Military Double Standards

In the article “ Opinion: It’s time to reevaluate standards for women in the military “ from The Washington Post, the authors of this article Dave Kelm, Jane Lawlor, and Nicole Martin help to review standards for women in the military. The authors address the controversy developing from this. First the authors present those, who disagree with this option. By introducing arguments that focus on physical abilities and provisioning logistics for the sexes. Second, they believe the debate could suffice from looking at medical research, such as the fact military women show higher rates of injury than men. The authors make it a point to take the opposing side of the argument. Furthermore, women tend to work longer than who often suffer career-ending

Therefore, bringing me to my opinion of the authors’ execution of this text. I feel the author's purpose was properly presented even though it lacked minor details, and these details would have furthered strengthened their support. The statistics used in the article don’t help the paper because it doesn’t equip the reader with enough information about the military and its stance. The use of examples found within the article strengthen the article because it opens the reader's mind to case scenarios in which the article succeeds. Lastly, I felt the use of their expertise of military lifestyle put more emphasis on their opinions this helps them achieve the desire of persuading readers to support the re-evaluation of standards for

The author fails to offer enough statistics to prove their point. The evidence presented in the article includes minor statistics, comparison of the United States Military service to other countries. But there aren’t enough to help the article succeed. The author starts showing that in New Zealand, women make up an important part of their military, exactly 6% of the officers in combat and operations branches are women. Stating this fact gives a strong support to the article, and shows that women are capable of holding both important task and duties within the military. But the lack of statistics furthermore show that the authors have not put the time into the matter and are only using background information. Stating that “ Many officers seem to prefer speculations and emotion to scientific research and reason”, in paragraph five doesn’t help the article anymore. The author also goes on to say zero out of twenty-nine women made it through the three month Infantry Officer course. These facts are interesting, but don’t fully appeal to the readers who may not be fully aware of the issue or military terms. This article appeals to not only people in the military, yet also women who fight for women's rights; such as the National Organization for Women