• 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!

Women Should Be Allowed in Combat Units, Report Says

Since reading the thread is too difficult, I will actually help you out:

Yeah, so again, what's your point?

They measure "overall fitness" and not ability at a specific MOS etc. So what? Do you think a female in a combat unit will be allowed to get by doing flex-armed hangs when everyone else is doing pull ups? The official answer is yes, what do you think the unofficial (actual) answer will be?

Officially, a male can pass a PFT with a minimum of pathetic crappy scores -- I'm sure you know, however, that that doesn't actually fly. In my unit, for instance, if you didn't have a 1st class PFT (using the male test) you were basically treated as **** untill you did. There was a reason for this.

It's nice that the military has separate standards for men and women, bla bla for whatever reason--measure of overall fitness... Do you think that incoming fire has a separate standard for men and women? What about the living conditions in desert hole by the side of the road for a week with no showers--hell without taking off a flak at all?

What's the point of you arguing that the PFT measures overall fitness by a separate standard, whoever said it used the same standard anyway? One way or another, they will have to be held to the same standard in a combat unit.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, so again, what's your point?

They measure "overall fitness" and not ability at a specific MOS etc. So what? Do you think a female in a combat unit will be allowed to get by doing flex-armed hangs when everyone else is doing pull ups? The official answer is yes, what do you think the unofficial (actual) answer will be?

Officially, a male can pass a PFT with a minimum of pathetic crappy scores -- I'm sure you know, however, that that doesn't actually fly. In my unit, for instance, if you didn't have a 1st class PFT (using the male test) you were basically treated as **** untill you did. There was a reason for this.

It's nice that the military has separate standards for men and women, bla bla for whatever reason--measure of overall fitness... Do you think incoming fire has a separate standard for men and women? What about the living conditions?

Here, read the thread, where all this is already addressed. Then people won't have to keep repeating themselves for you.
 
Speak for yourself. I defined the Army Physical Fitness test. You came back with some crap about the Navy and the Marine Corps.

Yes, you showed a wiki link. I provided the actual military document. The PFT is designed to show overall fitness level, as per the military. it is not designed to determine whether some one is strong enough or otherwise to do a particular job.
 
Ya think, "overall fitness", could include muscle strength, too? Maybe?

That is not how it is being used exactly. It is to determine(paraphrase) the level of health of a soldier/sailor.
 
That is not how it is being used exactly. It is to determine(paraphrase) the level of health of a soldier/sailor.

Oh, so now it's used as a level of, "health"? :lamo
 
There is a big difference between a physical fitness metric and being able to actually perform a physically difficult task. Let us take the bench press for example. While it does strengthen the arms, it only focuses on specific parts of the muscles. I have seen guys who bench a lot struggle carrying heavy loads because it requires a range of motion that stresses muscles not heavily used in a bench press.
 
Here, read the thread, where all this is already addressed. Then people won't have to keep repeating themselves for you.

Dodging? I've read the thread. Here, I'll ask a different way for you...

You wrote earlier:
The PFT does not measure your physical ability to do your job, it simply measures your healthiness. Men and women at a certain level of healthiness will get different results on a PFT. If we are testing physical ability to handle a combat job, that test would be different, and have the same standard for men and women. Such a test if it is not already in place would need to be.

First I'll point out that while it isn't designed to measure your capability of doing your job, it still affects promotions and they are still considered, in the infantry at least, to be an actual integral part of the job itself. We trained by running PFTs, usually about 1/week, and we weren't held to a minimum stanard. So:

1) Do you think that women in an infantry unit will be able to get by, no problem or hassle, using the women's PFT standard?

2) Concerning the separate test you mention that should be instituted that will hold men/women officially to the same physical standard... Do you think that will actually happen?
 
Last edited:
Dodging? I've read the thread. Here, I'll ask a different way for you...

You wrote earlier:


First I'll point out that while it isn't designed to measure your capability of doing your job, it still affects promotions and they are still considered, in the infantry at least, to be an actual integral part of the job itself. We trained by running PFTs, usually about 1/week, and we weren't held to a minimum stanard. So:

1) Do you think that women in an infantry unit will be able to get by, no problem or hassle, using the women's PFT standard?

Why would you use any PFT standard for such a test?

2) Concerning the separate test you mention that should be instituted that will hold men/women officially to the same physical standard... Do you think that will actually happen?

It would depend on whether women are going to be put in front line MOS's. If so, then yes.
 
Why would you use any PFT standard for such a test?

I'm not suggesting you do, just telling you that it is treated as a measure of how well you do your job in the infantry, just not the only one.

It would depend on whether women are going to be put in front line MOS's. If so, then yes.

You are more optimistic than me in this matter then. I think, just as the PFT standard is set different for women, I bet any heavily physical test would be set as such by our country--and if anything, such a test would only be more physically demanding than a standard PFT, leaving aside the technical knowledge involved.
 
Last edited:
I'm not suggesting you do, just telling you that it is treated as a measure of how well you do your job in the infantry, just not the only one.

You are confusing a test that is used in part to rate your performance, and a pass/fail test of whether you are physically able to do the job. two entirely different things.

You are more optimistic than me in this matter then. I think, just as the PFT standard is set different for women, I bet any heavily physical test would be set as such by our country--and if anything, such a test would only be more physically demanding than a standard PFT, leaving aside the technical knowledge involved.

The ability to do a job physically is a binary thing, you either can or cannot. Such a test would not be able to be different based on sex. The military is surprisingly able to handle doing what it needs to.
 
You are confusing a test that is used in part to rate your performance, and a pass/fail test of whether you are physically able to do the job. two entirely different things.
No I'm not. I was pointing out that the PFT is usually a common training exercise in an infantry unit, not just an annual thing.

The ability to do a job physically is a binary thing, you either can or cannot. Such a test would not be able to be different based on sex. The military is surprisingly able to handle doing what it needs to.

The military is also surprisingly inept at many things, especially when bureaucratic of political mandates come into play.
 
Separate units, separate combat roles, and there are no issues left.
Exactly what I said in Post #2. Separate, mobile, and specialized.

No sex issues, no hygiene issues, no equipment issues, no foxhole issues, no damsel in distress issues.

Capture... A US female (CSAR) was captured in the Gulf War. Jessica Lynch & Co were captured in OIF. None were sexually mistreated. Tens of thousands of Israeli females have served in the IDF and Border Guards. None have ever been captured/kidnapped.
 
From the Gratuitous Dept. :2razz: Quite common in Israel...

Viva_israel.jpg


jewishgirlgun.jpg
 
Vietnam was a long time ago. You never hear about soldiers fighting like that anymore. No, not all people can carry that weight and hike for miles. Which is why there are physical requirements to be put into combat.


1. If you think soldiers never, ever find themselves in a HTH situation in Iraq or Iran, then you are lacking in information or haven't thought this through adequately. I have some younger current-service buddies who have spent most of the last 10 years in the sandbox. It does happen on occasion.
2. I'm not sure what your second point is, other than to agree with me that a certain level of upper-body strength (which not all males can achieve, and far fewer females) is necessary for placement in certain types of combat units.
 
From the Gratuitous Dept. :2razz: Quite common in Israel...

Viva_israel.jpg


jewishgirlgun.jpg


Mmmm... hot Israeli chicks with M-16's.... that's my kinda wimmenses! :mrgreen:
 
A few days ago I happened to meet a military forensic psychiatrist who has been to Afghanistan and Iraq. He says that combat unties have a proportionally large number of psychopaths who are in the military to kill human beings. Some of those men will also rape and kill women without hesitation. In fact some of these psychos that the Dr. was dealing with had killed women and children for fun. In combat it’s easy to kill innocent people who are in the line of fire and some of the psychos killed themselves later so that they wouldn’t have to go home. The Dr. looked at a lot of suicides and said that some were for good reasons.

Combat psychopaths are a danger to the weakest in their unit and I don’t want our young women out there with them.
 
A few days ago I happened to meet a military forensic psychiatrist who has been to Afghanistan and Iraq. He says that combat unties have a proportionally large number of psychopaths who are in the military to kill human beings. Some of those men will also rape and kill women without hesitation. In fact some of these psychos that the Dr. was dealing with had killed women and children for fun. In combat it’s easy to kill innocent people who are in the line of fire and some of the psychos killed themselves later so that they wouldn’t have to go home. The Dr. looked at a lot of suicides and said that some were for good reasons.

Combat psychopaths are a danger to the weakest in their unit and I don’t want our young women out there with them.


I think you are vastly overstating the presence of psychotics or sociopaths in the military. There may be a few, yes... but I'd have to see sourced evidence before I'd believe that was common enough to be a valid concern.

I've known snipers, special-ops soldiers, Rangers, green berets, and Marines. I've known plenty of soldiers who have made their kills... but I have yet to know a soldier who was an outright psychopath.
 
I had no idea until just now they weren't allowed to be a part of combat units.

Surely a flat prohibition is not the best solution. Women who are capable should be allowed to participate.
 
From the Gratuitous Dept. :2razz: Quite common in Israel...

Viva_israel.jpg


jewishgirlgun.jpg

These are among the images that I remember from my time in Israel. I had never been anywhere where people carried military rifles on the streets in public, and the fact it many where women just caused my jaw to drop.
 
Are you ****ing kidding me?

Reality check, women cannot, as a general rule, physically handle the rigors of combat. This is why female PRT and male PRT are DIFFERENT. How's the platoon going to handle one or more members unable to carry the normal full load out of equipment into the field? Start there, work your way through the rest of the reasons women aren't in combat roles.

This isn't just dumb, it's politically motivated politically correct stupidity that's gonna get people killed in the name of "fairness".

If they segregated the units by gender and women had to abide by the same physical and dicipline standards as their male counterparts in the combat units then I might support allowing women into combat MOSs. However we know that has about as much of a chance as Code Pink protesting that they want the Marine recruiting center to stay and they support the military recruiting soldiers and marines anywhere in Berkly.


I suspect that the people on this military advisory committee never served a day in the military and if they have they were most likely what those in the Infantry and various other combat MOSs call POGs(pronounced pōg). It an acronym for persons other than grunt. It means non-combat soldiers, civilians in soldiers clothing.If you are in the infantry a pog is basically everybody in the military who is not a infantry soldier.
 
the fact many were women just caused my jaw to drop.

You didn't just misspell the word "pants" there, by any chance, did you?
 
You didn't just misspell the word "pants" there, by any chance, did you?

I was young and awestruck. That part never got past the want stage. Why Israeli women are so drop dead gorgeous I will never understand.
 
1. If you think soldiers never, ever find themselves in a HTH situation in Iraq or Iran, then you are lacking in information or haven't thought this through adequately. I have some younger current-service buddies who have spent most of the last 10 years in the sandbox. It does happen on occasion.
2. I'm not sure what your second point is, other than to agree with me that a certain level of upper-body strength (which not all males can achieve, and far fewer females) is necessary for placement in certain types of combat units.

I'm not saying soldiers never fight hand to hand, but it is becoming increasingly rare. People certainly never fight in full metal body armor with war hammers like you were talking about :p I may be lacking information about the subject though. Do you have a link you could give me about Americans engaging in hand to hand combat in Iraq?

Of course I agree with you that certain levels of strength are required for combat. I don't think anyone on here has said anything to the contrary. Females need to be held to the same standards as men. Fewer women will be able to meet these standards, sure, but that doesn't mean those who can do it shouldn't be allowed in.
 
Back
Top Bottom