[ORAL], I need feedback :C

[9_7]

The recent issue giving women the opportuinity to fight in the frontline combat has sparked controversial debate. Major General Simmon Willis, a member from a defense department suggested that women should only be given army combat roles only if "they match mens phsyical standards". This let to many disuputes. What do you perceive? Should women be allowed to serve in frontline combat roles?

Good morning/afternoon Mrs ______ and my fellow classmates. As a proportion of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to both women and men, women are know not to take the job of participating in the frontline combat. I fully endorse this statement because women are not suited for the frontline combat.

Studies show that women do not meet the physical requirements that enable them to participate in war fare. Dr. Peter, Vice-president of the Australian College of Sports Physicians states, "Research is detailing great differences in strength and endurance between men and women. The biggest contrast is in the upper body strength where men have a 50% advantage. In the lower body strength, the advantage is about 30% greater in aerobic capacity because women have fewer red blood cells, less iron and smuller lungs. These characteristic features indicate that men have an overall advantage of about 80% in physical army combats.

Secondly, women are unsuited for the frontline combat because they do not have the psychological requirements. Sex chromosome genes influence aggression and maternal behaviour. It has been well know that across human cultures and in most mammals, males are often more aggressive and less nuturing than females because of the hormones such as "testosterone". Key elements of women are kindness, maternity and nuturing. They are care givers, care nutures and have maternal instincts which does not fit in the category of being physically and psychologically desinged for killing or wounding people during war.

To reinforce this, women should not be participating in the frontline combat because of the impact they have on male soldiers. Males could be distracted by the female soldiers. This is because men may become sexually attracted and act inappropriately. Not only this but relationships may be developed on the frontlines and disrupt a units fighting capability. As the number of women that join the armed sertvices increases, abusive incidents have arisen even in non-frontline situations. This notion is evident according to three US service academies where "one in seven women report being sexually assaulted and half have been sexually harassed.

A newspaper article published by Roane Johnson talked about a female soldier who claimed that she had been abused by male soldiers at "Lavarack Barracks" while her boyfriend was deployed in Afghansistan. The 21 year old women said she was assulted on the night of August 11th 2010 in a dorm by 20 year old men. While giving out evidence, the women was cryingg, trembling and took several breaks. This is just one femaile. Imagine how many others may have been in the same position as her.

While the proportion of jobs in the armed forces are equally open to women and men, women are traditionally know to serve in many defensive rolls other than in frontline combat. According to researchers, the number of women who meet the minimum physical standards in the US is about 200 per year. It is common sense that there is not enough women to full up the frontline. This was in the US too! So isnt it more effective to place women in other vital defensive rolls?

Lastly, women may be a dangerous hazard. Men may want to protect women in combat which may also lead to a break down in the battle plan and strategies. Geoff Hoon, a defensive secretary said "He was not prepared to risk the effectiveness of the front line infantry". His decision followed a two year study on the repercussions of this proposal. Experts state that women might not react in the same way as men in the heat of battle and their presence might make men act differently, either by defending a women who are repremended by commanders.

Since 1948, female soldiers in the IDF(Israel Defense Force) have been restricted from serving in closecombat military operations. The reason behind this is because of the reactions of the male soldiers after witnessing a womman wounded. Witnessing females injured or killed made many male unit lose complete control and focus.

To examine this overall, women can never preform the same way as men do since their physical and psychological abilities have great differnece between them. Men are much stronger, brave have better resistance, not easily moved emotionally and can cope with the rigors of the coldness, tiredness and hunger compared to women who are too fragile and weak. Fighting along side men, giving up easily is not only a distraction but also disturbs the morale and determination of the male combatants. Hence women must not be allowed to fight in frontline combats.

Thank you.


It's pretty sexist.. I tried my best not to make it as sexist as it is

[Justin Bieber]

I'll be absolutely honest with you and say that I didn't read 95% of what you typed there.

But the fact that it appears that you're planning the oral word by word is not a good sign.

You should keep it in dot point form.

And although you may have a male teacher, you are just as likely to have a female teacher who could take offense to what you've said (e.g. '...compared to women who are too fragile and weak.')
I did mine on an earthquake where the scientists were prosecuted for miscalculating the earthquake's magnitude and its time of impact.

I said, 'If the Italian gvt wanted to prosecute these scientists for this ridiculous reason, they may as well prosecute the Pope for not praying to hard enough to our so-called God!'

The teacher marking us was supposedly a Christian and although my oral presentation wasn't exactly the best, I've got a feeling that I probably lost an extra one or two marks for saying that.

[pi]

But the fact that it appears that you're planning the oral word by word is not a good sign.

I disagree.

Of course if you're a brilliant speaker or if you're preparing for a debate, writing a word-for-word speech is definitely not the way to go. However, for a SAC I think it's an acceptable way of going about things as long as you're not reading while saying it.