Women Should Fight
In today’s armed services a great debate rages on as to whether women should serve in aggressive frontline combat units. This debate has been stifled by recent events across the globe as women warriors have begun to swell the ranks of frontline units. There is no question as to whether women are capable of serving in frontline units as the casualty count in the various fronts of our current Global Wars stands testament to. This paper will prove that women not only deserve the same rights to fight for their beliefs, but also have a duty to defend the same freedoms which their fathers, husbands, and brothers have bravely fought for throughout the course of American history.
On average, men are stronger than women. The label of females being the weaker sex became one of the primary reasons why women are ineligible for direct combat. As the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces stated,
[T]he evidence before the Commission clearly shows distinct physiological differences between men and women. Most women are shorter in stature, have less muscle mass, and weigh less than men. These physiological differences place women at a distinct disadvantage when performing tasks requiring a high level of muscular strength and aerobic capacity, such as hand-to-hand fighting, digging, carrying heavy loads, lifting, and other tasks central to ground combat. (Presidential Commission Report, 1992)
The Commission also stated that it had allowed testimony from women who were in exceptional physical shape, all of whom wished to serve in combat. Even with women showing their will to fight for their country, the Commission based its decision of excluding women from direct combat partly due to the issue of physical strength.
Arguing that women do not have the physical strength necessary for combat actually presents us with two double standards. The first is easily debatable, the case that women should be excluded from combat...