Women should not be allowed to serve in Infantry

“ This makes little to no sense, especially as part of an argument concerning rights; the existence of a draft, that involuntarily forces individuals to serve in the armed forces, is a violation of rights in and of itself. Of course women being involuntarily conscripted into the military would be a violation of their rights; it is also a violation of the rights of men who are involuntarily conscripted. This has no impact on the 'validity' of men serving in combat positions, and it has no impact on the 'validity' of women serving in combat positions. It certainly has no bearing on whether or not they should serve in combat positions voluntarily. Which is the issue being debated, if I'm not mistaken; there is a reason volunteer-only militaries are invariably better than conscripted ones, and there is a reason a majority of first world countries no longer have a 'draft'. Involuntary military service has nothing to do with this issue.” 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. “I believe your comment was cut off. Combat is 'designed' for combat; it is designed for people to kill one another, in order to gain or press some advantage on their opponent, in a military sense. No gender is necessarily 'required' for this. One is only required to be physically fit, healthy and reasonably above average in strength. Modern advances and practices continue to 'lower' this bar, though a rather high level of fitness will always be required. Combat, in itself, is not qualitatively 'different' to any other physically intensive activity. You do not need to be at the total, absolute peak of physical human ability to be considered for a place in a combat role; you need only be 'good enough'. That might sound a tad stupid, but there you have it. If every single potential infantryman had to be essentially a Dionysian demigod to be considered 'fit enough', we would have no infantry; it really is as simple as that. The minimum standards for joining combat positions are objectively quite high, but it is faulty to say that women are incapable of meeting those standards, and denying at least the opportunity to those who have clearly demonstrated that they are physically capable of such a position, purely on the grounds of their gender, is not 'good forward thinking', it's sexism.” The problem with this statement is that Con sees the standard as somewhat naïve, 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. 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. “One woman, who by all accounts should have been able to endure the ardors of the job, was unable to. Therefore, her entire gender is also unable to, whether or not they meet the same standards and have the 'appearance' of being able to. Surely you can see how this is fallacious? This only qualifies the argument that women should be 'kept out' of combat positions inasmuch as they are not truly physically fit enough to be able to perform such a job. This is the same standard men are held to. It does not qualify a blanket ban on all women, because they are women, regardless of their individual fitness or qualification for such a position. As per the 'Pentagon 2016' statement you have shown, actual standards for joining in a combat role will not be lowered or changed to 'accommodate' women; if such standards are insufficient to ensure that all who pass them are actually fit enough for the job, they should be raised/reworked across the board, for both genders. Undoubtedly there will still be women who are capable of passing the increased standards and performing well in said position.” How does Con know that women will do well in the current standard of combat? 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. Cambit units are intensely cooperative and placing a scarce resource (women) within them creates a disruptive competition. 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. As you can see, there are too many problems with putting women in gender-neutral infantry units. 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. I rest my case. Thanks to Con and anticipate his rebuttal. Sources: http://www2.palomar.edu... http://www.foxnews.com...