It is observed that the vast majority of personnel serving in law enforcement units and in the army – who often have to encounter dangerous situations – are men. Some point to women’s inferior physical strengths as the justification for their low participation levels in these lines of work, and I agree.
Granted, given the increasing popularity of gender equality, many are proposing that more women should enlist in the army too. This proposal is predicated on the observation that most of the people who died enforcing laws or protecting their country are men. This is believed to be diametrically opposite to the idea of ‘equality’, espoused by the women’s rights movement. In order to reestablish the sense of equality, the a priori argument is that women should not be excluded from such duties to their country.
However, this line of reasoning is not sound because women are generally not as physically strong as their male counterparts. This very advantage of men over women could make a pronounced difference in battles, especially in hand-to -hand combats. The results could be dire: due to her physical limitations, a female officer is much more likely to fail to arrest a violent offender, putting herself and many others in danger.
In conclusion, asking more women to enter the police or military force would mean that physically unqualified females would be enlisted. This could lead to consequential repercussions: otherwise preventable deaths, and failed missions. Therefore, only a few women at the very end of the physical strength spectrum who wish to serve the country should be allowed to work in these professions.