Women should not be allowed to serve in Infantry

"The point of this argument is not to show that women"s rights are necessarily being violated because of the draft. The point however, is to show that the few women who want this to happen make the majority of women suffer, since they want to have the same career freedom as men do. Women want many rights in this country, but women who push for this are really going to see the consequences of their actions upon the female population in America." Of course, Pro appears to be missing my point; standards for basic rights are not gender dependent, and do not vary according to biology. Women's rights are not qualitatively different to men's rights. Women and men have the same rights; if it is 'okay' for the male population, as a whole, to be put down for possible involuntary military service, it is likewise 'okay' for the female population, as a whole, to be put down for possible involuntary military service. Never mind the fact that it is in neither case genuinely 'okay', and is a violation of rights irregardless of gender or biology; there will undoubtedly be many males who will be hard-pressed, or even unable, to meet and keep up basic physical standards for infantry service; this generally does not exempt them, and applying an entirely different expectation and standard to women really is just a hypocritical double standard, and honestly is sexist and offensive to both genders. "The problem with this statement is that Con sees the standard as somewhat na"ve, and just as another "physical" routine that you do. Combat is a physical and mental routine that prepares soldiers for real war. Con looks at the standard as though it were easy because he is looking at it from a male perspective. Most women would not be able to lift and carry a 200-pound man with an additional 30+ pounds of gear for several miles or more every day of infantry training. I think the Human anatomy examples clarify my point." Well, actually, combat' is the actual 'fighting' part of war, not the training, which multiple women have proven they are capable of passing standards for; physically and mentally intensive, yes, but being completely honest unless you are in an elite special forces unit, the standards for being able to participate and be successful in this avenue really are not as high as my opponent is making them out to be. For example, I cannot think of many situations that will call for the lugging around of a 100-kilo man. And approximately 30kg of gear is not that heavy; a fit woman is quite capable of carrying that. Even if it were the case that we could reasonably say that most women are incapable of doing this, this simply does not qualify a blanket ban on all women, because of their gender, and irregardless of their actual physical fitness levels. "Privacy is another issue. Our men on the front lines spend weeks with each other in secluded areas, in which they take care of their "business" in front of one another. Whether that be personal hygiene or attending to matters generally taken care of in the bathroom. Would some women be able to adjust? Sure. Would most? I don"t believe so. The society we live in instills the belief that the life of women and children are of greater value than men. Reference nearly every war movie. Veterans come home every day, but continue to struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder. It would not be a smart move to inflict further strain on our brave men by placing them in a situation to witness the death of a woman. Do we really need more body bags for women as we do men? I don"t think so." Again, my opponent appears to be missing the point; Undoubtedly, many men wouldn't like to have to do their business in front of other men; these men very likely will not apply for military service. The women who will not be 'able to adjust' to doing this will not be applying for combat-based military service in the first place. You cannot exclude potentially valuable and productive members of the command chain purely because you don't think they will, in a manner of speaking, 'fit in'; this is sexism, plain and simple. There really isn't any other way to put that; if gender is the only object, then whatever the reasoning behind it the argument is still sexist. And the potential 'greater mental stress' (this is a ridiculous notion, and I really can't see why it was brought up, unless you are trying to point out how outdated these gender-identity notions are with regards to this issue) that some others may experience because they have a female in their unit is simply not relevant; this has not impact on the actual ability of women to capably and proficiently serve in the armed forces, or to be fit enough to engage in combat. A double standard is being applied, and in this case it is purely an appeal to emotion that is being used to 'justify' a blanket ban on females serving in combat positions. What 'our society' tries to tell us with regards to this issue is irrelevant; the lives of females aren't inherently more 'valuable' than the lives of males, and this notion is sexist and offensive to both genders. This simply does not qualify a blanket ban on all women from serving in combat positions; it has nothing at all to do with the validity of the idea. "So far no woman has met the standard, and very few want to. The decision to open ground-combat positions to women is seriously misguided, as evidenced by the fact that the policy decision precedes the feasibility assessment. A senior Defense Department official announced that the goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field," when the goal should be to have the most effective war-fighting institution possible. Again The physical differences between men and women are obvious, as few women have the strength, speed, or aerobic capacity of even the average man. The British military determined that only 1 in 100 trained female soldiers had the physical capacity to function in infantry and armor units. Then, of course, there's pregnancy, which leaves women three to four times as likely as men to be unable to deploy and leads many, once deployed, to be med-evaced and thereby lost to their units.... Moreover, trust is the foundation of cohesion, and men are disinclined to trust women in dangerous situations, worried that they will lack either the will or the wherewithal to back them up. The rough camaraderie that men engage in to build cohesion will lead to sexual harassment charges by women, so women will be excluded from these important activities.... Women will not be up to par when war-time comes calling in. Women would put a setback on the squad"s role or objective in war. This could seriously cost lives for women and men involved in the whole unit because a female soldier is not on the same level as her male-counterpart." This is honestly so easy to resolve I can't understand why it's even an issue; women who do not meet basic physical standards, that have been proven to actually result in effective soldiers, will not be able to enlist in an active combat position. Standards and requirements aren't going to be magically waived because the person trying to get in is a female. As I stated, if current basic standards are not sufficient to ensure that those who meet them are actually fit enough for combat services, then the minimum standards as a whole need to be reworked, so as to ensure that 'minimum standard' is actually 'good enough'. If only '1 in 100' trained female soldiers have the 'physical capacity' to function in infant/armor units, then 1 in 100 should be employed in those positions. In fact, several women have met those basic standards; they simply have not been accepted into those positions as of yet. The fact that there is 1 out of every 100 that at least theoretically meets requirements for this position proves that a blanket ban is both unfair and sexist, and does not effectively address the issue at all. And pregnancy? You cannot exclude women from any other job because they might get pregnant, and while I understand that active combat is not like most other jobs, and that being pregnant would indeed preclude combat duty, this standard doesn't change because of that. You can't exclude people from doing something because of something that may occur in the future, and indeed is not even very likely. Unless the woman is pregnant when she applies, or has plans to become pregnant whilst enlisted, this is not and should not be an issue. As to 'sexual harassment', this is not an issue that would qualify a blanket ban. If the soldiers' form of 'bonding' actually does constitute sexual harassment, then it does so irregardless of gender; they are to blame, and it is them who should be excluded from military service, not the people they are/would be harassing. And if it does not qualify as actual harassment, then this just won't be an issue; how seriously complaints are taken does not vary according to gender. I see no issue with males 'trusting' females in dangerous situations; if they can't, it is their fault, not the female's. This is not an issue with women actually not being 'on the same level'; it's an issue with men believing that those women aren't. This is an issue that should be sorted out in basic training; getting their 'heads in the game' is half the point of that training. None of these things qualify a blanket ban on women serving in combat roles; at best, they qualify the argument that women should be held to standards just as stringent as the ones men are held to. Which is the point I am making. 1) http://www.usatoday.com... 2) http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au...