Much has changed since World War I. During WWI, African Americans were assigned to segregated units and women could not serve. Today the Armed Forces are integrated and women can serve, however women are still prevented from serving in certain direct combat positions. Your debate topic: Is this policy outdated? Read the articles below and take a stand. Post by Tuesday, October 12th for full credit.
Check out the following sites:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/16women.html
http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14960494
52 comments:
I feel the womens policy for direct combat positions is outdated for a number of reasons. This is supported in the New York Times article as it displays how women should be considered equal regarding their position in combat. Women have done just as much as men as they have: patrolled streets with machine guns, served as gunners on vehicles, disposed of explosives, and driven trucks down bomb-ridden roads. This along with their better ability to negiotiate with other women in war proves that the policy for females in combat is outdated and should be ammended.
kyle wilcox
I Think women should be allowed to be in the armed forces and also be able to be in a combat situation. But i also think they should be limited to the branches of service. What i mean by that is a women could be in the infantry, but not be allowed to join certaain branches such as Navy Seals, Rangers, Airborn, and other speacial force units. The reason for this is because these units mostly operate behind enemy lines, and if they happened to be captured they most likely would be treated in a diffrent manner then a male who was captured.
I feel that women should be able to be a part of any position in the army. Like all the articles said the amount of women in the army has been increasing over the years. I believe that women have proven we have the physical and mental strength. "women have done nearly as much in battle as their male counterparts: patrolled streets with machine guns, served as gunners on vehicles, disposed of explosives, and driven trucks down bomb-ridden roads." (The New York Times) The women that join the army must pass a test to see if they are physically fit, just like the men. Also women can do things men cannot do, like searching the women in Iraq for weapons. I believe that these rules should be updated because women have proven themselves to be just as strong and equal to the men of the army.
Taylor Smith
P. 4
I feel as if this policy is outdated. Though there have been fundamental changes to the military policy for women..it is still obvious that it is outdate. Consider this, until the early 90's-now we live in a society where its not always the man who provides the most for the family, there are many successful women. Before this we experienced some of our most defining wars such as WW1/WW2, vietnam, korea etc. In all of these cases women couldn't serve on the frontlines just work in hospitals as nurses. This time period also displayed of women dominantly responsible for maintaining order in the household. This policy still exudes tailings of that specific time period. In some cases, the fact is that disallowing women in the army to serve in any situation as men is gender-discrimination. The ironic thing before this idea of women being the household-maker took hold since whenever; according to cdi.org, "When discussing the history of women in combat, one might think of Joan of Arc who in 1429, at age 17, successfully led French troops into battle against the English." Though, historically ancient...it is representative of womens ability in combat. Also when women have that sense of authority restricted on the front lines, to me it makes them prone to scrutiny from their male-counterparts...
-Mason W.
The whole idea of women being treated differently in the military was something I hardly thought about. While Kyle and Taylor both made excellent statements, I'm viewing these issues from a different light. I believe that a soldier is a soldier and if someone is willing to risk their life for this country and fight in war, then they deserve the respect and equality that we preach to others about. Constantly we are making statements that make us look like hypocrites to the rest of the world. Our country was created under the ideas of freedom and equality, yet certain groups of people are discriminated against in our military. This is not what we want to show the rest of the world. If we stand for equality, we must actually practice it.
Also, "beggars can't be choosers". The military has a lot of nerve if they really want to turn down strong, able human beings.
Sort of off topic but still relevant, I read in an article recently that women are finally getting uniforms that are made specifically for them because before they had to wear uncomfortable and over sized uniforms designed for men. I believe the military should have already created uniforms specifically for women. Anyone who is willing to serve for their country deserves respect and a proper fitting uniform.
And to further strengthen my argument, one article I read states that "opponents insist that due to politics, quotas would be undeniable, thus allowing unqualified women into key military positions". This argument is an interesting statement, but it approaches another subject of inequality, quotas shouldn't be forced because this is still inequality.
All women and men are equal and they should equally be allowed in the military, neither gender should be favored in any way and judgment should be based solely on skills.
Troy N.
Class 6
I strongly believe the policy regarding women in the armed forces is outdated for many reasons. To begin, the article in the third link states that "Hundreds of women disguised themselves as men to fight in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars." along with mentioning Joan of Arc, so obviously women fighting alongside men is not something that is brand new to the system. It also stated that "More than 40,000 American women served in the war against Iraq." and the first link tells a personal story about a woman who did serve her time there. Women have already done as much as men do and not letting them serve in certain direct combat positions, in this day and age, could very well be considered gender-discrimination, and therefore this policy should be amended.
- Ishaar Gupta
Agreeing with the above posts, I strongly believe that this policy is outdated and women should be able to serve in any direct combat position. Going along with what Mason said, I think that not allowing women in certain positions of combat is a direct source of gender-discrimination. I believe that this is exactly the case. Although women have proved to have both the stamina and the knowledge to serve in the army like Taylor said, this policy is discriminating against women. In the New York Times article, it states how "women have repeatedly proved their mettle in combat" and "they have earned the confidence and respect of male colleagues." This shows that females have proved that they are capable of doing the same tasks as men, and even male soldiers have recognized the strength that these women have. In the "Women in the Military Article," it states that most of the women entering the war are fully aware of what they are getting themselves into and what consequences they may have to face. Women have shown that they are able to compete directly with men and are able to handle the same things as men do in war. This policy is definitely outdated and needs to be changed to allow men and women to have equal rights.
I agree with everyone here. This policy is extremely outdated because women are completely equal to men. Although men and women have different roles sometimes, in regards to the military, women are capable to do everything men do. “‘I did everything there,’ Ms. Alfaro, 25, said of her time in Iraq. ‘I gunned. I drove. I ran as a truck commander. And underneath it all, I was a medic’” (New York Times). If they contribute the same sort of things as men (without restrictions), then why aren’t they able to serve in certain direct combat positions? This doesn’t make sense. They deserve to work in combat branches such as “infantry, armor, Special Forces and most field artillery units and from doing support jobs while living with those smaller units” because in today’s world, we know that women are just as competent. As I’m thinking, I realize that a woman could have become president of this country- and still can. If a woman does, she would be the Commander in Chief of the military, just as a male president would be. Holding one of the most important positions here, how would a woman’s work in any one of these combat positions be any less valuable? Also, I agree with Troy that “if we stand for equality, we must actually practice it,” even if that means on the front line of the battlefield.
Maria Dutsar
(Class 6)
Agreeing with the previous posts, I believe the policy regarding women in direct combat positions is completely outdated. If someone is willing to risk their lives for the freedom of our people why in the world should we tell them no. As troy said, we are a country built on equality, this policy makes hypocrites. Troy also mentioned that "beggers cant be choosers," we want a large and powerful military, so why exclude physically capable people just because anatomically speaking, they are built different than men. One argument against women in combat is that women simply do not have the physical strength and endurance needed(cdi.org). This is a complete generalization, there are women who can compete with men, so why should they be excluded. It's as simple as putting women through the same testing as men, and if they can make it through you know they are able to handle it. People also agrue, as Rick did, that women should not be able to join certain branches of the military because if they were captured it is way more likely for them to be sexually abused. I'm not going to say this is false, because its not, however, adult women who make the decision to join the military are fully aware of the risks that come along with it. So who is the government to tell these women no?
Katie P.
Period 1
I think the policy for women in the army is outdated. I feel that they should be treated equally and given equal opportunities, after all, aren’t all men and women supposed to be created equal? I think that while there are many advances in allowing women to serve in more places, women are still unable to serve with men in battle as addressed in the first article. I find this ridiculous because if woman can be an officer, why can’t she serve with men in battle? I agree with Kyle and Taylor that the policy is outdated and women should serve in any area of the army. Taylor states that she believes, “these rules should be updated because women have proven themselves to be just as strong and equal to the men of the army.” I agree with Taylor and strongly disagree with the second article that states, “Women simply do not have the physical strength and endurance needed.” This is a very false statement and I say this because, woman can be just as fit as men. If you think about high school physical education everyone is required to run the mile, many girls come in stronger, and have a faster time than boys. In regards to this, can it still be said that girls lack the physical strength to succeed in such rigorous courses or challenges? Troy wrote a strong argument regarding our country looking hypocritical in the sense that they are, “all about equality,” yet they are running a military that is highly unequal. Women risk their lives in the military just as any men do. I believe that the policies for women in the army should be closely looked at and revised because if they are serving our country with all that they can, why should theirgender make them any less important?
Katie S
Period 4
After reading the assigned articles, I believe the policy for women in combat is highly outdated. The New York Times article states, "...as soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, women have done nearly as much in battle as their male counterparts". Overall, I think that if a woman has the determination, physical capabilities, and proper knowledge they should be equally excepted into the military.
Also, I found Troy's comment "Our country was created under the ideas of freedom and equality, yet certain groups of people are discriminated against in our military" very interesting. Our country was separated from England because we didn't have proper representation. Currently, the women in the military are not being given the same representation that we were looking for during the revolution.
In conclusion, any woman who knows all the consequences, but still chooses to enter the military, should be given all the same rights as the men. As woman have begun to enter higher power roles in society, the fact that they are as capable as men has been proven. There should be no more gender discrimination in our modern society.
Jessa M
Class 1
After reading the assigned articles, I believe the policy for women in combat is highly outdated. The New York Times article states, "...as soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, women have done nearly as much in battle as their male counterparts". Overall, I think that if a woman has the determination, physical capabilities, and proper knowledge they should be equally excepted into the military because their ability in battle has been equivalent to the men.
Also, I found Troy's comment "Our country was created under the ideas of freedom and equality, yet certain groups of people are discriminated against in our military" very interesting. Our country was separated from England because we didn't have proper representation. Currently, the women in the military are not being given the same representation that we were looking for during the American Revolution.
In conclusion, any woman who knows all the consequences, but still chooses to enter the military, should be given all the same rights as the men. As woman have begun to enter higher power roles in society, the fact that they are as capable as men has been proven. There should be no more gender discrimination in our modern society.
Jessa M
Class 1
I agree with everyone else that women should be allowed to hold any position they want in the army and that the current policy is extremely outdated. In the second article it says how men and women both have to undergo specific testing in order to determine whether they are qualified to serve in the army. Although the results expected by gender and age vary i think that they should just be made the same. "There are no current tests that specifically measure the physical skills required for each military occupational specialty." The second article states this and i believe that womene should be allowed in any position they so choose as long as they are qualified for that specific position according to standardized tests of physical strength etc.
Also like Taylor S. said ancd quoted the nytimes article, women have done many of the same jobs that men in the army are also doing. To add on to this also in the Nytimes article it says, "Women can lead some male troops into combat as officers, but they cannot serve with them in battle." I found this to be extremely backwards because if a woman is skilled enough to lead others into battle and knows enough that why can't she participate in combat? Also women can even do jobs men can't such as searching Afgan women. Men can't do this due to cultural reasons in Afganistan and women have proved to be extremely important when concerned with this.
Also found Troy's commentary to be extremely compelling especially the part aobut how women are now just getting uniforms that are specifically made for them. This shocks me because if women are wearing clothing that is the wrong size how are they supposed to perform their best during a situtation.
Something that wasn't brought up that shocked me though was in the second article. "The male only draft was considered to be constitutional… largely because the draft was viewed as a way to fill combat slots -- slots from which women were barred." I found this quote from teh second article particulary shocking because it doesn't seem fair to force men to join the army if they don't want to while some women are willing to fufill these positions. Only people willing to join the army should be allowed to fight. Why would any of us want someone who doesn't want to fight to protect out country? Ovearll this policy is so outdated and if women are willing and are qualified enough to serve in direct combat they should be allowed to. Wouldn't you rather have a woman who wants to defend the United States in the army instead of a man who might not even want to be in the army?
I believe that women have every right to be a part of the armed forces, because there is no reason that would stand in the way of allowing them to participate. Many women over time have fought in wars, and a massive amount of women fought in the civil and revolutionary war (although they were disguised as men). The first link described a personal experience of a woman who wanted to be a soldier, and it was extremely moving. It would be incredibly sexist to say that a woman should not be permitted to join the armed forces, and i believe that the policy for females in combat is unbelievably outdated and should be amended.
Jake T.
I would have to disagree with everyone and with all due respect to woman, I do not believe they should be allowed to fight in certain aspects of war.
Wars have been fought century upon century without woman for multiple reasons. One reason would be physical strength, which was mentioned in one of the articles against woman in combat. Some situations in the army need strong people and men are known for being stronger. If a 215 pound injured soldier needs to be carried hundreds of yards to safety, it would be very difficult for a woman who probably weighs much less than that to carry him. Also some woman would not be able to handle the gravitational force of an aircraft in battle and the article said only "some woman" would have enough endurance to handle these tasks.
Another reason the article mentioned was the fact that relationships could be formed between some men and woman and that would effect the outcome of productivity. If woman get pregnant or if one of them dies in combat, their partner would be emotionally damaged and it would effect their efforts in the war itself. One final reason Is that of politics in the war. In the article, some unqualified woman are being assigned parts of the military that they cant handle because of "undeniable quotas". The army also doesn't want woman to become P.O.W's due to two woman U.S soldiers that were captured and sexually abused by Iraqi's during the gulf war.
Overall, I believe anyone who has served in war is a hero but for now on I wouldn't allow woman to take part in some extreme parts that even some men cant handle. The army is for physically and mentally tough people and very few woman have shown that capability thus far, otherwise there wouldn't be a debate on whether or not woman should be able to obtain any rank in war.
Stefan H.
This policy of not allowing certain poistions to women is definately outdated in my opinion. I disagree with Rick, I feel that if a woman wished to risk their life or do something that may be considered a lot more dangerous they have a right to do so. They understand what they're getting into and therefore it should be a choice up to them. in addition, in the article Women in the Military: Combat Roles Considered it clearly states that for the US to continue to stay as successful and a great army we have to have the best at doing their job, no matter what the gender may be.
Cassandra Fallon, class 1
I believe that the policy is not outdated. The CDI web site states "Romantic relationships and pregnancies also concern many experts. The argument is that romance may undermine espirit de corps and that pregnancies will hurt readiness." A soldier must be able to serve their country at all times. This can not be obtained by a pregnant woman in a time of their countries need.
Another reason for not allowing women to go into combat is enprisonment. The CDI article also states, "Opponents of allowing women to compete for combat billets argue that it is too dangerous to put women in the position of becoming prisoners of war. Without a doubt, there is a much greater probability for acts of sexual molestation and rape with the addition of women to the front lines." Because women can be treated in such ways, it allows another countries to "Break" a female soldier more easily than a male soldier and obtain facts about the U.S. military. An example of this kind of behavior in other countries was during the gulf war."two female U.S. soldiers were taken captive and one was sexually abused by the Iqaqis."
Phisical strength can also be argued. "Despite this, all experts agree that there are some women, although perhaps small in number, who have the physical strength and endurance to be soldiers." The key part to this quote is that only a small number of women have the phisical strength to be a soldier.
I agree with my classmates that the policy is very outdated. I believe that it is a policy that is saying that women can be in the army but they just cant be in direct combat. I the first article, it was about a women who talked about her personal experiance. After reading it I felt as though she might as well have been in right in the hest of things because she showed that she could handly anything. "I gunned. I drove. I ran as a truck commander. And underneath it all, I was a medic” (New York Times G.I. Jane Breaks the Combat Barrier).
History shows that women have been in battle even though the men in the time may not have know. There were many women who disguised themselves as men during the Civil War and the Revolutionary War. Those women showed that they cared for there country by going against the law in order to fight for the United States.
Yes the policy has improved however women should be able to show their love for their country by helping to fight for it right there in the front line.
Grace McKinley
Although I do agree with everyone that women should have the same rights as men, I agree with Stefan that women should not be allowed in combat. In the second article, it says that the question over whether women should be allowed to fight isn't about equal rights, it's about military effectiveness. There are many examples from the articles that state how women would disrupt the cohesiveness in a unit. A unit must trust and respect one another, and many believe that men wouldn't be able to trust women to be capable of accomplishing the physical demands. One article told a story about how a women soldier wasn't able to carry a wounded male soldier to safety because of his weight. This was a matter of life and death, so we shouldn't risk putting women in those situations. In addition to this, I agree with Stefan when he said that relationships between men and women soldiers would affect the successfulness of the group in combat. If a woman got pregnant or died, it would affect her partner's effort and affectiveness in war. Also, it is too dangerous to put women in the position of becoming prisoners of war. This is because there would be great probablility of being sexually abused by other soldiers. This policy is not outdated; women should not be allowed to fight in combat.
Jess Haitz
Class 1
I agree with Kyle that the poilcy is outdated. In the third article Elaine Donnelly, president of the conservative think tank Center for Military Readiness, says that the rules on woman combat are not even being followed. So why have a policy restricting women in combat when it won't even be followed. It is time to revise the policy.
Alex Kelly class 4
I feel that woman should definitely be able to have the choice in fighting in combat. I agree with Troy in that the Military can't "beg" for enrollment and soldiers willing to fight for our country and "choose" against woman in their will to fight. If a woman feels she is strong enough, physically and mentally, there is no reason why she shouldn't be denied the choice of combat. Both men and woman have to go through training courses and deal with mental aspects of war. I feel that neither gender is more prepared or naturally stronger in any of these areas.
Many articles addressed that "[woman] face sexual discrimination and rape" during war (New York Times). This could be a strong argument against woman in combat, however I'd assume any female willing to fight knows the dangerous possibilities and what they might face. Woman in every day life may have to face these dangers. It could be understood that in war these dangers may be more prominent but I also feel that with the strength and skill of these woman in war, they could handle such situations better than a female citizen at home.
Nicole R
Class 6
As many other people said, i agree that woman should be able to play whatever role in the army they wanted. "The number of high-ranking women and women who command all-male units has climbed considerably along with their status in the military." (New York Times). I think its great that woman's status in the military has greatly raised over the years and i feel that women should be able to do anything that men can do in the military. I also think that if women were allowed to command all-male units, that they should be allowed to be apart of any unit they wanted to be.
Danielle Ford
Class 4
I see what Ricky is trying to say, but i agree with Katie and many others that say these policies keeping women out of direct combat are outdated. SPecifically, the New York Times article's view says that women should be considered equally regarding their position in combat, something Kyle had mentioned before. That is why I think these laws need to be amended so that women can feel free to serve their country in the way that they want to.
I feel as though womens policy for direct combat positions is severely outdated. As stated in the New York Times article, America could not have fought this war without women. Women like Specialist Veronica Alfaro, have exceeded in multiple areas to gain respect and proper authority to enter this war and instead of becoming "attached" to specific units, have assigned themselves to the role of protecting our country. They have done this by sacrificing their lives just as much as the average male soldier and have knowingly entered this war as the underdog, with set expectations, lower than that of their male colleagues. And for this fact, I agree with Taylor in saying that they have gained the right to fight in all combat situations.
morgan kirol
I disagree with Stefan, although those can happen, the women could be trained for those tasks. Also from a former lieutenant colonel Baumann said "Not only could they handle it, but in the same way as males." I see it as though they treat women differently in the armed forces because they are women. I've seen shows on the military channel that show what everyone goes through to be apart of what I think was the army. Everyone seemed equally fit, and also equally emotionally stressed. I think that if men and women were to put aside their differences and make sure they do their best, either gender should be able to join.
I agree with Troy and Nicole. I think this policy is extremely outdated.In the second article it said that women have been fighting alongside men since the Civil War. If people didn't notice the women then, that shows that women are just as capable of being in combat as men without compromising what they are doing. Also I don't think its fair that if a women wants to fight for her country and make a difference she can't just because of her gender. Anyone who joins the army knows the risks and has thought about them. Joining the army is not just a split-second decision. The risks and dangers are obvious and out there for anyone to see.If the army wants people to enlist and join then they should allow women to go into combat. I do agree that certain men would have a tough time listening and doing what a women was telling them to do in combat. However this should not affect whether women can go into combat or not. In todays society women are becoming more powerful and independent and it would only make sense that they be allowed in combat.
I agree with what Stefan and Cory have stated above, that this law is not exactly outdated. In most cases, women do have the same rights as men in the army. However, when referring to “direct combat” situations, women in top positions would just not be safe. For example, it would not be wise to position a female in a co-locate lead position. If a large wounded man needed to be evacuated, no matter how brave, courageous, or valuable a female is to the army, a petite woman would not be able to carry the man on her back (Norris). This issue is not based on discrimination, rather the physical characteristics men and women posses. Furthermore, women make up about 11% of the army today (Alverez). No doubt they are an essential and important aspect to the military. However, it really would be unfortunate if a whole troop of men and women were disadvantaged because the commander got pregnant, raped, etc (Alverez). This is a touchy subject because women absolutely do deserve top positions if possible and safe. Sadly, in some cases it is nothing more than physical qualities that are the determining factor. In conclusion, this law is not necessarily completely outdated; it is circumstantial.
Lauren B. Period 4
When solving such a political yet moral issue, it is best to look back and reflect on the values that define our nation. One of the core beliefs of the United States of America states that every citizen deserves equal rights. I believe that this restriction on a woman's right to fight for her country is unconstitutional and unjust.
Other than the political reasoning, there are other flaws to this policy which must be corrected. The addition of female soldiers to the military provides many benefits to the USA. Dr. Nagl of a military research center stated that “We literally could not have fought this war without women”. A new perspective to the military world will definitely add to our country's defense. Major Kellie McCoy has recently earned a bronze star for her courage in rescuing a wounded infantryman. While some like Stefan argue that women do not have sufficient strength to defend their country, McCoy is living proof to refute this hypothesis. Even if some do not possess the required strength, a female perceptive will assist the cause in other ways. Scientific studies have shown that women have better memorization skills, multitasking skills and pain resistance. These important skills can be utilized in our country’s military.
Rick brings up a good point when he discusses the possibility of the enemy taking prisoners. Women who wish to join must accept that they will be treated as soldiers to ensure that there is no discrimination on either side. These soldiers need to be prepared fro the possible dangers that Cory has underlined. A woman puts herself at a serious risk by being a soldier. However, all soldiers who enlist realize the danger and persist to protect the ideas that they believe in. If a woman soldier is able to accept that she will be treated the same as a man at all times, prisoner situations included, then this new policy will be able to function properly and our military guidelines will finally fit the expectations that our constitution has enlightened our citizens with.
I believe if we say women have the same rigths as men that like men, if they choose to join any branch of the military they should be able to. I agree with Troy about if a women is willing to risk their life for this country and fight in war, then they deserve the right, freedom and respect to do so. I see the other side and Rick's point of view on how it isn't safe for them in case they were captured and raped, but it is their decision, they are aware of the conseuences. It is not the question of can they fight or lead in a war, since many women like the Joan of Arc in 1429 have before, it is just the concern for their safety. Like Rick said again it would be a good idea to limit women in branches that lead them behind enemy lines, but there shouldn't be any restrictions for them.
Will Fletcher
Class 4
I think that women should be allowed in armed forces and combat. I feel that if they choose that they want to to be in combat they should be granted the right to. I do agree with Rick where he says that they should be only in limited branches because, like what Rick said it would be disgusting and just wrong if they were to be captured by the opposition. I agree with Troy as well and believe that the Army should take women if they are physically able and want to be in combat. I disagree with Stefan because, a lot of his reasons for saying women should not be able to take part in the army is "what if" situations. Some of these "what if situations may not ever happen that is why it is unfair to say these arguments. One last reason why I believe women are capable of fighting and even leading is because in one article it speaks about Joan of Arc who in 1429, at age 17, successfully led French troops. All women and men are equal and should be treated fairly in War.
I fully agree with Stefan. I think that women serving in the military is a good idea, but that them serving in certain aspects could cause problems. There is also the fact that women cannot physically compare to men. As the New York Times article stated, the commanders realize that the soldiers have sex and that pregnant women on the battlefield must be evacuated. This could also lead to an emotional attachment to the men and women in working in a unit and if one is injured or killed this could lead to poor military performance on the other parter's part or lead to unrational actions. Overall, I think that women should be able to fight in the military but that where they can serve should be limited.
I agree with Rick in the sens that women need to be limited to specific areas or branches or combat. As mentioned in the NPR article, women have different physical capabilities than men. There's nothing we can do to change that. But different doesn't necessarily mean worse. Different means that there are different task that women could be accomplishing on the battlefield that men can't. Also, I feel the law against women invovlement in combat is vague and aviodable - many armies are finding a way around it already. It's pointless to keep the law standing when it is being so abused and disregarded.
I feel like in order to decide your position for this, you have to either think realistically or with your own personal opinion. This notion has been debated throughout history. This is supported in the NYT article; highlighting the equality for both men and women in combat. However, it is unrealistic for people to think that this policy can change entirely. It is basic human nature that men partake in this kind of combat and woman do not, as much as we would try to convince ourselves otherwise. Through this concept, our mannerisms declare what's realistic and what isn't. Since the beginning of time the dominant roles of men and women have remained somewhat constant throughout history. These roles were catalyzed by mental and physical strengths. If you look at the vast majority of our population, most men are more physically stronger than women; you can't argue with the way bodies are built. This is one of the many reasons why women involved in combat cannot be viewed on the same level as men. For example, Rick said
"if they happened to be captured they most likely would be treated in a different manner then a male who was captured." You have to look at the big picture.
However, I personally agree with what Troy said; "a soldier is a soldier and if someone is willing to risk their life for this country and fight in war, then they deserve the respect" to do so.
As Rick said, I believe that women need to limited to specific branches service. As the NPR article discussed, women have different physical capabilities than males. There's no way to change that. But what we're not recognizing is that different doesn't necessarily mean worse. It means that there are some positions (even in combat)more suited for females and some more suited for males. Women should be allowed into combat positions, just specifically designated areas of combat. Furthermore, the law regarding women's involvement in combat is somewhat vague (also discussed in the NPR article. Many women who are truly passionate about the role they want to play in their military find loopholes in the law and act in combat positions anyway - there is no point in enforcing a law so easily circumventable.
As Rick said, women should be permitted to serve in specific branches on combat. Women have different physical capabilities than males, as stressed in the NPR article, but what often isn't recognized is that different doesn't necessarily mean worse. There are some combative positions more suited to females that they could and should be participating in. Furthermore, the vague law regarding women's role in the military is often worked around, women finding loopholes to fight in the position they wish to fight in (also discussed in the NPR article). It's pointless to keep such a circumventable law enforced. Rather, the law should be altered to allow women into specific fields of combat.
I feel that the Women's policy for direct combat posistions is definitely outdated. Ishaar's use of the quote in the third link ("hundreds of women disguised themselves as men in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars") shows that women have been successfully helping the military since the start of our country in 1776; the only difference between now and then is that now we are more accepting of women in battle and they no longer need to disguise themselves.
The New York Times article mentioned Mr. Baumann, an old military warrior, who risked his military carreer in allowing the 36 women under his order at the time to fight in male positions, while lying elsewhere about their conduct. He admitted to not being positive, at first, if the women would be able to handle the experiences in his unit, however he also says that he was wrong. "I found out differently. Not only could they handle it, but in the same ways as males...I had full trust in their abilities." I think this one quote trully shows how much women can contribute to the military. Women can clearly handle war as well as men and should be allowed to do so if they wish to.
I think, personally, that the military should be grateful of the people they have volunteering, male or female, and that each person should be placed in the rank that best suits them in order to create the most successful and effective military. If a woman makes a better officer that a man, she should recieve the promotion as opposed to the man because she is more qualified, not because she is or isn't a women; if the man is chosen over her, however, that is sexism and discrimination. Women should be allowed all positions that a man is allowed to have in the military.
-Colleen C
Period 4
I agree with everyone's comments. I beleive the policy not allowing women to be in the armed forces and combat is very outdated. As the New York Times article stated, "women have done nearly as much in battle as their male counterparts: patrolled streets with machine guns, served as gunners on vehicles, disposed of explosives, and driven trucks down bomb-ridden roads." Clearly, women have as much courage,and ability to fight as men do. Like Amanda said, this policy is based on gender discrimination.
Furthermore, women are a huge help in combat,and have the abiblity to search Iraqui and Afghan Women for weapons. Women also helped in the war when boundaries were broken,and it was a necessity for them to fight. As quoted in New York Times, “We literally could not have fought this war without women,” said Dr. Nagl.
From these examples, It is obvious that women should be allowed to be in any part of the army. This policy is very outdated,and already more than 12 countries allow women in combat occupations. It is time we face the facts,and allow women in cambat also.
Emily Kopcik per.1
To agree with Kyle and the New York Times article, I'd say that military service should be available for anyone motivated and fit regardless of gender or sexual preference. Modifications that address safety issues should be required of the military as an exchange for women's contributions and service. Women will have a civilizing effect on the esprit des corps of soldiers and may introduce additional consciousness in stressful environments. The military has to adjust to the 21st century, not the other way around. That having been said, I would be as against drafting women as I am men.
Sage Musk
Period 6
I agree with Ishaar, Jake and most other people that the womens policy for direct combat is outdated. There have been many women in history that fought with valor despite their gender. "One might think of Joan of Arc who in 1429, at age 17, successfully led French troops into battle against the English". She is a great example of what women can do. Already "Two women have been awarded Silver Stars, one of the military’s highest honors. Many more women have been awarded medals for valor, the statistics show". I feel that if women want to fight for their country and are as just as prepared to fight as their male counterparts then there is no reason they can not. More than 40,000 women already serve this country in Iraq and most of them have probably already experienced direct combat off the charts so why not just let them fight "legally".
In my honest opinion, the policy preventing women to work in certain areas of war is rather outdated. Though some may feel that women are not physically strong enough to engage in direct combat, as it has been detailed in the New York Times article it appears that women are doing an equally, or in some cases, more efficient job than some male soldiers. They have even proven their capabilities in many different aspects of war, such as in bomb disarmament and as gunners.
I wholeheartedly agree with Troy's response. In reality, who are we to restrict a person from entering a certain field of war when they themselves actually have the courage to fight in one. People who oppose lifting this restriction claim that it would weaken a platoon's morale to include women in an all-male unit. However, the retired general quoted in the New York Times successfully refutes this idea when discussing how he worked with female troops in his platoon. Apparently, they worked incredibly well with male soldiers. When women are given a chance to earn the respect of the male soldiers, it can be surprising how sexual discrimination and male resentment all but fade away. I also have to disagree with Stefan's statement. While it is true that some women may not be able to handle the gravitational force of an aircraft, it was stated in that same NPR article that this was not fully proven.
In conclusion, I really do not see while we're being picky when there is in fact a war going on. While it is true that women face rape, sexual harassment and pregnancy, they must be sure that they are fully aware of the dangers before entering the war. These situations are even trying to be remedied by making gender-segregated work areas. Women have proven themselves in past wars such as the Persian-Gulf War and on the current battlefield. With women heading into battle under the government's radar in the first place, I don't see why the government keeps trying to hold them back. If women want to fight, let them fight.
I believe that, based on the articles and peoples comments above, that the topic of women fighting in combat is very outdated. Throughout history we have had womens rights movements and it has been previously decided that women deserve the same rights as men. Women should not be discriminated against. Although Rick makes a good point when he states that a woman would be treated differently, especially if she was captured. But this does not show that women would give confidential information up any sooner, if at all, then men. Not only this, but as stated by Amanda, Taylor and a few others, women have proved that they are equally capable of completing the same physical tasks and challenges as men. It is gender discrimination for a woman to be denied a position offered to a man because the women is looked at as "less capable" just because she is a female. I believe that whether a person is male or female should not have any impact on their eligibility, only their capability to preform.
Also, the assumption that women would be more effected by a relationship is an illegitimate accusation. A male is just as likely to be effected and act the same way as a women would. It is all about a persons personality. Whether they, as an individual, are capable of putting their country first and focusing on their tasks and not becoming distracted. And the only way pregnancy would effect a woman greater then a male would be if a woman who was directly involved in the war became pregnant. Other wise, a male would act the same way if his sister, wife or other loved one became pregnant as a woman would. I strongly believe that women should be eligible for the same positions and not limited to certain branches of service just because they are women.
Madeline Keane Period 4
I strongly agree that the policy for restricting female participation in direct combat is outdated. It is our right to choose our own lives and if a women is willing to give that much to her country, why would you deny her that right? This is similar to what Troy said. If we are really characterized as the "land of the free and the home of the brave" in our own national anthem, then why aren't we allowing our citizens to be free and not segregated? Having soldiers of all ages, races and genders will only further prove that we are the "home of the brave". The New York Times article says, "women have repeatedly proved their mettle in combat...they have earned the confidence and respect of male colleagues." If women haven't given the country a reason why they can't perform the necessary tasks, then why shouldn't they be allowed to fight? Female participation in World War I (Red Cross etc) further proves that they can rise to the occasion and fight for their country.
This policy is definitely outdated; women should be allowed to fight in combat positions if so desired. Women already have a huge role in the military, and they have proved to be a very crucial addition. Although many argue that women will be objected to a great deal of gender discrimination, NY Times states that, “[Women] have earned the confidence and respect of their male colleagues.” Men are beginning to realize that women can contribute quite a lot to the military.
Some may also argue that women do not have the speed, strength, and endurance that men do, which is certainly false. Take for example our girls cross country team: many of our girls can run just as fast, if not faster, and just as far as many of the runners on the boys’ team. We have the endurance and we have the speed. Women may not be as strong physically as some of the men, but they most certainly have the strength to get the job done. And those women who are motivated and willing to fight can work just as hard as the men and can train to become just as strong.
I do not believe, however, that the draft should include women. Like Jess H. discussed, there are specific, gender-related issues that can occur in certain war situations, like being taken as a prisoner of war and being raped or sexually abused by the enemy.
Nevertheless, women should still be allowed to join under their own wishes; as Nicole R. stated, they are aware of these risks going into it. “[W]omen who make the decision to join the military are aware of the consequences” (cdi.org). But women who do not want to be subjected to such a dangerous job should not be forced into it, should there ever be a draft.
Erin B.
Class 6
After reading the provided articles, I believe that the policy of not letting women participate equally in the military is absolutely outdated. First of all, I completely agree with Amanda and Mason; not allowing women to fully participate in military actions is a pure source of gender discrimination. The New York Times article says, "Opponents of allowing women to compete for combat billets argue that it is too dangerous to put women in the position of becoming prisoners of war" (G.I. Jane Breaks the Combat Barrier). I agree, it probably is more dangerous for women to become prisoners of war rather than men, however this is not a reason to not let women participate actively in military actions. Women join the military by choice. They know the risks of joining the military before even entering. If they want to risk their lives for their country, why would some people want to prohibit that? It is the woman’s own choice whether or not she wants to risk her life. Officials should not be in control of a woman’s body or life; woman should at least have the right to make decisions for herself. Another point that really struck me while reading the articles is that some people think a reason for not allowing women to take part in the military is because they are physically inept. The stereotype may be that women are in fact less physically able than men, which would prove their incompetence in the military however women are put through the same physical stamina and endurance tests that men are tested on, and they pass (“Women in the Military: Combat Roles Considered”). According to these tests, women are just as capable as men are in the needs of military combat. Also, women are highly useful in the military. For instance, “They have proved indispensable in their ability to interact with and search Iraqi and Afghan women for weapons, a job men cannot do for cultural reasons” (“G.I. Jane Breaks the Combat Barrier). Women are able to perform tasks that can prove to be exceedingly necessary for military actions. These tasks cannot even be preformed by men, so women are indeed essential to the military. Finally, going back to what Amanda and Mason wrote about, policies prohibiting women from participating in the military are discriminatory. For example, men are allowed to be fashion designers, a profession that would seem to only apply to women because they are more focused on this area. The men of this profession are not criticized, in fact they are somewhat idolized. Why are women not allowed to partake in a somewhat “manly” job if their counterpart is doing just the same thing? For these reasons, I believe policies that say women cannot participate equally in the military as to men are vastly outdated. I think that the U.S. needs to catch up with the rest of the world (G.I. Jane Breaks the Combat Barrier) and see that one, women are able to exceed in this profession, and two, that they can prove to be beneficial in many ways.
-jojo wollman
class 1
On this topic I have to agree with Stefan in the sense that Woman should not be allowed in certain aspects of war. In one of the articles Elaine Donnelly, president of the conservative think tank Center for Military Readiness, talked about how a wounded soldier could lose his life just because the only one around is a female soldier who is not strong enough to carry him away. I then put myself in the shoes of the parent of that dead soldier. I thought of how angry I'd be that my child could still be living but was not because his comrade in battle was not able to save him based on pre-determined bone-mass. As Stefan said, "Overall, I believe anyone who has served in war is a hero but for now on I wouldn't allow woman to take part in some extreme parts that even some men cant handle." War is incredibly difficult for even out best soldiers, there is no reason that weaker soldiers should be put in combat positions. I believe women can be helpful in certain war aspects, such as searching females and providing medical aid, but they should not be put into combat situations.
I believe that womens policy for direct combat positions are outdated, they arent relavent anymore. Women have always been there on the homefront since the revolutionary war, working in factories and keeping the farm upkept while the men were off fighting. They proved in WWI and WWII that when men are gone they can take our jobs and do them just as well as we can. They did " manly " things such as play baseball when the great male athletes were sent off in the draft. The New York Times brings up a valid point that women have done the same things that men have as far as patrolling the streets with weapons, being gunners on vehicles and even disposing explosives. The only factor for a woman not being able to be in direct combat would be the fact that they are less strong then men. But to me this isn't an issue, these women aren't random women you find off of the street that don't know the first thing about working out or being fit. They have passed the same test's that the men have and have done the same training. There is no reason for the women to not have direct combat positions.
I definitely agree with the previous posts, which say that the policy for women in combat is outdated. In my opinion, women are completely capable of being involved in the armed forces as much as men. I agree with Maria when she quotes Ms. Alfaro, when she describes her experience in combat. "She did everything." Clearly, this shows that Ms. Alfaro was confident with her action in the war. Also, Peter R. Mansoor, a retired army colonel says that, “They have earned the confidence and respect of male colleagues.” This proves that the policy is outdated because even men agree that women should be able to take action in war, just like men. In the second link, it says that the Marine Corps awarded 23 women the Combat Action Ribbon for service in the Persian Gulf War. This also shows that women are suitable for the armed forces and they can help benefit the way the military works. That is mostly what it should be about. Not whether woman have the right to be in combat, but how effective it is for the individual to join the military.
Jess S.
Period 6
I am going with the majority on this one. I definitely believe that this policy is outdated. For those who say women are not tough enough to face the front line, they haven't met a women who was in the military. It doesn't matter who goes in the military, they all come out tough as nails. I believe women are capable of doing any military operation as long as they are willing to. A point I thought really summed everything up was Carson when he said, "This policy is very outdated and in all honesty I just assumed that any able and willing Americans would be permited to fight and die for the country they love". This is so true, if a woman wants to fight on the front line and risk her life for our country and has proven herself worthy like every other soldier, then let her. The NY Times article mentioned that women have successfully used heavy machinery just as men have, which means woman have taken substantial roles in fighting wars...therefore I believe women should be able to take any military position a man can.
T. Hough
6
I personally feel that this policy is outdated and should slowly make a change to including women in equal services as men. One of the main reasons this policy is still standing is because it is commonly believed that women would suffer more psychological damage than men. But according to the New York Times article, women that have returned from the Iraq War have had psychological problems that are only equal to the men that have returned. In addition, other first world countries such as Israel or Norway have let women hold positions in the military that were equal with men. And even though the equality in those countries started only in the 20th century, women serving in combat is nothing new. For example, the CPI article mentions Jon of Arc in the 1400s successfully leading battles against the English. The CPI article also mentions Henry Truman back in the 1940s hoping for women to serve equally in combat roles. Although this was not in any of the articles, the Mongolian Empire dating back to the 13th century was especially progressive in allowing women to have combat and leadership roles. This has lead people to believe that it is the American public that finds women serving in the military unacceptable. However, also according to the New York Times article, the majority of the American public feels that women should be allowed to serve in combat positions. Finally, a big concern for women in combat is that they could subjected to sexual abuse if captured by the enemy. But we shouldn’t let our policies be backwards just because the enemy is backwards. Either way, every one deserves an equal right to fight for their country on the frontline.
I agree with most of my classmates that the policy is outdated. We are always promoting how men and women are equal. if we are equal women should be able to join any position of combat. Troy's comment stood out to me. He said that they just made uniform designed for women. Its not fair that women have been fighting in the armed forces for years wearing uniforms that are designed ofr men. If they are willing to risk their lives to fight for their country they should be allowed to fight in the branch that they want. In the past 40 years the persentage of women in the army has grown nearly 12%. I agree with Erin who said that women are already a huge part of the army. They are just as capable as men both mentally and physically.
Shannon M
Period 6
When I read those articles, all I could think to myself was, “wow!” In the year 2010, where our entire county is all about equality and anti-discrimination, we as a nation still do let women fight on the front lines of battle during times of war and conflict. To me, this seems to be extremely sexist. I see no reason for women to not have the ability to fight if they would like to. In the article Two Opposing Views on Women on the Battlefield, Elaine Donnelly explains that a woman would not have enough physical strength to carry a wounded soldier off of a battlefield. Though this statement might be true, it could have easily worked the same for another man. This is why there is a physical fitness test to get into the military. However, women have to be less physically fit to get into the military. I think that we should change the test to only be different for gender and therefore be asexual. This would solve that debate. As for what Stefan said that, “some woman would not be able to handle the gravitational force of an aircraft,” this is completely incorrect (no offense to him). Women are already allowed to be pilots, so what would be different if they were also allowed to fight. Overall, I feel that our current policy for women fighting in our country’s army should modified, if not demolished completely.
Nathan N.
Period 6
I feel that it should be a right for women to serve in any position in the armed forces. This is outdated and shows a lack of progression in the US armed forces. The fact that they cannot serve still to this day however is not a moral issue and I understand the opposing viewpoint. But any person, woman or man, willing to die for their country should be able to serve to their fullest ability. I was actually surprised to hear that they were not allowed to serve on the front lines, as I read the articles. I agree with Jessa Mason when she said that the “fact that women are as capable as men has been proven”. I feel this statement is true, and they would be just fine serving our country on the front lines.
Post a Comment