The fact that women cannot participate in most military combat roles has been in place since the inception of the United States. We currently have the largest military expenditure and the largest military force in the world. Congress has always pushed for gender equality and to allow women to serve in more military combat roles. However, should combat effectiveness be sacrificed for “gender equality”? Men and women are built differently, mentally, physically and genetically. Genders were created to be special, to have roles, and most importantly, to do things that the other gender couldn't do. War is not fun and games, people's lives depend on each other, it depends on teamwork, as the saying goes, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In April 2015 the U.S. Army Ranger Certification Course was open to women, allowing them to participate and earn the coveted Ranger (Latimes) title. Ranger School is a grueling 3-phase course, spanning advanced physical training, mountain combat and ambushes, as well as water operations. From the initial class of 60 women, none passed. It was only 2 classes later that, out of a class of 381 men and 19 women, 94 men and 2 women were able to pass and earn the Ranger tab. Then, in late 2015, congress opened all military combat roles to women in the name of gender equality and political correctness (Militarytimes.com). This means women can participate in armored combat divisions, combat aviation, as well as special operations such as 1st SFOD-D (Delta Force), Naval Special Warfare (SEALS), Airforce Pararescue (PJs), MARSOC, Army Special Forces . groups and much more. However, was the test truly equal and were men and women given equal opportunities? According to multiple sources reported by people.com, the answer is no. Below are the benefits they received that other course participants did not receive. “The women were first sent to a special two-week training course in January to prepare them for school, which didn't start until April 20. Once there, they could repeat the program until they passed, while the men were held to a rigorous pass/fail standard (people.com).” “They then spent months in a special platoon at Fort Benning receiving, among other things, nutritional counseling and full-time training with a Ranger. (people.com).” “While they were part of the special platoon, they were regularly taken to the land navigation course – a very tough part of the course which is weather. Men had to see it for the first time when they went to school (people.com).” “Once in school they could repeat key parts – such as patrols – while no particular attention was given to the men (people.com).” This is not equality, it means giving women special training, special preparation so that they know exactly what awaits them, while men are left to wander blindfolded in a dark labyrinth. After all the freebies and special treatments they received, the end result? Two women graduated on Aug. 21. Greist herself (one of the graduating Rangers) also said that she “thought we were going to be abandoned after disappointing Darby [Benning's side] the SECOND time,” [she said] in a press conference before graduation. "There wasoffered a first-day recycling service (People.com)." This is another example of how our military is becoming a political spectacle and changing policies in the name of political correctness and equality. While the officials say that standards remained the same and that they received the same treatment as men, instructors were able to confirm allegations that female participants were assured that at least one had graduated. One ranger instructor says that " we were under enormous pressure to conform, it was very politicized (people.com)". combat and war are no laughing matter, there is a bond between soldiers that must be maintained and they must trust and rely over each other during the war.” In frank and, at times, profanity-laced responses to a voluntary survey conducted by the Rand Corp., more than 7,600 U.S. special operations forces spoke almost with one voice. Allowing women to serve in the Navy SEALs, Delta Army or other commando units could undermine their effectiveness and lower standards, and could push men out of dangerous jobs. (bigstory.ap.org)”In the name of political correctness and gender equality so often promoted by Congress and our government, our military risks losing combat effectiveness due to the forced drive toward supposed “equality.” . Men and women were not given equal treatment in the first U.S. Army Ranger certification course, even though only two women graduated despite this. Men and women are built differently physically and genetically, which only increases their ineffectiveness in combat. There are some major differences with women, such as genetics and physical body parts. The first will be the breast, ballistic armor that threatens the rifle and armor carriers are simply not designed for women. Currently the US Army uses ESAPI Armor Plates as the primary ballistic armor for the rifle threat, ESAPI Armor Plates are shaped such that the armor is a rectangle, with the side corners cut at 45 degrees at the top, allowing ease of movement of the arm and slinging the rifle. The plate is designed to fit the chest and cover vital areas, with a 4-way curve on the edges. Now, this curvature is designed for men's flat chests, a woman's breasts would cause the plate to tilt downward, not only creating a gap between the body and the armor, but also causing discomfort for long periods of time . Most current US Army ballistic plates are rated at maximum ballistic value ONLY when paired with a soft armor mount. Soft armor and ballistic plate must fit the body to be most effective. Someone might present the counterargument that self-contained plates can be used, which can be used, however, which do not meet US military regulations for body armor, since complete envelopment of the soft armor along with the anti-body armor is also required rifle. Using both is not an option as self-contained plates are bulkier than ICW (soft armor) plates. Another argument would be that armor can be redesigned. That's correct, armor can be redesigned, however such a redesign would require years of prototyping and millions of taxpayer money, the military would literally need to redesign the ballistics and physics of the armor plates, as would military contractors and manufacturers of gears.