I personally think women should be allowed in the military, but i do believe that certain postions are such that women are not biologically designed to fill, such as infantry. If anyone knows where I can find info to prove that there are differences between men and women in combat, basic training, and career longevity, please direct me. It is for a college paper. Thank you.

D. Mapes

Im sure there is scientific evidence to prove that men are more capable of certain things, however I wouldnt know where to find it.
the PT standards are lower in the run and pushups. Women lack the same upper body strength that men do, women also are less apt to "pull the trigger" when the situation comes to it, and this could possibly pose a problem in certain jobs in the millitary. not to be racist, but there are not many women rambos out there.
Should women be allowed in the millitary: yes
Should their jobs be limited: yes
Women should be able to do the job that they do best, if a woman can lift run and situp just as fast as any other man, heck, let her have a peice of the action on front line.. however, if she cannot perform all duties which might endanger herself or others, a new job should be found.

First of all, racism involves people of different races, for example: the differences between black people and white people, not the differences between men and women, prejudices against one of the sexes is called "Sexism".

Secondly, stating that a woman should not serve in infantry positions is ridiculous. Women have no difficulty using long range weapons, such as guns, nor do do they need to be as strong as men are, because strength is relative. Should the authorities allow a weak man to enter battle as an infantryman, yet not a strong woman? By not allowing women in these positions, one assumes that they are a danger to themselves or their comrades by serving in these capacities. If the authorities say women are, I ask them to prove it. I am a man.

There are several good reasons why women are, and should not be allowed on the front line.

- They are a distraction to the male troops, i'll leave that one to be worked out.

- They are more prone to emotional break down, don't even pull out the word sexism in reply to this, its a biological fact. I don't scream and shout because someone says I can't bear a baby do I?

-They require special attention, which can not be afforded on the front line.


That being said, the jobs that women do carry out are vital, and women often do these jobs very well. I'm all up for equality, but when two things are different, you need to treat then different. Differnt but equal.

They pose a distraction to men.... This is not, in itself, a reason women should not, for men are a distraction to women as well. Sexism is the right word for you saying women being prone to emotional breakdowns, they may just have different reasons than men--yet we cannot relate these reasons to the ones "on the front line" because women have not been on the front line to show their inability to handle the emotional stress, while men, on the other hand, have had breakdowns throughout history.

If women require special attention, do they need it from the male soldiers? Are you speaking in reference to menstrual cycles? Women's periods require no more special attention than having to take a ****.

For ****'s sake, quit your whining - woman make **** soldiers. Get over it you bloody hippy.
If you wish to reply to me, put it on my own thread or I will ignore you and your undoubtedly half-assed comeback.

i don't wanna make waves here but if you want my oppinion then here are my reasons why women should NOT be in the military, A: in the military we need soldiers that are rough an tough and that can take a couple bullets in the gut before dropping (srry 4 the exageration but just incase any boi soldiers read this take it as a compliment lol) B: i don't want to be sexist but women are the more delicate sex and enemy might go after that and it could end up in a rape then we'd have pregnant women in the middle of the battlefield, now wun't that be interesting. and we need the best for toughness and aggresivness, (like the strong voice that guyz got u know guyz can shout and yell for dicipline and his troops will listen) so i hope i'm not hurting anyone but i have to speak my mind.

nice 1 jc mac u'r my hero lol props

do not end up like js_mac, rangerzrock, he's got some of the dumbest, singleminded opinions i've ever heard... except for this one.

i agree, women would make **** soldiers, because of the simple fact that they have naturally lower muscle tone than men, meaning that, even with flak jackets and ****, a bullet will do more damage.

As for the distraction to men, also true, but not in the perverts perspective. The Israeli army had women in Infantry position for about 5 years. it was discovered that when a male soldier was wounded, they put him under cover and called a medic.

However, when a female was wounded, the whole ****ing platoon would back down and look after the chick until she was evacked.

Therefore, a female presence jeapordizes the entire mission excecution because of the way males react to them.

Besides, what the **** are all you guys on about?? Women have been serving in every western-style army for the past 150 years. First they were only nurses, but these days they go into engineer fields, intelligence, combat support and such.

In Austrlalia these women are tested by lower standards than the men, women are generally have less strength than men.

BUT, when the **** hits the fan these women have absolutely no trouble with using a weapon. Any one who says that women that have a problem shooting guns obviously hasent met a women in the military.

i thot js mac was leaving....

ne ways, my opinion is that women should have jobs that dont require fighting. let them fly cargo planes or w/e, or communications to free up some of the men who have those positions