Should Women Serve in the Army?
The 21st century can be fairly called an age of proclaimed equality of genders. Today, one can count much less occupations that remain solely masculine – women are constantly conquering new positions and prove that they are also capable of participating in physically challenging activities. This refers particularly to war. 50 years ago, an idea that a woman can serve in the army would seem ridiculous; today it is a reality. However, is such advancement reasonable? Though women have successfully proved that they can doubtfully be called a weak gender, war is one of those occupations that women should never take part in, since it results into a series of negative consequences.
Nature has made women physically weaker and less durable than man. No matter how angry feminists can get about such statements, a woman, even a trained one, can hardly match a man in physical strength. Therefore, if women would be allowed to serve in the army, they would either need to match with the already existing training standards, or the standards themselves have to be lowered. Officials from the West Point Academy inform that after women were allowed to serve in the military, men are no longer required to run carrying heavy weapons, which was considered a norm before (Fire & Knowledge). And this is not just a single example. As a result, the army’s fighting capability lowers.
Physical exercises that are normal for men are often excessive for women. Women’s health can be damaged by constant physical loads; this especially refers to the reproductive system. According to recent research from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, excessive exercise can seriously reduce a women’s fertility (ScienceDaily). In addition, it can result in amenorrhea, problems with menstruation cycles, hormonal balance, and other aspects of health. It is obvious that compared to the perspective of becoming infertile and having many specific health issues, the...