Canadian officers say women warriors proved as effective as men in front-line combat roles in Ottawa's most recent big military engagement, in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2011. But Canada has struggled to fill combat jobs with women, and those who do join can feel isolated as a result. And like Cpl. Moman, many of the women who volunteered for these jobs got the impression that their senior officers used them only sparingly in combat. Proponents argue that it will help the military retain more women, who tend to leave the services permanently when they have children. Opponents argue that allowing women to serve in these roles would limit the military's ability to fight in combat situations.
If men can decide to take up arms whether for their own personal economic reasons or their beliefs than women must be allowed and have the duty to take up arms as well. If women are allowed to vote they must be conscripted at the same rate as men. If a woman's ability on the battlefield in combat may make her more vulnerable than a man, and even a liability as well, this needs to be reflected in conscription at a higher rate of woman than men to compensate.
Let us look at the damage combat has done to men both physically and mentally. It destroyed them for any future civilian life. Our women do not deserve this, even if they might perform well under constant bombardment.
Yes, preventing women from serving in combat roles is discriminatory, but they should still have to meet the same requirements, and should not be drafted into combat roles. They should also be offered free birth control to prevent problems from rape by enemies.
Yes, as long as they can pass the same physical tests as men and that she is informed of the risk that it represent for her (Rape, Injury, Etc.). (the male must be punished if they touch in an inappropriate way and after kick out of the military).
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion