Can women be in higher positions of force oraganisations

I will be taking the Pro side of the argument "Can women be in higher positions of force organizations". Beginning this, I'd like to provide the website in which Con plagiarized his/her arguments from: http://sistersinarms.ca... It provides both Pros and Con's relative to the debate. As well as to Cons arguments. Moving on to my rebuttals and arguments... "Physical Ability" - Con suggests that because the capabilities of completing some certain tasks in the armed forces mostly pertain to men, that women (even in which those that are capable of completing the task at hand) should not be able to participate in such because it 'might' be a strain to them and result in injuries. Or rather that it -would- create a strain on them. Women who are capable should be more than able to participate in combat forces, and not restricted based on a "might" situation. While many women are not physically as strong as men, there are those who are more capable and advanced in multiple other areas of combat. However, The fact remains that, still, there are women who are physically capable and set for activities that Con mentions. Preventing the capable based on the incapable is not an option of reason. "Efficiency" - What roles exactly are you speaking about? In combat, there are many different jobs that have different purposes. Many women have the capability to excel in such. Suggesting that the removal of women would be the better move eliminates the chances of many potential soldiers that could create some very good use to a certain role they may be better at than others. "Moral & Cohesion" - This is making the assumption that the women in position are unable to fulfill their task based on the mere fact that they are women. It would make no sense for a woman to be in direct combat but be incapable of the required tasks of her in so. A soldier would not be put in a place/position she/he is ill-prepared for. "Military Readiness" - Majority of women in combat are not pregnant. This is not a very valid argument as to why all women should not be put in higher positions of force organizations. "Harassment and resentment of the presence of women in a hyper masculine military subculture would likely become a problem." So the issue here is among those of whom would abuse the situation- some men. Not that women are incapable. "Abuse by Enemy" - When countries resort to torture, it's usually not taken in a light matter whether the prisoner is a woman or man. Either way, the torture would be excruciating, and it is torture none-the-less. Assuming they would be more "willing" to torture the woman merely because she is a woman is a big assumption that simply is not backed up. "Career Advancement" - So then the most capable can go to the higher position. That's that. Saying that women should not be able to, merely because some are incapable, is not a reason as to why the capable should be held back. I'd just like to add, women in combat increase the number of people with specific, useful strengths/skills. Allowing capable women to be in combat helps fill positions and provides more variety of good skills that many soldiers don't have. While you look at the general idea of physical strength, there are many strengths different people hold that could be incredibly useful in combat. Including women provide larger opportunities for this. Throughout Con's arguments, they repeatedly bring up the capability of women in certain positions. However, Con earlier stated that it's about longevity, not so much (in)capability. I'd suggest Con uses arguments that promote the idea that women won't be able to last, not that they are supposedly incapable- if that is what they are trying to get at.