Oh yes, I can think of many reason as well why its not...efficent lets say, to allow women to fight. Plain and simple, they cannot carry as much weight, are not as strong (and that factors in to the weight of a weopon and being able to handle it effectively) and their size and constitution in comparision to the male form and physiology is fairer, gentler, and cannot take the same strain and abuse that our bodies can. They do not make ideal combatants and in the larger scheme of things, they would be a liability to any infantry unit they are in.
This is all a generalized fact, but a fact none the less. It represents the majority of women in the military.
But I feel strongly that those that are an obvious exception, not necessarily because they're stronger or tougher, but because they have the right state of mind and right psychology for it and are equipped to handle it mentally, then they should be at least given the benefit of the doubt and given the chance to serve on the front lines in an infantry unit if thats what they want. Especially if its a transfer after already having previous military experience.
As for women being better combat pilots, I agree. Tests have proven, both militaritic and civilian, that women have better visual aqquity than men and have better reflexes and response times. And when you're in a cockpit, these things matter more than anything.
If they were allowed to fly fighter planes however, it would only be fair to allow them to be apart of the other different services, such as being a navy seal (again, if they passed the right type of initial training and have previous experience of some kind).
Women would be good with stealth as well, and sneaking around and spying, so being a navy seal and a woman doesn't sound unrealistic either, I think.
The one job I think women are not suited for in the military is being an MP. Because then its a matter of physically keeping the peace among your own people. And if a female MP ever had to arrest someone or break up a fight, I doubt they'd be taken seriously and whomever they'd be arresting would most likely cause trouble for them later (probably by pressing charges or playing pranks) just to be an a$$. If it were a male MP, there wouldn't be any bull$hit like that because they're then running the chance that MP would kick their a$$ later, off duty, for screwing around like that. They don't fear a female MP, so they not only do not take her seriously, but assume she's not going to be able to physically do anything about it anyway, and that she ought to be punished for even trying.
This would be especially true if she was arresting someone of a higher rank, or worse, a commissioned officer. Or worse at that, an officer with connections to the brass. While situations like this can and probably do happen to male MPs as well, women would be more prone to it I think, simply because they're women.
Thank you. I look forward to creating more. 🙂
EDIT:
I almost forgot the obvious solution to this problem and I forgot to mention it- create all-female units/squads.
Yes, its still a form of bias in the military, as it still implies that women cannot hang with the men or are in their league, but it does solve the problem itself.
Any woman wanting to join such a unit could, and they could be armed with weopons they can definitely handle. If such units could prove useful on the battlefield, any General who would not utilize them is a fool.
In retrospect, I think this is a very good idea. Women can join infantry units of this class freely, and it gives the military another offensive edge and allows the women in the units to act as a unit in sync. without running the risk of compromising an all-male unit, if it was just a woman or two in a male unit.
An all-female unit wouldn't have the same breakdowns in discipline than a woman or two in a male unit would, or vice versa (if that ever happened).
The effectiveness of an all-female infantry unit is still questionable and is a liability in and of itself in the greater scheme of things in a warzone, but it is an asset. And really, at the very least, as sad as it is, its another person holding a gun. When you're in a warzone thats really all that matters and its all generals care about besides position and strategy and orders during a firefight. Someone being old enough to hold, raise, and fire a gun. Women can do much better than the young teens barely old enough did in Nam(as contemptable as it was to even have them there), so there should be no qualms.
Another soldier is another soldier, right? When it comes down to that, and the women who would join and aid in such a task willingly do, what does it matter?
I have some doubt about female units being effective at taking ground and being a forward advancing unit, but a female unit would make a perfect cover, flanking, or support unit. I really do believe this is something to be considered. And in a larger perspective, it would allow the military to be rid of the sexism over time, women would be more respected in military roles, men and women could fight together as comrades, and both will be able to serve their country equally and recieve and earn the same pride and honor. No more, no less.
