2016年5月19日雅思写作考试真题观点语料：女性是否允许参军？

北京雅思培训,雅思备考资料,雅思网课,雅思培训机构,雅思保分班,雅思真题,雅思课程

In many countries women are able to join the armed forces. However, some

people think only men should be members of the army, navy and air force. To what

extent do you agree or disagree?

很多国家，女人能够加入武装部队。然而，一些人认为只有男人应该成为陆军，海军和空军的一员，多大程度上你同意或不同意?

经典传送：剑桥雅思3-11写作考官9分范文汇总传送

真题传送门：2017全年雅思写作真题范文大汇总

5月雅思写作考试真题大作文范文汇总，点击进入

In many countries women are able to join the armed forces. However, some

people think only men should be members of the army, navy and air force. To what

extent do you agree or disagree?

1.话题背景：For over 3,000 years in a large number of cultures and nations, women

have played many roles in the military, from ancient warrior women, to the women

currently serving in conflicts, although the vast majority of all combatants in

every culture have been men.

Even though women serving in the military has often been controversial, a

very small number of women in history have fought alongside men. In the American

Civil War, there were a few women who cross-dressed as men in order to fight.

Fighting on the battlefront in disguise was not the only way women involved

themselves in war. Some also served as nurses and aides.

Despite various, though limited, roles in the armies of past societies, the

role of women in the military, particularly in combat, is controversial and it

is only recently that women have begun to be given a more prominent role in

contemporary armed forces. As increasing numbers of countries begin to expand

the role of women in their militaries, the debate continues.

军队中，女性一直扮演着各种角色，从古至今如此。尽管女性参军一直存在争议，但在战争史上，女性曾同男兵们并肩作战，虽然在所有的战斗兵种，男性依然占绝大多数。女性参军，尤其是女性参加战斗兵种，一直争议不断，也只是最近，女性才开始在当代的军队中获得相比较以往更高的地位，而随着女性的军中角色越来越多样化，争议还在继续。

以下辩论主要探讨的是女性是否应该扮演战斗角色?

Pro: 不但支持女性参军，还支持女性参与军队里的战斗角色。

1.Equal standards - There is no question that the average female is

physically weaker than the average male. But what are we to make of above

average females? If a woman with exceptional athletic ability and toughness can

meet and even exceed the standards currently set for male troops, then on what

basis should she be denied the job? For example, the current physical standard

to be a US Army Ranger involve completing 49 pushups, 59 situps, 6 pullups, and

running 5 miles in under 40 minutes. Another US Infantry standard is carrying a

35 pound pack in full combat gear for 12 miles in under 3 hours. There are women

who have completed and even exceeded both of these standards. Notably, 3 women

to date have passed the US Army Ranger School, by all accounts outperforming

many of their male peers. If these standards, which are currently deemed "good

enough" to qualify men for combat, are not changed, and women prove they can

meet those standards (they already have), then it qualifies as discrimination to

exclude those women solely for their chromosomes. Bottom line - if women meet

the same standard as men, there is no justification for denying them the

job.

2. Women already have proven competence in combat - A big driver in this

debate was the fact that women have already been exposed to combat in Iraq and

Afghanistan, so it made no sense to officially continue excluding them. There

are numerous accounts of women performing with courage and valor under fire.

Take, for instance, SPC Monica Brown, who was awarded the Silver Star for

running through enemy small arms and mortar fire to protect and treat wounded

infantrymen [1]. Or SGT Leigh Hester, also awarded the Silver Star, who

personally led an assault to clear enemy positions during an ambush in Iraq

resulting in 27 enemy KIA [2]. I challenge Con to justify why these Silver Star

winners should be excluded from serving in combat, given that they already have

and did so with distinction.

3. Other countries integrate with no problems - many modern armies are

already gender integrated, including Canada, Israel, Germany, Australia, and

Norway. It seems there are very few, if any, additional problems as a result of

their gender integrated ranks, because if there was a noticeable difference in

military performance they would cease the policy. In fact, according to National

Geographic, "A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF [Israeli

Defense Force] between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit 'superior

skills' in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face

prejudicial treatment stemming from 'a perceived threat to the historical male

combat identity.' [3]. If other modern armies (many of them NATO members) have

integrated with success, then there is no reason why the United States should be

a special exception.

Concerns upon a person's suitability to be a soldier, sailor or any other

position in the armed forces should be wholly based upon their ability and

individual concerns. Not upon such arbitrary concerns as gender.