• 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!

Navy will soon let women serve on subs

Women represent a significant portion of manpower in the combat units that they serve in; in the Anti-Aircraft Division and in the Artillery Corps, women represent 20 percent of soldiers, 25 percent of soldiers in Search and Rescue units, 10 percent of the Border Police, and the Caracal Battalion - a combat battalion - is made up of 70 percent female soldiers. In addition, this year marked the first year in which women are eligible to serve in the Field Intelligence Corps.​


The Border Police:

Israel Defense Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other than the National Service (Sherut Leumi), IDF conscripts may serve in bodies other than the IDF in a number of ways. The combat option is Israel Border Police (Magav) service, part of the Israel Police. Some soldiers complete their IDF combat training and later undergo additional terror and Border Police training. These are assigned to Border Police units. The Border Police units fight side by side with the regular IDF combat units. They are also responsible for security in heavy urban areas such as Jerusalem.

Sounds like combat to me.
 
What part of them not being as adaptable or efficient as whites did you miss? or that segregation on board ship was not feasible?

Fact: Males have greater upper body strength than females.
Fact: The majority of black men and white men have the same upper body strength.
Fact: Males have a different mindset than females. Men and women are wired differently.
Fact: The majority of men are wired the same way as are females.

You cannot compare race to sex in this case.

Do you have anything else irrelevant to add?
 
It's an all volunteer force. Why would someone not want to deploy?

Are you certain you were in the military during Vietnam????

I mean we have a little thing called deserters and it has been a problem since day 1. People don't want to deploy for a whole host of reasons.
 
It's an all volunteer force. Why would someone not want to deploy?
And besides, it's an easy fix.

Just require that females in the military take a pregnancy test each month, or something, and then you always know which of your female personnel are going to be available for deployment.

This would be much less of an issue if someone gets that artificial womb invented…

The Mark <-- Reads too many sci-fi books.
 
It's an all volunteer force. Why would someone not want to deploy?

Oh...lets see...they like the education benefits? The steady paychecks? the career opportunities? The access to healthcare? NOT wanting to be apart from family, babies, kids, loved ones? Thats a short list...

I spent 7 trips into different places in the middle east...at least 30 shorter term deployments...I really wasnt enthused about leaving my family ever.
 
And besides, it's an easy fix.

Just require that females in the military take a pregnancy test each month, or something, and then you always know which of your female personnel are going to be available for deployment.

This would be much less of an issue if someone gets that artificial womb invented…

The Mark <-- Reads too many sci-fi books.

Im all for the NORPLANT mandatory for anyone within 6 months of a deployment window.
 
blackdog said:
You cannot compare race to sex in this case.

Do you have anything else irrelevant to add?
You're mixing your arguments, and have been doing so for quite some time.

The 'whites vs blacks' argument was originally made a point of in order to contradict the claim that 'women working with men would have a bad effect on the men' - because an equal claim was made about black integration and everyone got over it fairly fast. The same, I suspect, will go for repealing DADT. A competent soldier will quickly be recognised as a competent soldier, whether they are black/white, straight/gay, or male/female.

That 'men are stronger than women' has nothing to do with integration. It's an entirely seperate point - one which is seperately rendered invalid by the fact that, although this is the case, some women would undoubtably be physically fit enough to work competantly on a sub.

Your only remaining argument, from what I can see, is that there is a risk that standards will be lowered in order that more women get accepted. Personally, I think that's unlikely - but there's no way of proving it, either way. You'll just have to wait and see.
 
Fact: Males have greater upper body strength than females.
Fact: The majority of black men and white men have the same upper body strength.
Fact: Males have a different mindset than females. Men and women are wired differently.
Fact: The majority of men are wired the same way as are females.

You cannot compare race to sex in this case.

Do you have anything else irrelevant to add?
:confused::confused::confused: :confused:
 
Your only remaining argument, from what I can see, is that there is a risk that standards will be lowered in order that more women get accepted. Personally, I think that's unlikely - but there's no way of proving it, either way. You'll just have to wait and see.
Just so everyone is aware, I am 99.9999% sure that male and female physical standards are ALREADY different - as in, the female ones are lower - in all branches of the military.

As to combat/non-combat standards, I couldn't say.
 
Just so everyone is aware, I am 99.9999% sure that male and female physical standards are ALREADY different - as in, the female ones are lower - in all branches of the military.

As to combat/non-combat standards, I couldn't say.

And it should be changed to one standard.
 
Can anyone present any evidence that the direct benefits to allowing women to serve on subs will outweigh the direct costs?

So far, I've seen posts primarily comprised of "but but but some girls have big muscles too!" and "it's so nice when we all get along and have one fair standard." Hardly convincing. When it comes to the military, I'm less concerned about being fair and more concerned about maximizing a unit's efficacy.
 
And it should be changed to one standard.
I agree, with conditions.

I think we can all agree that a large percentage of females will not be able to match any given male, given the same general physical conditioning start point, training time, motivation and opportunities.

But females can serve in many positions that do not require high physical conditioning, or which require high physical conditioning to a lesser extent.

Some could, but not most.

Thus, if the basic “one size fits all” standard prevents too many females with above average female physical condition, or allows too many males with sub-standard male physical condition….

So I would think a “job-based” standard system would be more reasonable.

I assume such is the case already, in most cases.

However, perhaps entrance-wise it would be reasonable as well.

Trainee T1 performs to X standard in the physical department, so Trainee T1 is eligible for positions requiring physical conditioning levels of X standard.

Trainee T2 performs to X-2 standard in the physical department, so Trainee T2 is eligible for positions requiring physical conditioning levels of X-2 standard.

Now, I have no idea if this is already the case (I assume it is, however, in some fashion).

But…

You get the idea.
 
I agree, with conditions.

I think we can all agree that a large percentage of females will not be able to match any given male, given the same general physical conditioning start point, training time, motivation and opportunities.

But females can serve in many positions that do not require high physical conditioning, or which require high physical conditioning to a lesser extent.

Some could, but not most.

Thus, if the basic “one size fits all” standard prevents too many females with above average female physical condition, or allows too many males with sub-standard male physical condition….

So I would think a “job-based” standard system would be more reasonable.

I assume such is the case already, in most cases.

However, perhaps entrance-wise it would be reasonable as well.

Trainee T1 performs to X standard in the physical department, so Trainee T1 is eligible for positions requiring physical conditioning levels of X standard.

Trainee T2 performs to X-2 standard in the physical department, so Trainee T2 is eligible for positions requiring physical conditioning levels of X-2 standard.

Now, I have no idea if this is already the case (I assume it is, however, in some fashion).

But…

You get the idea.

That would be a great idea. I think the only place it is used is in special forces...

Navy Seals
Rangers

Etc...

Otherwise it is for now one size fits all, and that just does not work.

I don't think it will ever be changed either.
 
The government wants women in the military to succeed and the only way that can happen is to lower the physical standards.....If you did not do that then there would be few women in the military, with the exception of your medical field because very few can handle the physical standards set for a man....

I know a couple of people are going to slam me for this but it is the truth.....

its like the old joke where you have a bunch of men and women in formation and the Sgt says we have this dangerous mission...6 men step forward so that happenes and then the Sgt says any women that want to volunteer for this mission step forward..........

I hope everyone can see the hypocrisy.......
 
Can anyone present any evidence that the direct benefits to allowing women to serve on subs will outweigh the direct costs?

So far, I've seen posts primarily comprised of "but but but some girls have big muscles too!" and "it's so nice when we all get along and have one fair standard." Hardly convincing. When it comes to the military, I'm less concerned about being fair and more concerned about maximizing a unit's efficacy.
Well, so far it seems we cannot even agree on what the direct benefits or the direct costs would be, never mind quantifying them into a directly comparable manner. Analogies might work though - one analogy I can think of which supports women on subs is the fact that women have been (successfully) resident on places such as the international space station - although this doesn't have such a requirement on brute strength, there are equally high qualification levels to get into space, and it's equally a potentially claustrophobic and undeniably isolated situation.

As I said before, the biggest benefit I can see would be that increasing the number of applicants (as long as standards do not falter) is mathematically likely to benefit you - as long as a single woman is chosen over a man, you have benefited from the system (not because she's a woman, but because she must have been better than the man she replaced in order to get selected).

As to the "it's so nice when we all have one standard" - that isn't a direct benefit for the military, but by further undermining the patriarchal/chauvinistic/misogynistic (pick your euphemism) ideal that 'a woman should be kept nice and safe away from harm', it'll benefit society as a whole. The sometimes thinly veiled comments in this thread about 'a woman in a combat zone will just menstruate all over the place, ho ho' could do with a good kicking.
 
Last edited:
The government wants women in the military to succeed and the only way that can happen is to lower the physical standards.....If you did not do that then there would be few women in the military, with the exception of your medical field because very few can handle the physical standards set for a man....

I know a couple of people are going to slam me for this but it is the truth.....

its like the old joke where you have a bunch of men and women in formation and the Sgt says we have this dangerous mission...6 men step forward so that happenes and then the Sgt says any women that want to volunteer for this mission step forward..........

I hope everyone can see the hypocrisy.......

Do you have any evidence that physical standards have been reduced (as to reduce military effectiveness) because of women in the military?

It is important to remember that increased technology in warfare means that a certain level of physical fitness that was needed in the past may not be needed today.

On top of that, you also need to compare the gains to a military from having more soldiers (women) with any loss of efficiency... which may or may not exist.

If this is about making the military stronger, then it isn't about opinion, its about whatever studies have been done.
 
The government wants women in the military to succeed and the only way that can happen is to lower the physical standards.....If you did not do that then there would be few women in the military, with the exception of your medical field because very few can handle the physical standards set for a man....

I know a couple of people are going to slam me for this but it is the truth.....
Then having one standard should solve all of the problems you guys are continuously here bitching and moaning about. One standard, less women. So where's the ****ing issue having one standard? Why are all of you whining guys so opposed to have an equal and fair standard for ALL? It's absolutely baffling to me. If such a teeny tiny percent of women would actually pass, wouldn't that just suit the sexists just fine? If no woman could EVER pass the requirements to be on a sub, then it seems you guys would welcome one set of standards.

And yet, you guys persist in getting your panties in a wad about even THAT. We want to make the requirements fair for all, decrease the burden on the men, increase the strength of the women who serve and according to you guys, decrease the amount of women who would be serving. Why are you guys opposed to any of that?


its like the old joke where you have a bunch of men and women in formation and the Sgt says we have this dangerous mission...6 men step forward so that happenes and then the Sgt says any women that want to volunteer for this mission step forward..........

I hope everyone can see the hypocrisy.......
What I see is your sexism and ignorance.
 
Then having one standard should solve all of the problems you guys are continuously here bitching and moaning about. One standard, less women. So where's the ****ing issue having one standard? Why are all of you whining guys so opposed to have an equal and fair standard for ALL? It's absolutely baffling to me. If such a teeny tiny percent of women would actually pass, wouldn't that just suit the sexists just fine? If no woman could EVER pass the requirements to be on a sub, then it seems you guys would welcome one set of standards.

And yet, you guys persist in getting your panties in a wad about even THAT. We want to make the requirements fair for all, decrease the burden on the men, increase the strength of the women who serve and according to you guys, decrease the amount of women who would be serving. Why are you guys opposed to any of that?



What I see is your sexism and ignorance.

Despite claims to the contrary, most(but not all) jobs in the navy do not even require physical standards, other than the most basic that most women can handle.

Those jobs with physical requirements don't have them for either sex mostly. I was in naval aviation, and aviation ordinanceman is a job that requires a significant amount of strength to accomplish(we where not the airforce, with machines to load all the bombs and missiles), but neither sex had to pass a special physical to do it, and there where the occasional guy who came along who could not do the work. Now, in the cases of both the men and women who could not physically do some of the work, there still was work they could do, and they where expected to get into shape so that they could do more. And women can do the physical work when needed. Three unexceptional women loading 500 pound bombs is a good example of this.
 
Back
Top Bottom