A woman and an M4 carbine assault rifle have very little in common; in fact, it was probably a bit out of the ordinary to think of something so kind and gentle being compared to something so violent and fatal. However, in today’s society it is easy to see that if you think women should not or could not be compared to a rifle you are expressing a destructive, gender-biased thought. As the gentle sex, women are traditionally associated with caring and with creating life rather than with its destroying. And even though women today do have the opportunity to enter the army, they are not officially allowed to enter combat and fight alongside their male counterparts. It is also said that many men do not want to see young mothers and daughters in combat because “it is a man’s duty to protect women” and that is almost admirable, but as society says “chivalry is dead.” I want to disprove or invalidate the arguments that have been made against women in the military and show that they are valuable just like any male soldier. Therefore, women belong in the military because they want to serve their country, honor their people, and prove their capable. Certainly, there are a number of arguments in favour of women being excluded from front line fighting. The first, and probably the most obvious argument is that, they lack the body strength that is necessary to perform in combat. Because of this, they would have difficulties in handling the extremely heavy military equipment used on the field: the manipulation of a gun would take them longer, which would create an opportunity for the enemy to shoot first; the weight of their equipment would hinder their mobility, which would make it much more difficult for them to move with agility. Also, they would have problems when a need arises to carry the body of a wounded comrade off of the battlefield toward safety. Although, women are physically “weaker” when compared to the average man, women are much brighter, better educated (a high school graduate), scores higher on the aptitude tests and is much less likely to become a disciplinary problem than the average man in the military. The second argument is that women do not possess the necessary mental strength and therefore they would not be able to cope with the mental and emotional stress involved. Women are generally considered to be very gentle, caring and compassionate. Because of these personality traits, they would have problems handling the atmosphere of fear and hostility that is inevitably generated on the battlefield. Thus, in the light of these arguments, it may seem to be a logical conclusion that women should not be allowed to fight in the front line. However this argument also falls short when you see that men have an extremely high rate of post-traumatic stress disorder. According to the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, men also experience very high rates of PTSD even if the events that trigger the disorder is different. Yes, women also experience this but it just goes to show that men are not immune to the emotional stress of combat (“PTSD: National Center for PTSD”).However, it is crucial to note that the above arguments are based on the “traditional” image of a woman and are generalized statements rather than facts related to a specific woman; in other words, they may not be true for every woman. While most women lack the necessary physical strength, some may be strong enough to perform in combat situations and they may even be able to meet the male fitness requirements. Therefore, a single person can not say that every woman is incapable of meeting the standards of a physical test (for a male) for the military. Furthermore, someone can not say that a woman can not join the military based on this argument because it is flawed. Likewise, it may be argued that the ability to cope with stress is a characteristic that varies between individuals, regardless of gender. In addition, it is important to realize that being in combat is an extremely difficult time for every human being, whether it is a man or a woman. If a person witnesses a traumatic event it is unlikely that the person will remain unaffected by the event. Because we are all human, it is inevitable for us to feel emotion. “Men could be described as more emotional than women, too. It depends on the type of emotion, how it is measured, where it is expressed, and lots of other factors. It is also important when answering that type of question not to dichotomize sex differences as necessarily being either “entirely absent” (i.e., gender blank slate-ism) or so large that men and women “can’t relate to one another” (i.e., the old Mars versus Venus claptrap). Most psychological sex differences fall somewhere in the middle (Petersen & Hyde, 2010). (“Are Women More Emotional Than Men?”).” With this information, the reader is told that the argument stating women are “more emotional” than men falls short because it is too dependent on the circumstances surrounding the personTherefore, it would not be correct to generally exclude women from front line fighting on account of characteristics that, in reality, are possessed by both men and women.Considering all the arguments, it can be seen that women should be allowed to enter combat; it would be wrong to keep them from combat situations because of the traditional image they are associated with. Rather, they should be judged on the basis of their abilities and personal characteristics. Afterall, it is only fair.