Please note! This essay has been submitted by a student.
Throughout all of mankind’s history, we see men fighting in wars, and it should stay like that, for the most part, which is something which will be talked about at a later time, but why is this? Well, there is a tremendous amount of biological. To start men have genetically been made to be more expendable than women, we can see this as men have testosterone, higher bone density, more muscle mass, and much, much more. This is due to the men having to protect women as they are with child, and with this, the female body has adapted to be the best caretaker, we can see this with the higher body fat percentage and different pelvis sizes most notably. These both have a major impact on how the woman operates, as they help her with giving birth and not much of anything else, to be rather blunt.
To continue on the notion of biological evidence for women not fighting in the military, we should look further into what they should be allowed to fill in the modern military, it has been proven that men and women are practically the same when it comes to aircraft comprehension and ability, therefore they most certainly should be allowed to continue in that field. Nurses, although this needs not much of an explanation, women are naturally better caregivers and are actually rather drawn to the job of being a nurse, which has a biological explanation for this as well, as women are drawn to jobs which help people, which is why the average nurse field is very predominantly female, which can be found from the labor in which quotes. “Women are around 10 times more populous in the field of nursing.” Also with this women should also be able to fight in the ground troops, with the exception of a desperate need for manpower, take the IRA and or the Soviet Army; however, the Soviets just through an average everyday citizen at the enemy for no real tactical reason, so take them with a grain of salt.
To continue, we should look at the pros and cons of having women in the military, these are coming from a respected military general in the Russian Army Nikolai Pankov, this is a summary of his words on this subject. For women and mun compulsory service is a heated debate currently, and it is no secret that in some countries of the world compulsory military service for women is already a reality. The most famous such country is Israel. About 90% of all military specialties are available to women here. Unmarried women between the ages of 18 and 24 years are eligible. Moreover, girls from religious families or students of religious schools can be exempted from compulsory conscription. The service life of Israeli women is less than that of men and is 24 months.
Mandatory service in the army and for women of North Korea. Here, the “fair sex”, as they are called in this context around the EU and Asian countries, serves in special units separately from men up to seven years, with that being said it is obvious the DPRK is considered one of the most militarized countries in the world.
In free Europe, there is also a country where military service for women is compulsory, Norway. In 2014, it became the only European country with a mandatory appeal for women. The service life for them is provided for 19 months. Moreover, during the four years of the ‘female appeal”, experts noted that they gradually got used to the fair sex, and the presence of women even disciplines the soldiers. As for Russia, as long as military service is available for girls only by contract. At the same time, judging by the polls, there is no consensus on this issue in our society. But, perhaps, the position of the military expert, retired colonel Anatoly Matviychuk, which he shared in his conversation with Tsargrad, is quite sensible. To finalize a quote from Mr. Pankov, “My personal opinion as men is a shame for us that women go to serve in the army. Must serve men. But now the democratic situation is such that women replace men in military service. I think that combat positions should remain for men, and logistics and assistance posts – for women.”
To follow, the pros and cons, there will be a bit of reach back into what was previously stated. But some Pros and cons of women serving are: There are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role. In the end, the main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, the main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration? – Captain Katie Petronio, US Marine Corps, served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.
While the majority of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to which women are just not physically suited. The standards of physical fitness have been set to suit men, and women attempting to reach them will over-stretch themselves. In addition, combat units engage in activities designed to suit men’s capabilities. Women serving in integrated units will suffer higher injury rates as a result of this. To continue, Some women will be able to meet the required standards, but most will not. While integration of women into combat is possible for those qualified, the small number versus the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integration does not make it a worthwhile move. As well as, Having women serving in direct combat will hamper mission effectiveness by hurting unit morale and cohesion.
Pregnancy can affect the deployability of a unit when the unit has a disproportionate number of women or is understaffed. Men, especially those likely to enlist, maintain traditional gender roles. In some situations, men are may act foolishly to protect women in their combat units. Harassment and resentment of the presence of women in a hyper-masculine military subculture would likely become a problem. Both male and female prisoners are at risk of torture and rape, but misogynistic societies may be more willing to abuse woman prisoners. Men and women are both given opportunities to join the army, but with the understanding that different roles require different physical, emotional attributes. This should mean in turn that there are multiple routes to promotion so that women have equal opportunities without having to fight to take part in combat operations.
Now for some pros of Women serving in the military. As long as an applicant is qualified for a position, one’s gender is arbitrary. It is easy to recruit and deploy women who are in better shape than many men sent into combat. It is possible to calibrate recruitment and training standards for women. Extra pre-training for muscle building can also be used to reduce female injury rates. In modern high technology battlefield, technical expertise and decision-making skills are increasingly more valuable than simple brute strength. Allowing a mixed gender force, arguably, keeps the military strong. The all-volunteer forces are severely troubled by falling retention and recruitment rates. Widening the applicant pool for all jobs guarantees more willing recruits.
Women, who choose to become active combat soldiers, are unlikely to shirk their duty by becoming pregnant after a call-up as these women have willingly joined the army. The blanket restriction for women limits the ability of commanders in the theater to pick the most capable person for the job. Training will be required to facilitate the integration of women into combat units. Cultures change over time and the masculine subculture can evolve too. Many previously masculine professions have been successfully opened to women over the past century. As well as, in the modern world of combat (Afghanistan, Iraq), all women serving in the military are exposed to “front-line risks”. Support for women serving in the armed forces has not wavered as warfare has changed, a clear sign that the necessity of women serving in combat is recognized. Women are more effective in some circumstances than men.
Allowing women to serve doubles the talent pool for delicate and sensitive jobs that require interpersonal skills, not every soldier has. Having a wider personnel base allows militaries to have the best and most diplomatic soldiers working to end the conflict quickly. As combat duty is usually regarded as necessary for promotion to senior officer positions, denying female personnel this experience ensures that very few will ever reach the highest reaches of the military and so further entrenches sexism. Women have to be given the same opportunities as men, in the army in order to have the same opportunities they have to be exposed to the same risks.
In conclusion, although there are some benefits to having women in the military, which are mainly social benefits, women should stay away from the front lines as there are a numerous amount of way it could be significantly worse for a woman: abuse (by the enemy if captured), sexual tension between the men and women, and her lack of physical capabilities in comparison to a man, just to name a few. Instead, women should serve in less physically enduring branches, such as piolets, control centers, and nurses to name just a few. This way they can serve there a country in a way that does not put herself and others at risk.