Search Results: i dont show i care for her

i won't argue against drafting women into noncombat positions but I dont think women should be drafted into combat roles Or even allowed in combat roles.

Its unequal due to bodily dimorphism, and also makes us more likely to lose the war.

First, since most women don't fit requirements, it'd be a waste of time, money*, and energy weeding out all the unfit women in order to get the few fit women. So itd decrease military efficiency.

*Drafting women will cost over 20 million dollars.
https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2013/03/07/End-Selective-Service-The-military-draft-is-a-relic-of-past-wars/stories/201303070319
So itll cost 24 million dollars, only to DECREASE military efficiency, because studies by the Marine Corps show that male only combat units outperform mixed units in almost every way, and that female soldiers have 6 times the injury rate of male soldiers. The number for unwilling female soldiers would probably be even higher. Each injury costs the military money and time,&decreases combat efficiency.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/09/10/mixed-gender-teams-come-up-short-marines-infantry-experiment/71979146/

Thus, drafting women is actuallybad for male soldiers, because itd make it more likely that we will lose the war, which makes it more likely that the male soldiers suffered, fought, and died in vain.

Mens advantage over women increases even more if they have their weapons stripped from them, which may happen if abducted. Due to lesser brute strength, an abducted woman is in much more danger than a man. Men should be protecting women from other men.

Plus the woman, once captured, may be raped and forced to give birth to the babies of the enemy. This wouldn't happen to men.

Drafting women into combat isn't equal because you're putting the women into much more danger than the men.

Even if you don't care about that, it makes the country more likely to lose the war.