Women in Combat

"Military standards have been lowered for women in order to make it easier to get into the military. This means that lower quality soldiers are entering the military, which can have many detrimental affects."For the sake of research, I read a few articles prior to this debate that supported why women should not be in combat. The point that my opponent brings up about the standards being lowered between men and women was one of the first to be mentioned. However, there are a few reasons why this point does not substantiate barring women from joining combat positions. First and foremost, the standards that are lowered for women are simply pertaining to the level of physical strength for each potential soldier. These standards were lowered because on a general basis, women's strength is not the same as men's. That does not, however, indicate who is capable and incapable of doing the job required. Just because a woman may not have the same level of physical strength as a man does not mean she lacks the physical strength required to be a combat soldier. This leads to the second problem. To base decision of entry on gender-based strength tests alone can be very problematic in determining who is truly qualified for the job. An article regarding this topic goes into further details: "The Marines have made little progress in integrating women into jobs they already qualify for, and the purpose of a proposed physical screening test is questionable since it focuses on strength-based measures and not skills actually needed for the work . . . The Marines’ plan calls for testing women to see if they can deadlift 135 pounds, bench 115 pounds, carry 95 pounds for 50 meters while wearing full combat gear, load a 120mm tank round and scale a 7-foot wall. But these skills might not be needed, Jacob said.'It’s not looking at the jobs.'"- Ex-Marine Greg Jacobs, policy-director of the Service Women’s Action NetworkTo clarify, this excerpt was referring to women trying to enter the Infantry Officer Course, not the School of Infantry. As I mentioned before, over 40 females have passed the School of Infantry, proving their merit and quality as potential soldiers. No female, however, has yet passed the Infantry Officer Course due to the strength-based proxy tests. And that is largely due the fact that these tests are going by the physical standards of men, and not the physical standards specifically required of the job. So the quality is indeed there, it is just not being assessed in the most accurate of ways. "There is also a problem with the mixing of sexes..." This is a popular argument that is based far too much on scapegoating and speculation. First of all, the claim that soldiers will be "distracted" in training and or on the battlefield is based on assumption. There is no guarantee as to how two individuals will react and behave towards one another on and off the battlefield. But, if we assume that my opponent's assumptions are indeed correct, and the male would inherently become distracted and compelled to protect the female as opposed to the lead soldier, would that not be more of the man's problem than it would be the woman's? If the man feels the compulsion to over-defend his female comrade and under-defend his leading officer, that is not the fault of the woman's, but rather the fault of the man. If he is unable to prioritize his duties as a solider of the United States, then he should therefore be considered incapable as a combat soldier. The same goes for the concerns surrounding physical attraction between genders that may serve as "distractions" or lead to the risk of female soldiers becoming raped.These concerns are, of course, real issues that deserve discussion. But a logical solution would perhaps be to realize that it is incredibly incorrect and unfair to make the problems of male soldiers the problems of female soldiers. His inability to control himself and follow protocol is his issue, and, unless she is blatantly seducing the male soldiers and is consciously making an effort to distract from the task at hand, it is not warranted for her to be barred from serving as a combat soldier. Instead of the female being held responsible for another's actions, the male should be held accountable for his own actions and should face punishment accordingly. "the military is made to effectively function and defend its mother nation." My sentiments, exactly. Half of my argument deals with how the incorporation of female combat soldiers does and will strengthen the military. I would like to emphasize that this debate is in part discussing equal opportunity between genders, not just equality in general. If the latter were the case, then my argument would be that everyone should be able to join combat forces regardless of skills and merit. Equal opportunity in this respect, however, simply means that all persons, regardless of gender, should have the chance to join combat forces so long they have the skills and potential required of the job. I have presented a few examples that have supported that women are indeed capable of displaying the skills and potential necessary of a combat soldier. Therefore, barring all women from serving as combat soldiers does not show careful discretion, but rather irrationality and unethical decisions in regards to selecting who may and may not serve this country on the battlefield. If we consider the abilities that female combat soldiers possess and what they can and do contribute, it becomes evident that equal opportunity does not weaken the military, but rather achieves quite the opposite. Sources: 1) http://www.military.com...2) http://www.businessinsider.com...