Women in the military...what are the drawbacks or consequences?

Question

I'm doing a paper on that issue and I need some ideas ... pweeeese :) Thanks!

Answer 1

I am in the military, in a all male unit (Armor, i.e tanks), and I have served in a unit with female Soliders. I do think women should be in the military. However, I don't think they should serve in Combat Arms (Infantry, Armor, and Field Artillery). There are various reasons I say this. First, women are not "weaker" but they are physiologically different than men. Men's lungs are 20% larger than women's. This allows for more stamina. Male muscle groups tend to be larger than thier femal couterparts, which allows men to be physically stronger in most cases. In combat arms where strength and stamina are a prime commodity, it would stand to reason that men dominate there. Yes, there are exceptions. Some women are stronger, but rules and policies are based on the masses not the few. Two, Comat power is the amount of people or equipment a unit brings to a fight. Women are prone to getting preganat at some point in their lives. This is a great thing but it decreases combat power when a Soldier is non-deployable or decreases combat power. I have four Soldiers on a tank. If i loose one then I am at 75% combat power. My tank is now combat ineffective, which equates to a higher likliehood of dying in combat.
These are my two big reasons. Many might say that we should go ahead a try it, have a "try out" of sorts. The problem is that if it fails, this means someone has to die in combat to prove that it doesn't work. The risks of any Soldiers dying are not worth the benefits of allowing women into combat arms.

Answer 2

As a veteran of 10 years (1980-1990) as an 11B infantryman and 31m signal corps, I had the opportunity to witness first hand the differences in units with and without women. Based on these observations what I found overall was that there really was no difference overall in job performance other than women tended to be cleaner when it came to maintaining the barracks. I had really good soldiers and some really bad soldiers of both sexes. Men are little bit more of knuckleheads though. I had guys that could not run 10 miles just like I had women that could not run ten miles. When given the chance women did perform at the expected level and trust me I did not cut them any slack. The only issue would be pregancy. Was it a drawback, yes. Not because they could not do the job but because you lost that soldier for rough estimate about 8 months after the 3rd or 4th month of pregnancy. Given that more and more women are into lifting weights and physical fitness the reality of the matter is that given the same standards I do believe that they can and will rise to the occasion. It all comes back to what we are taught and how we are raised. My 13 year old daughter can do as many or more pushups correctly than most of the boys her age for example. Last some of the best soldiers I ever had were female and had no expectation that they be treated any differently than my male soldiers. Are things a little different now than then, of course but people will generally rise to the occasion when given the opportunity to prove that they can handle the situation presented to them. Like I said earlier I went from infantry to signal and did not cut any soldier any slack. Personally my initial thoughts of the signal corps is they were a bunch of wimps. But soldiering is as much mental as physical. I hope this helps.

Answer 3

The two most basic facts that you need to consider when looking at women in the military is that their will always be more men than women in the military and that men like women. This means that women in the military are a sought after quantity, a hot item. So when women are around men will change their behavior to attaract them. This can result in a lack of discipline.

Also, though some women will be stronger than most men and able to do the job of a combat soldier, the average male is much stronger than the average female. Despite all the talk about technology and push button warfare, war is still a very physical job. Some women just don't have the strength or stamina.

The endstate is that women should be allowed in the military, but should be expected to meet the same high standards that men have to meet. The mission of the nations military is to win wars, not to achieve social equality.

Answer 4

Not to be mean, but the drawbacks and consequences are having people to even question whether there are any drawbacks and consequences to having women in the military. When you are stereotyped, pre-judged, or simply questioned from jumpstreet is a problem.

Answer 5

One possible drawback thats a favourite of macho critics is that women are physically weaker.
Did u know that in relation to body mass, women can often be stronger then males? its the size difference that makes males seem stronger coz thet're bigger.

The air force has found that women are more capable of surviving high G's in supersonic aricraft than males

I feel the biggest problen is abuse. This i likely to hapen within her own force, and there's the fact that in wartime rape often goes unchecked for obvious reasons. This is a major threat to women in the millitary, especially if they are captured by hostlies.

Answer 6

There are certain jobs in the military that can be done by women which would free men up to join the ranks of the fighting men...
Women should not be part of the combat forces...

Answer 7

Woman aren't weaker, for one thing! The only reason why I'm not in the military anymore is because I got pregnant and I didn't want your child to have both parents in the military and deployed!

Answer 8

women dont belong in the armed forces period. they should be at home raising the kids while the men serve. i have female friends in and they know i feel this way

Answer 9

They ARE weaker.