Women should not be allowed to serve in Infantry

"Women would have to register for selective service ( a. k. a. the Draft. )- Women would have to register for selective service if this act became enabled. How would be helping and or enforcing women"s rights? In fact I see the complete opposite here. Women"s rights would be destroyed, and not supported or enforced. " 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. "Combat is designed for men, not Women- Biologically speaking, Human anatomy shows that women tend to have a 20-25% lung capacity than men. In their review "The Adaptations to Strength Training," Foland and Williams write that women typically have about 60 percent to 80 percent of the muscle mass of men. Women would have to carry 50-75 lbs of" 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. "Combat is designed for men, not Women (Reason 2)- Katie Petronio is a graduate of Bowdoin College. She was the captain of the nationally ranked women"s hockey team during her college years; after them, she placed fourth in her class in Officer Candidates School. Think about this: When she entered the military, Petronio was ardently for women in combat She could bench almost 150 pounds (very impressive) She scored a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test (truly a top-notch athlete) She was in the top 20% of performers in Basic Training We"re dealing here with a high-performer, an achiever, and a woman in peak shape. So what happened when she went to Afghanistan? Was she fine? Did she perform as well as she expected? Sadly, her body essentially buckled. She became a different person, physically. This is her quote from the injuries she suffered from training. As you can see, Katie Petronio is an outstanding Female soldier. She seems to rise above the others, Tier 1. However, Infantry training was just not right for her because she is a woman, and Combat is designed for men. " 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. 1) . http://ethikapolitika.org... 2) . http://www.livescience.com... 3) . http://sistersinarms.ca... 4) . http://chrishernandezauthor.com... 5) . http://www.bloomberg.com...