Women have been fighting for equal rights for many years. Yet, there is still a stigma about them being allowed to fight alongside men on the front line. Why? Women are just as intelligent, strong and as capable as men. So why should a persons gender determine what they can and cannot do?

In a warzone, however, the enemy are not so judging. Private Eleanor Dlugosz, who was killed by a bomb in Basra, was the first British servicewoman to be killed in action in Afghanistan. Although not technically on the front line, Private Dlugosz, as part of the Intelligence Corps, carried out 'one of the most delicate and dangerous jobs in Afghanistan, collecting precious information, making local contacts and trying to win over the Afghan population to British counter-insurgency efforts'.

Thus, women may even prove to be better than men in some certain situations. Defence Experts have found that it is easier to gain the trust of Afghan women and help in schools if they are approached by a female soldier. Being able to identify with each other allows for easier communication.

Although it must be said that there are some differences between the sexes, for example men are physically stronger than most women, strength isn't always a factor. The only strength that matters is strength of mind and heart. Women can be just as fit as the men. Their gender shouldn't have to be an issue. I have heard arguments that perhaps women have an effect on the men that could cause them to risk their own lives to save a woman's. Chivalry is not dead yet. Some have said that although all deaths affect the ones serving alongside them, perhaps a woman's death causes a deeper pain. I once heard, 'Men and women will never be equal in life until they are equal in death too'. However, Jo Salter, the RAF’s first female fighter pilot, disagrees saying“It’s always so sad when there’s any death at all. Gender isn’t the issue.”

In my view, there isn't really much that a man can do that a woman can't. If she has chosen to join the Armed Forces she is well aware what could face her. I see know reason why she should be stopped from helping the war effort on the front line due to something she has no control over.

As a person with a disability that affects my social skills, nothing annoys me more than people dismissing me out of hand as a potential employee because I'm terrible at face-to-face interviews, when the job I'm applying for has no contact with humans necessary to do the job that is at all simulated in an interview.

Like any job, soldiers should not be picked for the front line based upon irrelevant differences. If a soldier has the physical and mental qualities necessary to handle it, they should be selected. Many women may not be physically strong enough or emotionally resilient enough to fight on the front line. A lot of men aren't either, it is a tough job, exceptional people are needed. To discount someone immediately for being female is to lose out on a potential candidate.

That women are necessary for the survival of the human race is technically a relevant difference, as soldiers on the front line are so much more likely to die than people performing other jobs, but the reality is that we aren't short of women, men are declining, and women are no more going to suddenly all want to fight on the front lines than they are going to want to do any other job, so its not going to put a statistically noticeable dent in the population.

If motherhood is a relevant difference, so is fatherhood, and childless women still have no reason not to fight on the front lines.

If a woman wants to go to the front line and fight, she should be able to have the power to make her own decision, just like a man can. It is sexist to say that only men can fight on the front lines, and deny women equal opportunities in the military.