Women In Combat

Formal Outline

It is man's role to risk his life on a battlefield not a woman's.

I. War and humanity

A. Women in WW II

1. High cost experience

B. Combat is man's role

1. No women on the battlefield

II. Feminist ideal

III. Combat rules

A. Women support

1. Still can be POW's

B. Combat aviators

IV. Physical limitations

A. Weaker upper body

1. Men must help

B. Marine Corps study

1. One of one hundred

V. Training standards different

A. Co-Ed training

1. Men do not benefit

VI. Orphans

A. Soldiers married to soldiers

1. Both leave Children

2. Who'll replace the parents

VII. Psychological incapable

A. No Killer Instinct

1. Not violent Criminals

VIII. Women protect young

IX. Women improve quality

A. Well qualified

X. Motherhood

A. Risk

1. Not necessary

2. Flag draped coffin

Women in Combat

War has been a part of humanity almost as long as humanity itself. However, women at war have not been. History has many stories about exceptional women serving honorably on the battlefield. In many cases Women on the battlefield are liabilities. During World War II both the Soviets and Germans tried placing women on the front lines when they were desperate for fighting soldiers. Male troops forgot their combat responsibilities in order to protect the women fighting beside them. This made their units less effective and exposed them all to greater risk. Both the Soviets and the Germans later barred women from serving in combat. It is man's role to risk his life on a battlefield not a woman's. A woman's role is to support the man fighting in combat, whether it is serving as a soldier herself in a supporting role or staying home and caring for their family.

A woman participating in combat is a feminist ideal that should not be forced upon the military. The feminist culture has placed the rights of women above the importance of human life itself. This can be seen sadly in abortion. The ironic thing is the same feminists who wish to put women in combat would not tolerate even the thought of the same women being exposed to the type of violence experienced in combat elsewhere. Instead, supporters of women in combat should join other groups who abhor violence against women.

The military has rules against women serving in roles with a high probability of direct combat. The problem is women are assigned to the support units which are deployed along with the combat units they're supporting. The lines separating women from combat does become blurry. Women POW's, like Jessica Lynch who was raped while captive, serving in a support role can be killed or captured as easily as a woman in direct combat. It is likely that any woman POW will be raped. The military is allowing women to fly combat fighters in the Middle East. In his article, "Case Against Women in Combat" William P. Hoar states that, "allowing women to fly combat missions dramatically increases the probability the United States would have women become prisoners of war. In Vietnam and Operation Desert Storm, the great majority of POWs were combat aviators" (5).

One of the most obvious reasons women should not be serving in combat is their physical limitations. A typical woman's upper body strength is not capable of withstanding the demands of sustained ground combat. Their male counterparts will be forced to help them more than they would another male soldier. In his article "Women Should Not Serve in Combat" K.L. Billingsley provides the following: "In 1993 the Marine Corps conducted a three month study with 50 women to determine whether they could be conditioned to meet male fitness standards. Official's found that they could not be. While some women can reach the lower ranges of male ability, they are operating at the peak of their performance and are therefore under maximum stress. They found that only one out of 100 women can meet the standards as opposed to 60% of the man who can" (4).

Physical training standards for women are not the same as it is for men in the military. Women's physical readiness requirements are far below that of the men. In situations where coed training exists physical expectations are scaled back to accommodate the weaker women. "The problem in purely objective terms is that it doesn't stress the men. Females fall behind in the aggregate and you basically water down the training" (Billingsley 5).

Allowing women to serve in combat creates too great an opportunity for orphaning children. Most women who serve in the military are married to men who are soldiers as well. They are assigned to the same unit when possible which means they will both deploy to the same combat theater. It is traumatic for the soldiers and their children when they have to leave them alone with relatives under such uncelebrated circumstances. Small children especially don't understand why mommy is leaving. In "Combat Is Not an Appropriate Role for Women" James G. Bruen Jr. writes, "One bomb and the parents are both dead, and the child is an orphan. Who'll replace the parents then? Who could replace a generation of moms killed in combat? Government daycare centers?"(3).

Women in general are not psychologically capable of withstanding the demands of prolonged exposure to combat. They lack the aggressive killer instinct the male has. Typically the only time a women will have more ferocity than a man, is when she is defending her children. In "Equality for Women Does Not Justify Placing Them in Combat" Richard D. Hooker Jr. states, "Crime