Women not being able to participate in most military combat roles has been in place since the beginning of the United States. We currently have the largest military spending and military force in the world. Congress has consistently advocated for gender equality and for women to be allowed to play more military roles in combat. But should combat effectiveness be sacrificed for the sake of “gender equality”? Men and women are built differently, mentally, physically and genetically. Genders were created to be special, to have roles, and most importantly, to do things that the other gender couldn't do. War is not a fun game, people's lives depend on each other, it depends on teamwork, as the saying goes, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In April 2015, the US Army Ranger Certification Course was open to women, allowing them to participate and earn the coveted Ranger (Latimes) tab. . Ranger School consists of a grueling 3-stage course, going through advanced physical training, mountain combat and ambushes, and nautical operations. The initial class of 60 women, none made it. It was only 2 classes later that out of a class of 381 men and 19 women, 94 men and 2 women managed to pass and earn the Ranger rating. Following this, in late 2015, Congress opened all military combat roles to women in the name of gender equality and political correctness (Militarytimes.com). This means that women can participate in combat armored divisions, combat aviation, as well as special operations such as 1st SFOD-D (Delta Force), Naval Special Warfare (SEALS), Airforce Pararescue (PJ), MARSOC and army special forces. groups and much more. However, was the test really equal and did men and women have equal opportunities? According to several sources reported by people.com, the answer is no. Here are the benefits they received that other course participants did not receive. “The women were first sent in January for a special two-week training to prepare them for school, which only started on April 20. Once there, they were allowed to repeat the program until they succeeded – while the men were held to a strict pass/fail standard (people.com). “Then they spent months in a special platoon at Fort Benning, receiving, among other things, nutritional counseling and full-time training with a Ranger. (people.com). “While they were part of the special platoon, they were regularly taken to do the land navigation course – a very difficult part of the course which is the weather. Men must have seen it for the first time when they went to school (people.com). “Once at school, they were allowed to rehearse key elements – like patrols – while no special attention was given to the men (people.com). » This is not equality, it means giving women special training, special preparation so that they know exactly what awaits them, while men are left to wander blindfolded in a dark maze. After all the gifts and special treatment they received, the end result? Two women graduated on August 21. Greist herself (one of the graduating rangers) even stated that she "thought we were going to be abandoned after failing toDarby [Part of Benning] the SECOND time, [she] said at a press conference before graduation. “We were offered a Day One Recycle (People.com).” This is another example of how our military becomes a spectacle for politics and changes policies in the name of political correctness and equality. While officials say standards remained the same and they received the same treatment as men, instructors were able to confirm claims that female participants were guaranteed that at least one of them would pass. diploma. One ranger instructor said: “We were under enormous pressure to conform, it was very politicized (people.com). » Military combat and war is no laughing matter, there is a bond between soldiers that must be maintained and they must trust and rely on each other during war. “In the blunt and sometimes crude responses to a voluntary investigation by the Rand Corp., more than 7,600 members of U.S. special operations forces spoke with one voice. Allowing women to serve in Navy SEALs, Army Delta or other commando units could hurt their effectiveness and lower standards, and it could keep men out of dangerous positions. (bigstory.ap.org) “In the name of political correctness and gender equality so often advocated by Congress and our government, our military risks losing its combat effectiveness due to forced pressure to so-called “equality”. Men and women were not given equality. treatment while completing the U.S. Army's first Ranger certification course, even though only two women graduated. Men and women are built differently physically and genetically, which only adds to their ineffectiveness in combat. There are a few main differences with women, such as genetics and physical body parts. The first will be breasts, ballistic armor and rifle armor racks are simply not designed for women. Currently, the US Army uses ESAPI armor plates as its primary threat ballistic armor for rifles. ESAPI armor plates are shaped so that the armor is a rectangle, with the side angles cut at 45 degrees on top, allowing for easy movement of the arms and rifle shoulder. The plate is designed to fit the chest and cover vital areas, with a 4-way curve on the edges. Now that this curvature is designed for men's flat chests, a woman's breasts would cause the plate to tilt downward, not only creating a gap between the body and the armor, but also causing discomfort on long periods of time. Most current US Army ballistic plates are rated at their maximum ballistic value ONLY when paired with a soft armor carrier. Soft armor and ballistic plate must conform to the shape of the body to be most effective. Someone might present a counter-argument that self-contained plates can be used, but this does not meet US military regulations for body armor, as a full spectrum around soft armor is also required, as well as armor against rifle threats. Using both is not an option because standalone plates are bulkier than ICW (soft armored) plates. Another argument would be that the armor can be redesigned. That's right, the armor can be redesigned, but such a redesign would take years of prototyping and millions of taxpayer dollars, the military would have to..