Why is women fighting in combat a good idea?

Question

I need some information for a school debate.
Thanx to anybody who answers.

Answer 1

Get a copy of "Band of Sisters-American Women at War in Iraq", by Kirsten Homstedt. Women are already fighting, getting wounded and maimed and dying in the Iraq war. War tactics have changed. The majority of soldiers in Iraq are exposed to combat conditions-just where is a safe zone in Iraq or Afghanistan?

More than 155,000 women have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003-4 times the number of women who were sent to Desert Storm in 1991. More than 430 women have been wounded and over 70 killed, almost twice the number of American women killed in action in Korea, Vietnma, and Desert Storm combined.

Homstedt writes about the first US female pilot shot down, who survived; the military's first black female pilot in combat, women turret gunner's defending convoys and female Marine's in firefights. As one of the female service member's said: "We love our country as much as any man, and we have made the same sacrifices as our brothers in arms".

Answer 2

I don't know that I think ANYONE fighting in combat is a good idea. Physical violence is not a good idea to me at all. But anyway, if you must make an argument for why women, as well as men, should fight in combat.....I would say that combat is not necessarily about physically overpowering someone else. It's about technique, and shooting abilities. It's probably about endurance too, which women have been shown to have more of than men. Of course men are stronger, but that's not to say women don't have strengths to offer in combat as well.

P.S. Women being more "emotional" is a huge and DEBATABLE stereotype - obviously not all women are more emotional than men, and all women should not be excluded from an activity based on some women's weaknesses. Women are just allowed by society to express emotion more than men.

Answer 3

I'll rewrite what I put down in answer to a similar question. Do you guys go to the same school? The one I answered before was should women be in combat. Not quite the same thing so I'll address your specific question as well.
Women already serve in many combat roles, they are pretty much excluded only from direct ground combat specialties. At this stage I don't think anyone is saying that they shouldn't do the jobs they already have, so the debate is soley should the remaining jobs be opened up to them.
What I wrote below isn't specifically pro or con, since those arguments tend to be based on emotion rather than facts. I tried to outline some of the problems inherent in expanding women's combat role further, as you'll see it has less to do with a social/political agenda than with practical problems to be overcome.

It depends on the particular combat role. They already fly combat aircraft, and serve on warships.
Most of the ground combat jobs are extremely demanding physically. At this time the military allows female soldiers, (I'll use this term to cover Air Force, Navy, and Marines as well for brevity) to take a less demanding physical conditioning test.
If they are going to be put into primary combat roles, as opposed to support roles where they may still end up in combat as they do now, then logic dictates that they meet the same physical requirements as their male counterparts.
Any male soldier in an combat unit is going to have physical conditioning near the high end of the scale for male soldiers. Even with this the jobs they do often push them to the limit. The number of women who can reach this level of conditioning is a much smaller percentage than for men. Sorry if this offends someones PC sensibilities but it's basic biology. Therefor giving carte blanche approval for women in combat jobs would require that many who now serve would be barred by the higher physical standards.
The one way it could be done would be to set higher PT standards for combat units, and then allow any female soldiers who meet those standards to take those jobs.
No matter whether the current restrictions are kept, or if some provision to expand female combat roles is made, the issue is a lot more complex than just changing a few rules.
It's unlikely that anyone wants to see a female soldier, who can't even meet the minimum male PT requirement, get thrown into an infantry unit were she's given 100 lbs. of body armor weapons, ammo, radios, etc. to carry and sent into battle. While not so obvious, the physical demands in other combat jobs are just as real.

Answer 4

No matter how equal or able or anything else, the old gender differences will always come into play; if women are on the front lines in combat, the men next to them will take foolish, unnecessary risks to protect them thus endangering their own lives. Women, though equal in SOME ways, certainly do not equate with men in sheer physical strength, focus and pragmatism. Women are more emotional than men are and more apt to react out of emotion rather than reason and the risks are simply too great.

Answer 5

I can't believe I agree with Rio Madrea (I guess i owe her an apology for all my anti-feminist rants) but she is right. You can't outright exclude women from the front line. There are some women who can do it. But these woman should have to pass the same tests and men.

And if they were forced to pass these tests, then about 98% of the "grunts (i.e. the guys on the ground in the foxholes)" are going to be males b/c they are more biologically equipped to do it. Unfortunately, PC people like Patois will refuse to accept this and innocent guys will die b/c of some female not being properly trained fighting next to him.

Answer 6

No sex should be completely barred from any field. Though they are hard to find, some women are willing and able to take part on the front lines. In a war (worth fighting), you'll need all the help you can get.

Answer 7

I really don't know that it is a good idea, being women are more maternal in instinct. NOT asying weak, but more emotional. Also I think rape could become a factor, from enemy. I'm not saying women are weak at all, I just think there are elements about being a women that could effect consentration, men on the same side as them, may have an erge to protect woman, by instinct, hence keeping him not as focused on the enemy which could be a danger to not only him but his fellow men/ or women. I mean there are many strong women out ther, and I'm not saying they couldn't be just as much or more of a soldier on the field as a man, i just think that there are elements of a female that could become a distraction, as mentioned, what could happen to them if captured or even by own men, and man's instict to protect, and womens instinct of nurturer.

Answer 8

If women can pass the same physical tests men pass to enter the military, then they should be allowed to join & fight.

If they cannot... they have no business being there just as the men that couldn't pass have no business being there.

Watering down physical tests to let women in is ridiculous.

False empowerment hurts EVERYONE.

EDIT:

hey waswisgirl1...

maybe you should read these statistics to see if it's true that women "have made the same sacrifices as our brothers in arms"

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/ww2_statistics.htm

Answer 9

Well, we wanted to be treated the same as men and I guess that means in combat too.

Answer 10

Its not.

Studies have shown that male comrads will sacrifice themselves to save a woman in a hopeless situation. Also, the death of a woman effects morale of the unit hugely.