• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

Lol. I think a lot of males here are upset because they would lose the exclusivity to one of their domains. It also seems to me that what the outdated study is grounded upon is the notion that men will place gender-bias ahead of battlefield necessity. You guys better toughen up.

Lugging around a gun is so difficult? Jeeze Louise. I have an M-4 and a pup-gun and neither is as heavy as my purse. There are certainly military roles which are more attuned to male participation. However, the converse is also true. There are certainly military roles in which females excel. The trick is in finding the proper balance.


Yea, that is all I lugged around in Iraq. I went out naked with just my M-4. They were like 'Hey, shouldn't you have on the 4 different armor plates, 120 rounds of ammunition, 14 M203 grenades, 2 fragmentation grenades, helmet, gloves, kneepad, radio, that we provided?'

I responded, "who needs 95lbs of gear?, I am quicker when I'm naked."

Oh, and we only went on 20 minute patrols....rrriiigght. Go carry your M-4 for 3 hours, I bet it gets heavier than you think.
 
If they wish to fight, let them fight.
You volunteering?

We create a PMS Brigade. Talk about a formidable weapon. :mrgreen:
 
Once again it is important that you understand the difference of an IED hitting your convoy, the convoy stopping and everyone taking up security positions until those in the hit vehicle are evacuated to another vehicle or airlifted out and then the convoy proceeding on to what I am speaking of as front-line infantry combat patrols.

Granted some of those convoys may come under further small arms fire, but I bet there is maybe a handful of instances where the female soldiers dismounted and conducted maneuvers to neutralize the small arms fire.

Sitting behind a sheet of armor in a humvee shooting a .50 cal is not the same doing a 2 hour patrol, taking contract and then being in a running gunfight for the next 4 hours.

This distinction is very important.

Therefore there has not been any accurate information (Or VERY little that can not be applied to such a broad issue) that could be used to judge how females would perform in front-line combat situations. Once again, infantry style combat is only comparable to infantry style combat. Serving in artillery is NOWHERE near the same experience as serving in the infantry.

.

So, let me see here. You don't want to study the current situations with women who are in combat, because it is the wrong type of combat and might not prove the point you want to prove. Why are you reacting so emotionally to something that should be analytical. You post a link to a way out of date study as justification for your position, I call for a new study with modern data, and you all of a sudden don't want to use actual, honest to god data, you just know you are right.

Despite your dismissiveness of women who have fought and died in service to our country, they do an incredible job, in combat. There is no shortage of data that can be gained from this, and a logical decision made about the future of women in combat.

All the arguments seen so far all sound very much like why "don't ask, don't tell" was not going to work, and why blacks could never serve in integrated units, and so on. This raises questions for me, and makes me seriously want to have some good, modern data to make a decision off of, which is hopefully what the British are using to make their decision.
 
Yea, that is all I lugged around in Iraq. I went out naked with just my M-4. They were like 'Hey, shouldn't you have on the 4 different armor plates, 120 rounds of ammunition, 14 M203 grenades, 2 fragmentation grenades, helmet, gloves, kneepad, radio, that we provided?'

I responded, "who needs 95lbs of gear?, I am quicker when I'm naked."

Oh, and we only went on 20 minute patrols....rrriiigght. Go carry your M-4 for 3 hours, I bet it gets heavier than you think.

Well, at least we made it to post # 101 before we got to the "women just are not good enough" argument that you had to know was behind all this.
 
I think for clarity sake, we need to seperate a few things out here.

Like GySgt mentions, thanks to there being no front line in Iraq, women have had to perform in combat situations. This is an unaviodable truth about the kind of war we are fighting.
So from what I can gather thus far, is that most are in agreement, that females in the military, particularly in the Marines and Army, should receive some kind of infantry training, even if it is basic in its nature and scope. Something beyond what they were taught in boot camp, but somewhat short of being a grunt as a primary specialty, after all, we still need to train these people in their roles as support be it logistical, administrative, airwing, etc... The IDF does this, and the Marines do this as well. If there is somebody here who has a problem with females even hoisting a rifle, I would strongly disagree with them. You can get hit anywhere, and you need some training to fall back on be you male or female.

The question is, should we allow women to specialize as infantrymen?
 
The question is, should we allow women to specialize as infantrymen?

I think now is a just fine time to look into it. I am not going to give an absolute yes or no answer, but I suspect it might be time to make the change. The arguments against it seem weak.
 
I assumed you would be able figure out that I was referring to the U.K./U.S. since we were discussing the role of women serving those two countries, but clearly you were wrong.

Let clarify my statement just for you. Although rape and plunder were once condoned as typical behavior for men at war, in certain countries times have changed. The U.K. armed forces now will actively punish soldiers who loot conquered nations or sexually assault women. This is a clear indication that the social behavior of men at war has changed, mirroring general changes in society at large.

Clearly you are wrong, again, because as soon as you make your bold sweeping claim, you again change to "men at war", and that includes Saddam's Republican Guard and Sudan's Janjaweed. The behavior of U.K. and U.S. soldiers might have changed, but your sweeping generalizations are simply factually inaccurate, since other nations also have war fighters.
 
Last edited:
Clearly you are wrong, again, because as soon as you make your bold sweeping claim, you again change to "men at war", and that includes Saddam's Republican Guard and Sudan's Janjaweed. The behavior of U.K. and U.S. soldiers might have changed, but your sweeping generalizations are simply factually inaccurate, since other nations also have war fighters.

Are you just going to be deliberately obtuse and continue to intentionally misunderstand everything I say?

If actually cared about correcting sweeping generalizations, you would have argued against Polynikes original sweeping generalization that men haven't changed in war at all.

Its true the many men still go around raping and plundering during war, but that has nothing to do with the countries we are discussing here. Stop throwing up smokescreens and post an actual argument.
 
Its true the many men still go around raping and plundering during war, but that has nothing to do with the countries we are discussing here. Stop throwing up smokescreens and post an actual argument.

It has everything to do with other countries, because they are in the War game too. This is a fact, and I feel no obligation to educate you about it further.

Your assertion was false and I proved it, time to move on.
 
Not a good move in my opinion. Seems like a further move to total war ideals. By keeping women from such roles, to me seems like a small respite from a total war mentality. Your saying in effect one section of the community has some sort of protection from the all encompassing needs of the military, whether or not having women in combat roles actually is good for military efficiency. It seems to me like also like a further blurring of distinctions for the sake of politically correct egalitarianism, often with vague promises that "it'll turn out alright" or "change must come".

One notes that it was such societies as the USSR and Communist China as well as Israel, societies of revolution and/or total war footings that are most known for the liberal use of women as soldiers.

I dont think its so much about "politcal correctness" as it is about being desperate for more recruits. I remember reading a year or so back that they,re relaxing the weight limit for new recruits quite dramatically.
 
So, let me see here. You don't want to study the current situations with women who are in combat, because it is the wrong type of combat and might not prove the point you want to prove. Why are you reacting so emotionally to something that should be analytical. You post a link to a way out of date study as justification for your position, I call for a new study with modern data, and you all of a sudden don't want to use actual, honest to god data, you just know you are right


It's not a matter of me 'wanting' to study the data available in combat, I just don't feel the data is sufficient to support a claim that women do not have adverse effects in combat when it was studied on a much broader level earlier. But according to you so much has changed in regards to warfare in the last 60 years that the data from that study is useless.

I am not reacting emotionally at all. It is frustrating however when I have to keep reiterating the same point over and over that you are seemingly failing to grasp, or are just ignoring. There is a huge difference between women serving as gunner in a convoy, or as a pilot etc.. than patrolling the streets as a designated infantryman.

As I stated before, that link merely highlighted some of the points I was making and articulated them in a different manner than I am. It was not the cornerstone of my argument, it was just a supporting piece. Read earlier posts please.

I don't 'know I am right about anything. I just don't see how a study of isolated incidents of women in a different type of combat is adequate enough to make such a broad change when there is a study that proved women in combat to be risky to the mission and puts the men involved at greater risk.

Despite your dismissiveness of women who have fought and died in service to our country, they do an incredible job, in combat. There is no shortage of data that can be gained from this, and a logical decision made about the future of women in combat.

You are the one now using an emotional appeal. Show me data that states they all did an incredible job. Don't make the argument that everyone who has died for their country, male of female, in combat did an incredible job. I am not taking away from the memory of them or the sacrifice they put forth, but to say they all did an incredible job is false.

I suppose we could measure this by citations and awards given to females? Granted this would not be a completely reliable study, but it would give facts over your opinion that they all do an incredible job 'in combat.'

Once again I will point out your definition of combat is far different than one an infantryman would give. All combat is not equal, and although I know women have endured some horrendous circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have not been exposed to it day in and day out on the 'front-line' as the infantry have.

All the arguments seen so far all sound very much like why "don't ask, don't tell" was not going to work, and why blacks could never serve in integrated units, and so on. This raises questions for me, and makes me seriously want to have some good, modern data to make a decision off of, which is hopefully what the British are using to make their decision

To say that this argument is similar to one of racial integration is illogical. There was no study or data that I am aware of that showed blacks jeopardized missions or were at any physical disadvantage when it came to combat.
 
Well, at least we made it to post # 101 before we got to the "women just are not good enough" argument that you had to know was behind all this.

Women 'not being good enough' is in no way what I am saying. You don't have to believe me when I say that I am a strong advocate for women's equality, but it is true. There is no sexism behind what I am saying. If anything I am saying that it is the men who are having the trouble adapting and not being able to deal with women in combat. It is not the women's fault at all, that is unfortunately just how it is. My point is that I don't think lives should have to be lost so women feel equality in this aspect.

You saying that I am representing the point of view that women are not good enough is a strawman argument and shows your own defensiveness and I suspect insecurities concerning the issue.
 
Let me suggest you go back and read the whole of my post. It's not long, it should be pretty simple. I even used small words. Here, let me quote myself so you cannot miss the important part I want you to see:



So, I talk about one small part of a post, specifically stating that I don't know enough to comment on the rest, and what do you do but complain that I do not comment on another part, that I already said I don't know enough about. And the best part of all is you did not actually comment on what I said that you felt the need to quote.
You didn't do him any favors, you just don't know any big words. :lol:
 
Alright Polynikes let us make this simpler.

1) What evidence do you have that putting women in front line infantry units would lower military effectiveness? Since you chose not to defend the link you posted, the 48 study is not valid.

2) What duties do you think make infantry duties more of an issue than armor or artillery? The combat load is irrelevant, as objective physical standards would ensure that soldiers have enough strength to carry out their.

3) Be more specific about what roles you are worried about women having. The sniper role is considered a front line infantry position, yet Russian women during WW2 excelled in such a role. Clearly, not all infantry jobs have the same requirements.

4) How exactly do you suggest studying the effects unless you test them?
 
Considered By Whom ?

Snipers always fight dismounted, making them infantry. They need direct-line of sight to perform their duties, making them front line.
 
Snipers always fight dismounted, making them infantry. They need direct-line of sight to perform their duties, making them front line.
Ahh, so considered by you, from layman's definitions.

Well snipers are not infantry, they are special forces. Infantry is not about whether you fight on foot or not, as artillery personnel are on foot, so are mechanics in the Motor Pool and MP's.

You are applying an inaccurate usage of the term infantry to the context of this discussion. I hope this clears up your error.
 
Ahh, so considered by you, from layman's definitions.

This is a political debate forum, are you expecting paid experts? There are plenty of military folks in this thread, and I am sure they will point out any errors I make.

Well snipers are not infantry, they are special forces.

Snipers are integrated into infantry formations, typically at the platoon or company level. Some snipers are part of special forces, but most are part of normal infantry formations.

Infantry is not about whether you fight on foot or not, as artillery personnel are on foot, so are mechanics in the Motor Pool and MP's.

Artillery is almost all self propelled or organic nowadays, but that is why I mentioned the line of site requirement as well. Mechanics and MP are not front-line combat personnel.

You are applying an inaccurate usage of the term infantry to the context of this discussion. I hope this clears up your error.

No, you are trying to nitpick my terminology and failing at it.
 
Some snipers are part of special forces

All are. They are not infantrymen, they recieve different training than infantrymen.

The context of this discussion, is unit assignments, in the British armed Forces. The fact is, all "snipers" in the British Armed Forces are special forces, whether detatched to an Infantry platoon or not.

No, you are trying to nitpick my terminology and failing at it.

Succeeding rather handily in fact.
 
Lol. I think a lot of males here are upset because they would lose the exclusivity to one of their domains. It also seems to me that what the outdated study is grounded upon is the notion that men will place gender-bias ahead of battlefield necessity. You guys better toughen up.

I do not know about the Israeli Military but in the US military there two different standards when it comes to males and females.

Lugging around a gun is so difficult? Jeeze Louise. I have an M-4 and a pup-gun and neither is as heavy as my purse.
Have you any of the other females in your unit ever carried around an Israeli equivalent to a M240? Unless you put alot of things in your purse this is a lot heavier than a purse.

USAF_M240B.jpg
 
Have you any of the other females in your unit ever carried around an Israeli equivalent to a M240? Unless you put alot of things in your purse this is a lot heavier than a purse.

USAF_M240B.jpg
Obviously, you've never lugged around a well-stocked woman's purse in one hand while carrying a screaming toddler in the other. :2razz:
 
I do not know about the Israeli Military but in the US military there two different standards when it comes to males and females.

And that would have to change if women are going to serve in infantry. I think we already pretty much agreed on that.
 
1) What evidence do you have that putting women in front line infantry units would lower military effectiveness? Since you chose not to defend the link you posted, the 48 study is not valid.

I wasn't aware that I had to defend the study. It speaks for itself. All I said was that it wasn't the cornerstone of my argument. I think the study is legitimate. I believe you want to disregard it in an effort to turn this debate into something subjective and opioniated.

2)
What duties do you think make infantry duties more of an issue than armor or artillery? The combat load is irrelevant, as objective physical standards would ensure that soldiers have enough strength to carry out their.


I just don't see how the physical aspect can be ignored when it is such a central part of life in the infantry. There is a reason grunts do physical training every single day, when the rest of the Marine Corps does 3 times a week, and half that time is spent 'at the gym' or playing basketball etc.

If you agree that women would have to pass the same tests as men, then why don't they already in their physical fitness tests? In the Marine Corps men do pullups or chin-ups, women do flexed arm hang. In the Army men do pushups and women do push-ups from modified kneeling position. I believe this says something in itself. Shouldn't this be an outrage to you?



Women in the Military: Combat Roles Considered

Another argument against women in combat is that they simply do not have the physical strength and endurance needed. Without a doubt, being in the military is a physically demanding job that not everyone is fit to handle. Despite this, all experts agree that there are some women, although perhaps small in number, who have the physical strength and endurance to be soldiers (Army Times, July 29, 1996). Concerning combat aviation some question whether women can handle the gravitational forces of an aircraft, but there is absolutely no evidence that says they cannot. It is interesting to note that everyone, including women, believe the physical standards for military occupational specialties (MOS) should be identical for both men and women



Race and Sex in the Military


The Washington Times (10/2/98) carried a story, by Rowan Scarborough, about a Marine Corps internal memorandum dictating that by 2003 its officer corps shall be 12 percent black, 12 percent Hispanic and 5 percent other ethnic origins. In the wake of the memo's controversy, Marine Commandant, General Charles C. Krulak did the Clintonist double talk saying that "12-12-5" stemmed from guidelines he approved earlier but, "The fact of the matter is I confessed to signing something I was not really attuned to." General Krulak feigns offense at the idea marines would have standards lowering racial quotas. But that's the same military rope-a-dope about not lowering standards to accommodate women. Let's look at it.

The "USMA report on the Integration and Performance of Women at West Point", cited by Mackubin Thomas Owens, in Proceedings (July 1998) reveals sex-norming schemes whereby women receive A grades for the same performance that earns a man a D. Navy women pass physical readiness tests by performing 11% fewer sit-ups, 53% fewer push-ups, and running 1.5 miles 27% slower than men. The Marine Corps discovered that only 45% of female Marines could toss a hand grenade beyond its burst radius; one Army study reported only 12% could. Navy studies show that only 12% of women can accomplish the two-person stretcher carry, a requirement critical to ship security. Women may be able to drive a five-ton truck, but need a man's help if they must change a tire. Women can fire field artillery pieces but often can't handle the ammunition.
Senator Olympia Snowe (R.ME) says, "Every time a woman is excluded from a position [in the military], she is devalued." That's the kind of stupid thinking that ignores important physical and psychological sex differences and has compromised our military readiness. A partial listing of those differences include: the average female soldier is five inches shorter than her male counter-part, has half the upper body strength, has significantly lower aerobic capacity (at her physical peak, ages 20 to 30, the average woman has the aerobic capacity of a 50-year-old male), and 37% less muscle mass. Women have a much lighter skeleton that means, among other things, she can't pull G forces as well as men and is at greater risk of skeletal injuries.

Women soldiers are four times more likely to report ill. The percentage of women being medically non-available at any time is twice that of male soldiers. Then there's pregnancy. Each year, between 10 and 17 percent of servicewomen become pregnant. In certain posts the rate is higher. In 1988, James Webb, Secretary of the Navy, said 51% of single Air Force and 48% of single Navy women stationed in Iceland were pregnant. During troop deployment in Bosnia, between December 1995 and July 1996, a woman had to be evacuated due to pregnancy every three days. These and other factors mean that women suffer a higher rate of attrition than men and because of the turnover they are not as profitable training investments.

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of military social engineering is official coverup of failure. Officers who criticize double standards or expose official lies and deception, risk their careers. If General Krulak's quota plan goes forward, you can bet there will be just as much lying and deception about race.

Blacks are 11% of Army officers, and 6% of the officers in the other branches. Hispanics are roughly 4% of the officers in each branch. Black and Hispanic officers should be at the forefront of the protest against Krulak's quota program, or have their achievements seen as handouts. More importantly Krulak should be fired.

Walter E. Williams





So if we ignore the physical aspect, my other arguments are still valid, check back to earlier posts.

3) Be more specific about what roles you are worried about women having. The sniper role is considered a front line infantry position, yet Russian women during WW2 excelled in such a role. Clearly, not all infantry jobs have the same requirements.


I have explained the role numerous times. Infantryman. Not tankers or artillery, which I believe they could do. It is the role in the infantry that is the only one I don't believe women should be involved in.

I do believe women could fill a role as a sniper much more effectively than they could as an infantrymen. The justification is that they would endanger a very limited amount of people. If you look back to one of the main reasons for women 'jeopardizing missions' it wasn't any of their mental or physical shortcomings, but how men reacted to them either being wounded or trying to protect them. If an army were to deploy female snipers, only the spotter and perhaps another sniper team in close vicinity would feel responsible for her or even know their locations. As well as the teams commander and those above him.

4) How exactly do you suggest studying the effects unless you test them

In my opinion the effects have been tested with the 1948 study. I haven't yet seen one argument that states why that study is invalid. I don't see how the fundamentals of warfare has changed enough to warrant such a broad change.
 
As I stated in my first post that my views are never set in stone and although I haven't changed my opinion concerning the issue, I have definitely thought about it in a new light. Throughout the course of this debate, points that were brought up by members of the forum and by my own research have led me to some interesting articles and studies that do deserve attention.

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/NovDec02/NovDec02/wojack.pdf


Women in Combat


This quote sums up how I feel in regards to the physical aspect, which was least of my concerns.

"The pure and simple point is that all jobs should be open to women and men - if and only if - the women and men are qualified, capable, competent, and able to perform them! Nothing more, nothing less."



The most important aspect that warrants more attention is a study into whether women do jeopardize the mission as the IDF study of 1948 implies

For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said.


I don't believe the data is sufficient enough at this time to reverse the policy, but I certainly believe it is not a closed issue, and is one that should not be looked into further. My concern, as voiced before, is that lives would be lost in order for this study to come to a decisive conclusion.
 
Back
Top Bottom