Women serving in combat

I. Performance of combat duties/physical strengthThe army of Great Britain has tried to put women up to the same standards as men when it comes to training... and so far, it has led to the women's health being put in jeopardy, since they are twice as likely to sustain injuries during training than men during training of the same rigor. [1] [2] When women peform the rigorous training that the military expects of men, the women's health is put in jeopardy. Also, one of the factors that is considered in the scoring of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) is gender. A woman may get the same score as a man, but this does not mean that she has the same physical strength; she gets an advantage due to her gender. To get a 100% (maximum score) for the push-up test of the APFT, a woman needs 42 push-ups, while a man needs 71. [3] This clearly depicts the disparity between the standards for servicewomen and that of servicemen. If 42 push-ups is adequate, then why do they put the men up to such high standards?Contrary to the opponent's claims, when it comes to serving in combat, women are not more mentally capable. Women are more prone to emotional stress (and there is an immense amount of stress in combat.) [4] Moreover, women are more likely develop some distressing mental conditions, such as depression.[5] Women are not better leaders than men; they just lead different. [6] Moreover, this point does not benefit the opponent's case. The physical tests are scored differently based on gender. Women and men, indeed, have different mental attributes, but the opponent has yet to prove that women's presence in the military is beneficial because of this.II. PregnancyFour days after the date of the opponent's third source (which talks about a ban on military pregnancy with strict consequences), it was announced that the military dropped the pregnancy ban. [7] And pregnant servicewomen were consequently not charged. [8]The opponent's argument, hence, is deemed null. Con's argument still stands. III. Female POW's "It's their life, we can't prevent them from doing things just because it's our opinion that it's not in their best interests."When women are put into a hostage situation and are violently violated, it does not just affect them. First off, it puts the military into an uncomfortable position. Military officials face the question of "What is more ethical: negotiating with the enemy or letting someone in the military be brutally tortured in a sexual manner?" Moreover, knowing that women will face such brutal consequences, men would go out of their way to protect them, even when it is blatantly foolish to do so. Due to their views of women, men tend to be overprotective of their female counterparts. Refutation:The opponent relates this issue to sexism. There is not a hint of misogyny in any of the claims made in this argument. Women are different from men... and bringing distinct differences to light is not sexism. Again, as proven before, males and females in the military are judged differently. The standards for males are higher. If females' standards are adequate, then why did the military raise the bar so high for males?The military should take away a woman's possibility of getting a military job, because, as my argument suggests, women should not serve in combat. The opponent states differences between men's and women's mental capabilities, but does not show how they specifically benefit the military. ...In conclusion, women should not serve in combat. The opponent's arguments are null. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[5] http://psychologyinfo.com...[6] http://www.psychologytoday.com...[7] http://articles.cnn.com...[8] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...