Women in Combat

I have but one observation in order to establish a parameter in this debate:Observation: With the consideration that no particular region of the world has been specified at which to analyze whether or not to allow women in, this debate will fixate on the solitary general mindset that women should not belong in any field of military combat. With this observation established, I move on toward my contentions for this debate:Contention 1: There is no greatly compelling reason as to why women should not be in military combat. As I will explain through my evidence, not only are all of the questions about the effectiveness of women in direct military combat and their inclusion in the military, but to hold the general idea that all women are to fit this model without taking careful consideration of the individual is nothing more than blatant, unjustified discrimination of sex. All of this conglomerates to the general conclusion that there is no compelling reason to maintain the antiquated law of women being banned from engaging in military combat. Sub-point 1a: Denying women a position in military based on generalization without consideration of the individual is sexism. If you look toward my opponent's case and the arguments that he makes, it is all pretty much a reiteration of quintessential arguments against the inclusion of women in combat, and with great consideration that these such arguments generalize women rather than look at them individually in order to see if they are fit for combat, it is inherently sexist and unfair. Such are the characteristics of discrimination based on gender: Gender discrimination is any unequal treatment based on gender and may also be referred to as sexism. Characteristics of gender discrimination are any situation where a person shows a prejudice towards another that would not occur had they been the opposite sexRead more: Gender Discrimination Definition | eHow. com . http://www.ehow.com... The following report explains: "Some of the common arguments underpinning a policy of exclusion of women from combat roles are based on opinions as to whether women “could” serve in positions closed to them, while others deal with whether they “should”.68 These arguments are founded on the premise hat women and men should not be treated as individuals, but rather as a group with generalized characteristics. The most typical arguments against women in ground combat are: 1) women lack the physical strength to be in ground combat; 2) women’s presence will decrease unit cohesion and therefore effectiveness; and 3) women just don’t belong in combat. "Sub-point 1b: Physical ability is measured individually and should apply to women. The effectiveness requires that the physical ability should be measured individually. The following report explains: " Many men do not have the physical strength or stamina to be in “ground combat”positions and should not be eligible for combat assignments just because of their gender. Similarly, a woman should not be excluded from assignments to these units if she has the requisite physical strength and stamina. A gender neutral policy will allow the most capable force to be assembled. All potential recruits should be screened as individuals, as men are today, rather than eliminating one group of potential recruits on the basis of a stereotype or generalization. Military effectiveness, not gender, should be the sole criteria for assignment policies. " Physical force is not the only thing that is needef for combat either, as the report continues: "All personnel wearing the uniform must have some basic level of physical strength to ensure they can defend themselves in battle. However, a capable combat soldier must possess more than just physical strength. Skill, motivation, and a fighting spirit are just as crucial for the warrior, and all of these characteristics are gender-blind. Army and Marine leadership have recently been emphasizing additional crucial traits like judgment, discipline, restraint, and intellect, to name a few. " Sub-point 1c: Problems with unit cohesion can be solved. "While focusing a great deal on cohesion as a reason to exclude women from combat, the 1992 Presidential Commission admitted: “There are no authoritative military studies of mixed-gender ground combat cohesion, since available cohesion research has been conducted among male-only ground combat units. ”83 To fill the void of data, they resorted to interviewing many men who never had women in their units to get their opinions on how women would affect cohesion, a rather biased sample. These same techniques were used in the past to keep black Americans from serving in racially integrated units. For example, in 1925 the Army War College published a study claiming that close association of blacks and whites in military organizations was detrimental to harmony and efficiency and that blacks were inherently more cowardly than whites. 84 Experience has long since shown these claims to be completely false. "Contention 2: Women have proven themselves effective on the battlefield in times past. In WWI, almost 23,000 women served as nurses at home and overseas, but this was the first conflict where women formally enlisted in the ranks in other roles in the Reserves. Women served as yeomen and clerks on the home front as well as contract telephone operators and stenographers in Europe. More than 400 U. S. women died while serving their country in WWI despite not yet having the right to vote Source: "Women in Combat: Is the Current Policy Obsolete? " --Martha E. McSally, Colonel, USAF