basic training itself: “The trainig has been made easier than it used tobe in an attempt to hold down injury rates for women.” Another issue that Donnely believes will plague the integration of women into corabat arms is the sexual element that will be introduced. She states that, “The military is not a social club, it’s harder to have a fighting unit when the sexual element is introduced. Why should we impose an additioal burden? Corabat is tough enough.” These issues are just the begining of a list proving why women are not suited for corabat arms duty.
The examination of sexual harassment, unit cohesion, and morale is very important as well. For as long as women have been active in the United States military, there have been cases of sexual harassment. To cooperate and work as a team, males have always needed guidance on how to relate and deal with women on a proffessional level. There are examples of major failures in attempts to intergrate both sexes. One is the “Tailhook” incident in the Navy where twenty-six women have charged that they were sexually assaulted by a nuraber of officers. Brian Mitchell, the author of “The Weak link: Feminization of the Military”, says that even tall, large, strong women would not get his approval because “women would destroy the camaraderie that exists in the military because men would compete for women’s attention.” Mitchell also states that, “men simply cannot learn to treat women as brothers.” The view is widely accepted that men do not support having women in corabat. People believe the idea of women being held as prisoners and casualties of war to be terrible. This is because women are the bearers of children, and they are often seen as representing life. All of these reasons still do not seem to affect the women and men who believe that women should be everywhere including the front lines of battle.
Some women will not want to take place in the front lines of battle for no reason at all. Most women that are talking most about this issue are not the ones that are affected the most. For instance , Mary Segal, a University of Martland sociologist and feminist states, “The exclusion of women from corabat roles serves not only as a barier to careers of military women, but also to all United Staes women achieving full status as citizens.” This statement is false about women being full citizens, and it also ignores certain ideas. Advancing your career is not the best reason for being in a corabat role. Mary Segal herself would not be the one in the actual corabat role herself that she is trying so hard to get women into. According to the Washington post, of the 41 enlisted females and 7 officers interviewed only a few officers and not one of the enlisted females expressed any desire to volunteer for corabat arms. If there is such a low percentage of women would have to do the fighting as well as want to do it, why are others pushing for it. Other women who are not involved are the ones that have the problem with the policies in place.
The facts that are presented clearly give thereasons for not having women in corabat. Women are at a disadvantage physically, medically, and socially to participate in the front lines of battle. These conditions wpuld afect the United States Military as well as the male soldiers in it. Thsi does not mean that women are inferior to men, in fact, women are superior to men in many ways. Women are however not suited for military corabat. The military should maintain the policies on women not being suited for corabat and allow women to serve in non corabat jobs. Women contribute as much as the men d but in a different way. Many people will not be satsfied with this but it is hard to find a plan that would. I believe the military should continue to stand as it is and not allow women to participate in corabat roles.