Absolutely not.
Aside from nurses on hospital ships, the Department of the Navy began authorizing female sailors to serve aboard non-combat vessels during FY 1979. The first women reported aboard their respective ships by November 1, 1978.
Women were not officially allowed to serve as soldiers in the Revolutionary War, but many disguised themselves as men to fight. Some women, like Deborah Sampson, took on male identities to enlist and serve in combat roles. Additionally, women contributed to the war effort in various other ways, such as providing support as nurses, cooks, and in supply management. Their involvement was crucial, even if they were not recognized as formal combatants.
They are allowed on all of them. They currently serve on all but the smallest ships that do not have accomodations for them such as Frigates.
Women were generally only allowed to serve as nurses.
They did not serve "combat" positions, however they did serve in dangerous roles as nurses and in other non combat military occupations. Most women in the military during WWII were used to free up jobs in the US, to allow for more Men to go overseas to fight. The largest role of women during WWII was leaving the home to take over jobs for men as they went off to war, by doing so, they ran factories, made bombs, equipment and kept our country running while the boys were off at war. The above answer applies to the United States only. Soviet women werein actual "combat" in various capacities (pilots, snipers, etc.).
Because women should have equal rights, and should be able to serve there country.
Yes, pregnant women are allowed at the Nashville Shores Waterpark.
beacuse women have the potential
yes
Women were officially allowed to serve in combat roles in the U.S. military starting in 2013 when the Department of Defense lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions. This policy change opened up all military occupations and positions to women, allowing them to participate in direct combat roles. Prior to this, women had served in various capacities during conflicts but were restricted from formal combat roles. The decision marked a significant milestone in gender equality within the armed forces.
Yes, women should be allowed to serve in combat roles, as they bring valuable skills and perspectives to the military. Many women have demonstrated their capabilities in various military capacities, proving that gender does not determine one's ability to perform effectively in combat situations. Inclusion promotes diversity, enhances team dynamics, and reflects the reality of modern armed forces where roles are increasingly based on individual qualifications rather than gender. Ultimately, the focus should be on the individual's skills, training, and readiness to serve.
Women were not allowed to serve as members of the Roman Legions.
Women were not allowed to serve in the military.ANSWER 2same as most wars, pretend to be a man - i imagine it does, or did, happen more than we know - women have a long history of serving in combat and can be every bit as capable as man and just dont like to be told they cant - my mom was one who served as a radio operater on B-17's to ferry the planes about and would have jumped at any chance to serve in combat if allowed
Women are allowed to serve in many more positions than they used to. Now in the US women can serve in pretty much every position with the exceptions of combat arms (i.e. infantry, artillery, etc) and spec ops positions.
no yes they should be able to participate in combat duty
All makeup is allowed. If you wore it when you weren't pregnant you can wear it now.
maybe