G.I. Jane - Women on the Front Line

G.I. Jane

Women on the Front Line

by

Randi L. Crandall

English 9

Period 6

Ms. Christensen

December 10, 2004

Should women be in frontline combat? This has been a very heated controversy for a long time, and now with the need for troops rising; it has become even hotter. Some believe that women should not be in frontline because they are incapable or less capable of performing the tasks that they need to perform. The opposing side believes women are capable of performing them just as well as men. So, I pose this question again: Should women be in frontline combat?

A woman's place isn't to be in the military in the first place, their role is in the home taking care of children.

When America sends young women off to war the are sending them, kissing there toddlers goodbye to go and drive a truck. This is like saying that now we believe children aren't important anymore. A man can fill any job in the military, but the role of a mother can not be replaced. It is bad enough we take their fathers. But it is utterly unnecessary for them to lose their mothers also. Raising children is the most important job in society, and it now it takes a back seat to feminist ambitions to pursue sameness in the name of equality. (Knight) If all of our women join and are killed who is left to raise our next generation? Who is left to comfort the families and hold together our nation in its time of need? No one. If women were in combat roles they would not all die, but for the ones who did, their children would not have their mother's nurturing nature to comfort them. A father does not have that nature.

Women, who are in the military, serve in most areas why must they push for combat roles. Women serve on board ships, pilot fighter jets and helicopters, and are eligible for almost three quarters of Army posts, including artillery and some highly specialized in the Special Forces. (Rayment) The women who are in the military have plenty of roles to choose from. They don't need to be on the front lines to help. Keeping them off is saving lives and is for their own good.

It's a known fact that men are stronger then women. A lot of tasks that are included with being in combat take a lot of physical strength. They may do things like, run two miles in 16-20min in full combat uniform while carrying a rifle and a 66lb pack. Many women, in fact, most, can not complete this task. Pvt. Kristi Grant, A military policewomen said. "...I can't lift some of the same things males do, but I try." How would you like to be her comrade, wounded and in need of being dragged to safety? A good try wouldn't cut it. (Knight)

Men and women are different in many ways, in fact they are just plain different. In combat everyone is in close quarters when sleeping, including men and women; together. Do parents want their young daughters sleeping in close quarters with men added to fact that they are in combat situations? And wouldn't it be a stressing situation for the women? Even more stressing to women is the issue of hygiene. It is not a major concern for men. (Women in combat) So when women learn they must go or does go 3-4 months with out a shower, it could stress them and cause them to become distracted and a distraction because of their lone concern. When distracted people obviously don't perform well, mistakes made. That is when accidents occur. And an accident in war usually means injuries or casualties.

Everyone has heard the story of Jessica Lynch. Many brave men risked their lives to save Lynch after an Iraqi man's report of a woman soldier being tortured at a hospital. We still don't know what the Iraqi's did to her but her two broken legs and spinal injury suggests torture. Women are not supposed to be in combat. But some how Lynch was there. (Knight) How looking at what happened, putting women on the front line is not a good idea. She wasn't even on an infantry and she was taken. Imagine how many more like her there would be. If it was not easy to get lynch out of there, it will be a lot harder to get out many, many more at once.

Women are just as capable as men are in military positions. If a woman is able to perform tasks under the same conditions as a man she should be given the opportunity to be in combat. When a man enters the military, he is immediately eligible for all opportunities but women on the other hand are not. Even though a woman could be in the exact physical shape, and is able to do the same things and maybe even more; they are not allowed all opportunities. Women are given most opportunities but they are not allowed to serve in the infantry, Royal Armored Corps, the Royal Marines, the RAF Regiment and on submarines. Those are five things women aren't allowed to do because women are supposed to be inferior to men.

Our society is not as sexist as it once was. Many things have changed allowing women more rights, and has not resulted for the worse as it was thought it would. Women have not broken down our country but built it up. Why not have women fighting on the frontlines, still building us up? There are women who can do perform as well as men and there are some that can't. If you are also excluding the capable women you are just excluding capable troops.

A women's muscles maybe smaller, their lung power may be less but women can be every bit as ruthless as men. "the nature of a male beast is that he can drop the shutter and kill. Can a woman do that?" (Ham)

The answer is yes. If a woman puts her mind to something or someone is endangering her she can. There have been many women already who have proved that they are capable.

They have walked and ran up to 60 miles across desert dunes, arduous underwater diving execesed and a series of free-fall parachute jumps. Recruits learn how to "engage the enemy" and destroy them using bullets, bayonets, knives and bare hands. "many men couldn't have done it," said a senior officer of the SASR. (Ham)

Women

...