• 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.

Obviously, you've never lugged around a well-stocked woman's purse in one hand while carrying a screaming toddler in the other. :2razz:

Have most of the females in the IDF done such a thing while in service?

I have lugged around kids too and diaper bags.However that is nothing compared to running up a hill with a flack vest on while carrying a 249 saw,ammo,packed ruck sack,filled canteens, water and ammo.
 
Last edited:
And that would have to change if women are going to serve in infantry. I think we already pretty much agreed on that.
If the government does decided to allow females into the infantry do you think they are going to be held to the same current standards(not standards lowered) as their male counterparts or do you think the female soldiers will have the same substandards they do now in the US military?
 
Obviously, you've never lugged around a well-stocked woman's purse in one hand while carrying a screaming toddler in the other. :2razz:

Obviously you have never done a 12 mile hike with a M240 across your soldiers and 75 lbs on your back, up hills, in 75-90 degree heat.

I would take a purse and a toddler any day.
 
If the government does decided to allow females into the infantry do you think they are going to be held to the same current standards(not standards lowered) as their male counterparts or do you think the female soldiers will have the same substandards they do now in the US military?

For combat/infantry duty, I would certainly object to different standards based on sex.
 
How big are the logistics requirements? Everything you mentioned except tampons and medical stuff could be ignored, and I doubt that would have any noticeable impact on supplies. Considering that woman don't need to shave, it is possible they might even come out ahead in logistics.

You are right. Many things could be ignored. However, we guage in regards to Boot Camp. When it comes to the female needs (as prescribed by our culture) the watchdogs are always ensuring that the women have what they need. This is not to suggest that their training is less intensive, but to show that special accomodations are a requirment. "Mothers of America" has a large impact.

There are plenty of women that could carry a man across a battle field, do without a shower for a month, and even outrun some men. But there are plenty more that simply cannot. And opening a Grunt unit to women means that plenty would not be able to handle the rigors and eventually would bring down the moral of the unit.

But in comes the idea that standards should be set to set apart those few as if they are auditioning for a special op unit. This brings in another problem. There are physical standards already set. For example: Twenty "dead hang" pull ups will get a male Marine a max of 100 points on his [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_Physical_Fitness_Test"]PFT[/ame]. The equivelent for a female Marine is Seventy seconds of flex arm hang. In other words, the male must come completely down and straighten his arm twenty times for a max score, but a female only has to keep hanging on the bar, bent at the elbow, for seventy seconds to achieve the same score. Keep in mind that these scores have everything to do with judging a Marine's ability to be a Marine and his/her promotions.

Now, obviously putting women in an Infantry Unit is possible. But it is not practical nor is it easily done. We are talking about a looooot of changes, which include convincing "Mothers of America," who do not want their daughters facing down AK-47s in an intentional fire fight, that equality actually means equality in some books.
 
Gunny, outside of the logistics issue, which is really minor, your list reads very similar to what I heard when "don't ask, don't tell" was first suggested, and when allowing blacks to serve in integrated units was first proposed.


The logistics issue is most certainly not minor. Blacks had nothing to with physical and mental ability and homosexualty really comes down a trraditional stubborness of "icky." We are talking about a seperate category when it comes to females.

Consider also the cultural issue. Think in terms of generalities. People have sons and daughters. Which would they prefer to kick in a door to face a possible AK? It's just not a step our culture feels is necessary to defeat enemies. I'm all about women equality and such. I believe that if people look down through history in most civilizations, that they will find that women are the life blood of societies. But "equality" only goes so far when we start thinking about dropping females into situations where they will be on the attack on the ground against a male enemy that can easily overpower them in hand to hand. Here I have seen the argument that "hand-to-hand" isn't a factor of combat anymore. Yet, Marines saw the worst hand-to-hand fighting since Vietnam in Najaaf in 2003. Is America ready top place their daughters in a fight to the death against a man?
 
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.


This is a fact. They are attachments. They are trained at a much higher standard in foriegn weapons use, movements, and tactics. After their training, they can be assigned to the MEF level or the Infantry company level. Some are assigned to the CIA for certain missions and even to foriegn militaries on "loan."

But when we speak of shooting abilities, we encounter another problem. Wolmen genarally do not shoot the rifle as well as men because of arm lengths. There is a technique to supporting the weapon with your body and the shorter Marines (encompassing about all the females) have the most difficulty. But here is a little known fact....our females generally shoot the pistol better than the men. I couldn't say for any sort of certainty, but if I had to guess I would state that it is because women have an easier time calming their body before squeezing the trigger where as men generally are impatient to pull the trigger.

But back on subject, the Sniper Rifle is longer than the M16.
 
This is a fact. They are attachments. They are trained at a much higher standard in foriegn weapons use, movements, and tactics. After their training, they can be assigned to the MEF level or the Infantry company level. Some are assigned to the CIA for certain missions and even to foriegn militaries on "loan."

But when we speak of shooting abilities, we encounter another problem. Wolmen genarally do not shoot the rifle as well as men because of arm lengths. There is a technique to supporting the weapon with your body and the shorter Marines (encompassing about all the females) have the most difficulty. But here is a little known fact....our females generally shoot the pistol better than the men. I couldn't say for any sort of certainty, but if I had to guess I would state that it is because women have an easier time calming their body before squeezing the trigger where as men generally are impatient to pull the trigger.

But back on subject, the Sniper Rifle is longer than the M16.

Sniper rifle has a bipod and usually fired from a prone position, no?
 
Sniper rifle has a bipod and usually fired from a prone position, no?

True, it is usually fired from a supported position. But sometimes it is not. We can not train to what "usually" may occur. They also carry the M16 for closer proximity and immediate threat.
 
True, it is usually fired from a supported position. But sometimes it is not. We can not train to what "usually" may occur. They also carry the M16 for closer proximity and immediate threat.

<~~was in navy, so unsure on alot of this.

If women had to meet physical and marksmanship standards, would that eliminate this argument against women in combat? I do think combat readiness is the most important thing, but think that women can serve without risking that combat readiness. Things would have to change for that to work though, and standards for women serving in combat would be one of those things.
 
<~~was in navy, so unsure on alot of this.

If women had to meet physical and marksmanship standards, would that eliminate this argument against women in combat? I do think combat readiness is the most important thing, but think that women can serve without risking that combat readiness. Things would have to change for that to work though, and standards for women serving in combat would be one of those things.

Well the actual argument applies to the general truth. As with every rule, there are exceptions. Some are arguing for the general truth and you are arguing the exceptions.

Aside from cultural acceptance, in and out of the American military, there is nothing keeping the individual woman from walking side by side with a man in a combat seek-and-destroy patrol. But the "exceptions" would have to acknowledge that it would be their responsibility to bend towards the logistical make up of an Infantry Battalion and not expect the Infantry Battalion to sacrifice speed and expedience to cater to gender.

When Marine Combat Training (MCT) first started accepting women as the next step training of Marines after Boot Camp, it was discovered after a few classes that training for the men was sacrificed to accomodate for the women's ability to keep up. This was not intentional, but the natural course of things when men start taking on the role of big brother or leaders have to weigh "team." The women couldn't slow the men down, but nor could they be excluded from the training the men got. The result to this day is that female Marines are "forgiven" for not being able to keep up on hikes or other such rigorous activities and applauded for doing their best. Of course, there are the very few who do keep up and this would be the exception you argue for.

So, it's do-able, but very tricky and would involve a lot of waivers and singled out training for the few. Rules, procedures, and doctrines would have to change. And it would have to be gradual. You mentioned earlier about gays in the military. Clinton's mistake with this was that he sought to appease his constituents early by seeking to force gays in the military. The result was the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy, which had a negative impact on gays in uniform because now there was a forced public policy to conduct administrative seperations where once the issue was usually ignored as a secret. Another result was the complete alienation of the Pentagon from the President. And Clinton proved that it is very hard to deal with international issues without the military in your corner. The President that decides to take the gender step must realize that he has to ease it and not force it. Beyond the mental attitude of the members, the military has to be prepared to do it administratively and logistically.
 
Last edited:
Well the actual argument applies to the general truth. As with every rule, there are exceptions. Some are arguing for the general truth and you are arguing the exceptions.

Aside from cultural acceptance, in and out of the American military, there is nothing keeping the individual woman from walking side by side with a man in a combat seek-and-destroy patrol. But the "exceptions" would have to acknowledge that it would be their responsibility to bend towards the logistical make up of an Infantry Battalion and not expect the Infantry Battalion to sacrifice speed and expedience to cater to gender.

When Marine Combat Training (MCT) first started accepting women as the next step training of Marines after Boot Camp, it was discovered after a few classes that training for the men was sacrificed to accomodate for the women's ability to keep up. This was not intentional, but the natural course of things when men start taking on the role of big brother or leaders have to weigh "team." The women couldn't slow the men down, but nor could they be excluded from the training the men got. The result to this day is that female Marines are "forgiven" for not being able to keep up on hikes or other such rigorous activities and applauded for doing their best. Of course, there are the very few who do keep up and this would be the exception you argue for.

So, it's do-able, but very tricky and would involve a lot of waivers and singled out training for the few. Rules, procedures, and doctrines would have to change. And it would have to be gradual. You mentioned earlier about gays in the military. Clinton's mistake with this was that he sought to appease his constituents early by seeking to force gays in the military. The result was the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy, which had a negative impact on gays in uniform because now there was a forced public policy to conduct administrative seperations where once the issue was usually ignored as a secret. Another result was the complete alienation of the Pentagon from the President. And Clinton proved that it is very hard to deal with international issues without the military in your corner. The President that decides to take the gender step must realize that he has to ease it and not force it. Beyond the mental attitude of the members, the military has to be prepared to do it administratively and logistically.

I do agree it would be hard to do, and if you are going to do it, you have to do it right, which means the hard way.

Thank you for the anecdotes and information. Was fascinating and educational.
 
But when we speak of shooting abilities, we encounter another problem. Wolmen genarally do not shoot the rifle as well as men because of arm lengths. There is a technique to supporting the weapon with your body and the shorter Marines (encompassing about all the females) have the most difficulty. But here is a little known fact....our females generally shoot the pistol better than the men. I couldn't say for any sort of certainty, but if I had to guess I would state that it is because women have an easier time calming their body before squeezing the trigger where as men generally are impatient to pull the trigger.

Statistically speaking, the Russian female snipers were arguably more effective than any other country. Despite only numbering around 2000, 9 of them managed to score more than 100 kills. There are many factors in sniping, and clearly women have advantages in other areas to make up for the problems you described.
 
Statistically speaking, the Russian female snipers were arguably more effective than any other country. Despite only numbering around 2000, 9 of them managed to score more than 100 kills. There are many factors in sniping, and clearly women have advantages in other areas to make up for the problems you described.

Absolutely. But, many Russian female Snipers were partisans. They were able to move more freely and get into prime locations easier. And generally speaking, the female in civilian clothing wasn't exactly what the German was looking towards as a threat.

Sniper Rifles are fired generally from fixed or supported positions. The M16 (a part our Sniper's armament) is not. A "soldier" is not going to be placed in a dangerous situation out on his own because he can fire one of his weapons well. Russians during WWII didn't have but one Sniper Rifle. The American Sniper usually carries an M-40, M16/M4, and M9. And some Snipers carry the M83 .50 depending on the mission, which is not a piece of luggage easily carried around even for the men.
 
Absolutely. But, many Russian female Snipers were partisans. They were able to move more freely and get into prime locations easier. And generally speaking, the female in civilian clothing wasn't exactly what the German was looking towards as a threat.

What exactly is the purpose of that statement? I don't want to put any words in your mouth, so I would ask you clarify so I don't get the wrong idea.

Sniper Rifles are fired generally from fixed or supported positions. The M16 (a part our Sniper's armament) is not. A "soldier" is not going to be placed in a dangerous situation out on his own because he can fire one of his weapons well.

The weapon used by the Russian snipers in WW2 was the same length and slightly heavier than m16. Sure you have a difference between an assault rifle and an bolt action rifle, but there is nothing preventing a woman from using either weapon effectively.

Russians during WWII didn't have but one Sniper Rifle. The American Sniper usually carries an M-40, M16/M4, and M9. And some Snipers carry the M83 .50 depending on the mission, which is not a piece of luggage easily carried around even for the men.

So what? Obviously a sniper has to be able to carry their equipment. If a woman can't carry an m82, they she won't use the weapon. No different than a skinny 5'4'' guy.
 
What exactly is the purpose of that statement? I don't want to put any words in your mouth, so I would ask you clarify so I don't get the wrong idea.



The weapon used by the Russian snipers in WW2 was the same length and slightly heavier than m16. Sure you have a difference between an assault rifle and an bolt action rifle, but there is nothing preventing a woman from using either weapon effectively.



So what? Obviously a sniper has to be able to carry their equipment. If a woman can't carry an m82, they she won't use the weapon. No different than a skinny 5'4'' guy.

You have missed the point completely. Any crippled person with one leg and one trigger finger can fire any weapon from a fixed location where bricks, mortar, and rocks act as support. The female snipers in Russia were able to slip through enemy lines and get into positions easier than the men because women "were not the threat." And once they got into position, they simply had to steady the rifle on a target using artificial support to steady and squeeze.

The ability to carry a weapon was also not the point. Any cripple with one arm and one eye can carry an M82, an M16, and an M9. But M16s are not fired from fixed locations like a Sniper Rifle is. The Sniper must be able to stand, aim, and fire this rifle true without the luxury of using other objects like stone or bipod to steady the weapon.

You state that there is nothing preventing a woman from firing both weapons effectivley. I state that there is and I use the overwhelming amount of female Marines that have trouble firing the M16 because of there arm length ratio to the weapon. There is also a matter "chest" obstruction. However, as was the case with my ex and plenty of others, they use their chest to steady the rifle by giving it a "legal" support base. But given this tactic, it strengthens the fact that women have difficulty firing rifles without artificial support like a bipod, the ground, or their "chest" to steady the weapon.

Now, aside from the firing aspects, there is most certainly a physical strength barrier to consider. Also, Snipers are often forward or seperated from large unit numbers. If captured, they will suffer the stigma of imprisonment. And the American culture isn't going to be too keen on the prospect that their women are being placed in posoitions where captivity will involve continual rape and other such devious acts while imprisoned.

Why do people only argue this from the "a woman can do anything a man can do" platform? There is a cultural issue at play as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom