January 24, 2013
Ban lifted for Women in the combat
Women in the U.S military have always been banned from military jobs involving direct combat. This decision by the federal government overturns a 1994 rule that restricts women for combat roles such as artillery, armor, and infantry. This decision will have several effects. Three effects that I see are described in the following paragraphs. First, stereotypically speaking, women are not as strong as men physically. Second, the aspects of men and women serving combat together. Lastly, the choice of women to be in the military. While you see this is an astounding idea. For what equalizations would women need to effectively need to carry on these tough, out there jobs? Generally speaking, women are not as strong as men. With this in mind, it would be in a more difficult state for women to carry the equipment needed, the workouts would be very tough and the mental strength is not as high in state. There are concerns of having men and women in the same physical era. What would be the physiological aspect of men and women serving in combat roles together? For instance, would the men feel to be more in the protective state of the women in war? Would there be a higher rank of male and female relations? I feel there would be a distraction in the work force in the two states of relations and being protective. If something happened to men in battle there always is another to fill in the spot, as when women get hurt or even pregnant it would be both a distraction and a time in need to fill the spot. Would they need to look for another woman or have the men fill in? The decision seems to be a difficult state. The military is an all volunteer force, so women can choose to be in the military along with choices to be in combat or a stationary force. Should the U.S. reinstate the draft, and would women also be eligible to be drafted? If that is the case, many of the women would be forced into...