Our universal understanding in regards to who can join in a war has changed. On December 3, 2015, an announcement was made by the U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter that rescinded the ban against military women from serving in combat. Prior to this decision, women have been entitled to noncombatant jobs as truck drivers, medics, and helicopter pilots, to mention but a few. Many critics are bound to reckon this decision as challenging the gender inequalities unveiled in the twenty-first century. While it is true that times have changed, the very nature of women has not. Congress ought to overturn this policy change as women cannot match men in terms of strength, survivability, and the brain.
To begin, the body composition of both men and women are different. Women have less skeletal muscles mass and less upper and lower body strength than men (Janssen, Heymsfield, Wang & Ross). In the course of combat, there are battlefield necessities needed to be carried. These battlefield necessities includes weapons, armor, clothing and rations. Dr. David Cifu, national director of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the Veterans Health Administration, exclaims "The average female will have trouble as infantry soldiers must carry a load often weighing more than 80 pounds for many hours at a time over rugged terrain in some cases" (Jordan, par. 2). Here, if a woman cannot carry her equipment, others will reluctantly intervene. For this, it will lessen the combat effectiveness of others just to make the female feel better.
Another physical limitation women come up against is speed. Speed is one of the many fundamental qualities called for on the front lines with the purpose of outmaneuvering an enemy. The testosterone is a hormone found in men and women, to a much lesser extent. This hormone has a substantial impact on every aspect of the human body from muscle size to the percentage of fat on one's body. With a testosterone level lower than a man, a woman cannot run fast (Kolata, par. 3). Body fat, too, is a barrier to running as it serves as excess weight. Here, women are at a performance disadvantage. In the event that a female soldier is found in harm's way, either from gunfire or from capture, it will most likely result in either injuries, sexual assault, or unfortunately, death.
Beyond just physical abilities, women are susceptible to health issues. Urination in the military environment is more difficult for a woman than it is for a man. There is limited access to sanitary equipment. A woman will need to undress and be in some form of squatting position while trying to keep their clothing from touching the floor. It can be embarrassing, time-consuming, and unsafe. A woman will, therefore, drink less water and voluntarily delay urination. It may expose them to urinary tract infections ("Women's Health Care Physicians"). Here, UTI can induce into serious complications if left untreated. It can interfere with their duties and minimize their working hours. For this, UTI will influence the overall well-being of a woman when focus and concentration are of essence on the battlefield.
Besides, women run a higher risk of being a causality. Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Endurance Freedom (OEF) were the most recent conflicts that involved the U.S. Of the military personnel serving in OIF and OEF, 89% were men and 11% were women. (Institute of Medicine 18). More than 150 women have been killed and more than 800 women have been wounded in the Iraq and Afghan wars (Myre, par. 12). Here, women comprised a small number of the military and were barred from services in the front lines. Even so, they were still being wounded or unfortunately, being killed. For this, women are not able to survive longer than men.
Aside from health issues, women have shown functional differences in the brain than that of men. They have a larger limbic system that makes them more in touch and revealing with their emotions (Koehler). We can assume that a female soldier will be reluctant to kill an enemy. Here, women are givers not killers of life. An act of killing is bound to subdue their nurturing instincts. They may experience guilt and may have a difficult time coping with what they have done. For this, when women are settled into combat, they are more likely to develop PTSD than men ("Women, Trauma and PTSD").
Similarly, women have no risk-taking skills. That is to say, women exhibit behaviors that are less risky than men (Patel 15). As mentioned previously, women are in touch with their emotions and it can sometimes influence decisions. Here, a female soldier is not likely to overcome a challenging situation. A male soldier, contrastingly, think logically and have bigger burst of endorphins. It is thus, that a man will take on a risk despite its consequences. Here, in order to win a war, people must die. For this, a delay in making a decision would create an opportunity for the enemy to shoot first.
Now, this subject has stimulated some strong criticism from egalitarians. They insist that our great nation prides itself on freedom. If a woman is willing to sacrifice herself for the better sake of our nation, then so be it. However, what the egalitarians have failed to consider are the male comrades of the females who are or will be in combat. Will a female soldier be able to carry a male comrade twice her size and weight to safety? Will a female soldier have the chance to survive? Will a female soldier set their emotions aside and kill? To deny these vulnerabilities is to be delusional. Women, therefore, can hurt the combat effectiveness amongst their teams.
As we have seen, our nation has been brought to its knees by political correctness. If we equalize men and women, we ignore biology, survivability, and behavior at our own peril. There is no valor in subjecting a woman to the unthinkable brutalities and horrors of a wartime foxhole. Not to mention, homogenizing the sexes in combat can be problematic. Women, of course, have done a great service to this country that dates back to the Revolutionary War. They had their own strength and their own power but it was not on the battlefield. Policy-makers should overturn this decision and ostracize women from combat.
To begin, the body composition of both men and women are different. Women have less skeletal muscles mass and less upper and lower body strength than men (Janssen, Heymsfield, Wang & Ross). In the course of combat, there are battlefield necessities needed to be carried. These battlefield necessities includes weapons, armor, clothing and rations. Dr. David Cifu, national director of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the Veterans Health Administration, exclaims "The average female will have trouble as infantry soldiers must carry a load often weighing more than 80 pounds for many hours at a time over rugged terrain in some cases" (Jordan, par. 2). Here, if a woman cannot carry her equipment, others will reluctantly intervene. For this, it will lessen the combat effectiveness of others just to make the female feel better.
Another physical limitation women come up against is speed. Speed is one of the many fundamental qualities called for on the front lines with the purpose of outmaneuvering an enemy. The testosterone is a hormone found in men and women, to a much lesser extent. This hormone has a substantial impact on every aspect of the human body from muscle size to the percentage of fat on one's body. With a testosterone level lower than a man, a woman cannot run fast (Kolata, par. 3). Body fat, too, is a barrier to running as it serves as excess weight. Here, women are at a performance disadvantage. In the event that a female soldier is found in harm's way, either from gunfire or from capture, it will most likely result in either injuries, sexual assault, or unfortunately, death.
Beyond just physical abilities, women are susceptible to health issues. Urination in the military environment is more difficult for a woman than it is for a man. There is limited access to sanitary equipment. A woman will need to undress and be in some form of squatting position while trying to keep their clothing from touching the floor. It can be embarrassing, time-consuming, and unsafe. A woman will, therefore, drink less water and voluntarily delay urination. It may expose them to urinary tract infections ("Women's Health Care Physicians"). Here, UTI can induce into serious complications if left untreated. It can interfere with their duties and minimize their working hours. For this, UTI will influence the overall well-being of a woman when focus and concentration are of essence on the battlefield.
Besides, women run a higher risk of being a causality. Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Endurance Freedom (OEF) were the most recent conflicts that involved the U.S. Of the military personnel serving in OIF and OEF, 89% were men and 11% were women. (Institute of Medicine 18). More than 150 women have been killed and more than 800 women have been wounded in the Iraq and Afghan wars (Myre, par. 12). Here, women comprised a small number of the military and were barred from services in the front lines. Even so, they were still being wounded or unfortunately, being killed. For this, women are not able to survive longer than men.
Aside from health issues, women have shown functional differences in the brain than that of men. They have a larger limbic system that makes them more in touch and revealing with their emotions (Koehler). We can assume that a female soldier will be reluctant to kill an enemy. Here, women are givers not killers of life. An act of killing is bound to subdue their nurturing instincts. They may experience guilt and may have a difficult time coping with what they have done. For this, when women are settled into combat, they are more likely to develop PTSD than men ("Women, Trauma and PTSD").
Similarly, women have no risk-taking skills. That is to say, women exhibit behaviors that are less risky than men (Patel 15). As mentioned previously, women are in touch with their emotions and it can sometimes influence decisions. Here, a female soldier is not likely to overcome a challenging situation. A male soldier, contrastingly, think logically and have bigger burst of endorphins. It is thus, that a man will take on a risk despite its consequences. Here, in order to win a war, people must die. For this, a delay in making a decision would create an opportunity for the enemy to shoot first.
Now, this subject has stimulated some strong criticism from egalitarians. They insist that our great nation prides itself on freedom. If a woman is willing to sacrifice herself for the better sake of our nation, then so be it. However, what the egalitarians have failed to consider are the male comrades of the females who are or will be in combat. Will a female soldier be able to carry a male comrade twice her size and weight to safety? Will a female soldier have the chance to survive? Will a female soldier set their emotions aside and kill? To deny these vulnerabilities is to be delusional. Women, therefore, can hurt the combat effectiveness amongst their teams.
As we have seen, our nation has been brought to its knees by political correctness. If we equalize men and women, we ignore biology, survivability, and behavior at our own peril. There is no valor in subjecting a woman to the unthinkable brutalities and horrors of a wartime foxhole. Not to mention, homogenizing the sexes in combat can be problematic. Women, of course, have done a great service to this country that dates back to the Revolutionary War. They had their own strength and their own power but it was not on the battlefield. Policy-makers should overturn this decision and ostracize women from combat.