• 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!

Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the military?

Should women be allowed in combat roles in military?

  • Yes

    Votes: 45 68.2%

  • No

    Votes: 14 21.2%

  • IDK/other

    Votes: 7 10.6%
  • Total voters
    66
notquiteright said:
Having been one of the guys the army paid for a strong back and weak mind I can honestly say MANY women could have done the 'brute strength' tasks I did. It was more an ability to imitate a pack mule than carrying the Ma Duece at port arms for 10 klicks... Brute strength was secondary to endurance, it was secondary to mental toughness, secondary to surviving on a starvation diet, secondary to thinking under stress, without sleep...

I've seen guys break down and cry because the promised hot meal never made it out to the field.

Making broad brush statements about what an entire gender can and can't do isn't helpful. Not every guy can be a grunt, that is for damn sure. I don't think the standard would ever be lowered so ANY female could qualify but then again it shouldn't be lowered so any male would be acceptable.

But humping ALICE or the Pig doesn't take a superman, superwoman can do it to... ;)
Click to expand...

No one is generalizing.

Are you people able to read?
 
I opposed alternate standards and lowered standards - so you do. Thus: you and I not debating lowered and altered standards - you and I both oppose them, likely for different reason but we both oppose them nonetheless.

I also oppose equivalencies and capped goals - military, business, government - everything. I think it's silly to demand 'more and more must be allowed in' (which is why you have lowered physical standards - to allow more into the ranks) . . . I do not support that because it cheapens the overall quality of hte individual in said bracket when they start pandering to gender (and race, etc) basis instead of your basic intelligence and physical qualifications (as they apply)

So: let's pretend that we don't have those exceptions - everyone in combat is in because they can pass all the tests - and are physically capable, no gender differentia.
Let's also pretend that we don't have gender-capped goals.

Where do you stand? Let these few exceptional women into combat? Or no?

I stand on yes - you have seemed to say 'no' but now I just don't think you're not following the actual situation I'm discussing here: I'm not discussing things *as they are right now* - I'm discussing things being altered so gender is erased when it comes to 'qualifications' - period.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I opposed alternate standards and lowered standards - so you do. Thus: you and I not debating lowered and altered standards - you and I both oppose them, likely for different reason but we both oppose them nonetheless.

I also oppose equivalencies and capped goals - military, business, government - everything. I think it's silly to demand 'more and more must be allowed in' (which is why you have lowered physical standards - to allow more into the ranks) . . . I do not support that because it cheapens the overall quality of hte individual in said bracket when they start pandering to gender (and race, etc) basis instead of your basic intelligence and physical qualifications (as they apply)

So: let's pretend that we don't have those exceptions - everyone in combat is in because they can pass all the tests - and are physically capable, no gender differentia.
Let's also pretend that we don't have gender-capped goals.

Where do you stand? Let these few exceptional women into combat? Or no?

I stand on yes - you have seemed to say 'no' but now I just don't think you're not following the actual situation I'm discussing here: I'm not discussing things *as they are right now* - I'm discussing things being altered so gender is erased when it comes to 'qualifications' - period.
Click to expand...

In the future if we could overcome by technology whatever issues with pregnancy and a lack of hygiene for long periods in the field, with no lowering of the physical standards? I would have no problem at all.

For today it just is not possible.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
In the future if we could overcome by technology whatever issues with pregnancy and a lack of hygiene for long periods in the field, with no lowering of the physical standards? I would have no problem at all.

For today it just is not possible.
Click to expand...

Oh - I pissed everyone off with my view of 'stick them all on the pill (or shot, etc) - no exceptions' to avoid pregnancy and everyone had a hissy fit. I was quite surprised at that. I thought it sounded like common sense to me: a pregnant female in the ranks is nothing but a negative asset.

And hygeine? Compared to men - women are no different . . . men who are sexually active routinely contract the clap among other STDS and infections, etc. . . so it's really not that big of a concern in my view. . . people can get gross and nasty.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Oh - I pissed everyone off with my view of 'stick them all on the pill (or shot, etc) - no exceptions' to avoid pregnancy and everyone had a hissy fit. I was quite surprised at that. I thought it sounded like common sense to me: a pregnant female in the ranks is nothing but a negative asset.
Click to expand...

Yea I hear ya. I don't even suggest mandatory implants anymore, lol.

Aunt Spiker said:
And hygeine? Compared to men - women are no different . . . men who are sexually active routinely contract the clap among other STDS and infections, etc. . . so it's really not that big of a concern in my view. . . people can get gross and nasty.
Click to expand...

Not talking sexually. I am no expert but I think there is a huge difference because females genitalia are on the inside, period. <--- No pun intended. period and itching etc would not make for a good partner in a fox hole, lol. But hey, that is just my opinion.
 
Not every female has problems with her feminine functions :shrug: Not every female has a period - has one that lasts long - has one that causes cramps and other issues - and so on.

I don't think it's as much of a concern as a lot of people make it out to be.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think you're avoiding my question. ;)
Click to expand...

I would appreciate it of you could show just enough respect to pose a realistic example; something that happens regularly in-country all the time. Tailored NBC weapons which target a sex is not one such example. Walking several miles during a dismount is. Mounting weapons and hardware is.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Not every female has problems with her feminine functions :shrug: Not every female has a period - has one that lasts long - has one that causes cramps and other issues - and so on.

I don't think it's as much of a concern as a lot of people make it out to be.
Click to expand...

assuming that 10% of an infantry battalion is female, that would make for about 100 females. Would you say that out of that 100.... 10 % would be likely to suffer from personal hygiene issues in the absence of any kind of toiletries? moving over the navy numbers, we'll add that to the 10% that will be pregnant at any one time, figure two rounds of pregnancy on a 7-month deployment, and now we've lost 30 Marines to "female issues" on top of all of the hike in drama and disfunction that come along with adding in females. That's pretty significant.
 
cpwill said:
assuming that 10% of an infantry battalion is female, that would make for about 100 females. Would you say that out of that 100.... 10 % would be likely to suffer from personal hygiene issues in the absence of any kind of toiletries? moving over the navy numbers, we'll add that to the 10% that will be pregnant at any one time, figure two rounds of pregnancy on a 7-month deployment, and now we've lost 30 Marines to "female issues" on top of all of the hike in drama and disfunction that come along with adding in females. That's pretty significant.
Click to expand...

It's so sweet of you guys to be so concerned over our vaginas this way.

Seriously though: do you honestly believe that women have had the female situation for myriads of centuries and we haven't figured anything out?

With our modern warfare situations and theaters: any deployment can create a combat frontline situation for anyone even if that's not their specific line of duty: if they fulfill the role by activity they should get the recognition. The lines of separation between one and the other are becoming more and more blurred. Given current means of deployment: I don't know how you can differentiate 'front lines' via base encampment from other means of technical 'front lines' these days when the fight - more and more - is brought right to the front step of base.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
It's so sweet of you guys to be so concerned over our vaginas this way.

Seriously though: do you honestly believe that women have had the female situation for myriads of centuries and we haven't figured anything out?
Click to expand...

It's not that. It is the fact the females being in the field with as he said the absence of toiletries is problematic. From again periods to yeast and urinary tract infections and a whole host of other issues from not having access to clean water or even proper diet etc. About the worst men have to deal with is stink and jock itch.

Aunt Spiker said:
With our modern warfare situations and theaters: any deployment can create a combat frontline situation for anyone even if that's not their specific line of duty: if they fulfill the role by activity they should get the recognition. The lines of separation between one and the other are becoming more and more blurred. Given current means of deployment: I don't know how you can differentiate 'front lines' via base encampment from other means of technical 'front lines' these days when the fight - more and more - is brought right to the front step of base.
Click to expand...

That will not be all wars. We don't know what the future will bring as far as wars go. We can however make a reasonable assumption that it can and will happen in different types of terrain etc where like in Vietnam like Iraq/Afghanistan no real front line existed. This did not stop troops from being in the field for months at a time. Even the Russians in WWII did not group men and women together in ground combat company's. Again I ask why would we want to deploy all female company's when the numbers would not be there?

In the end this is all speculation as I am no expert on female anatomy, but common sense says it would or could be problematic.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
It's so sweet of you guys to be so concerned over our vaginas this way.

Seriously though: do you honestly believe that women have had the female situation for myriads of centuries and we haven't figured anything out?

With our modern warfare situations and theaters: any deployment can create a combat frontline situation for anyone even if that's not their specific line of duty: if they fulfill the role by activity they should get the recognition. The lines of separation between one and the other are becoming more and more blurred. Given current means of deployment: I don't know how you can differentiate 'front lines' via base encampment from other means of technical 'front lines' these days when the fight - more and more - is brought right to the front step of base.
Click to expand...

You do not weigh less just because the solder who came to pull you out of a burning vehicle is a female.

This is exactly the school of thought behind the Army's new PT test.
 
Jerry said:
You do not weigh less just because the solder who came to pull you out of a burning vehicle is a female.

This is exactly the school of thought behind the Army's new PT test.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think it is, as it deals with more than physical strength. Remember, the military is largely designed for smaller men.
 
Jerry said:
I would appreciate it of you could show just enough respect to pose a realistic example; something that happens regularly in-country all the time. Tailored NBC weapons which target a sex is not one such example. Walking several miles during a dismount is. Mounting weapons and hardware is.
Click to expand...

The country is largely designed for men, and largely governed by a group think mentality that assumes things that may not be true. Women work better together, communicate better, collaborate better, and this may mean they would find different but equally effective ways to tackle problems, missions and situations.

And the point about men being unable to do the job any more had nothing to do with how that happened. In fact, to the point, focusing on how it happened seems like a deliberate effort to avoid the point. The point is, nothing would stop. Fires would still be fought, government would still run and function, and everything done by men would be done by women. It is good practice to step outside one's belief system and question the assumptions they accept.
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, I don't think it is, as it deals with more than physical strength. Remember, the military is largely designed for smaller men.
Click to expand...

Where did you come up with this nonsense????? The military is designed for defense of the nation, size was not a consideration. :doh
 
Blackdog said:
Where did you come up with this nonsense????? The military is designed for defense of the nation, size was not a consideration. :doh
Click to expand...

It's what they told me in the military. The ideal soldier was smaller, quicker. Brute strength was not a requirement. Doesn't the PT test still have the inverted crawl? This is not meant for a large man.
 
Boo Radley said:
The country is largely designed for men, and largely governed by a group think mentality that assumes things that may not be true. Women work better together, communicate better, collaborate better, and this may mean they would find different but equally effective ways to tackle problems, missions and situations.
Click to expand...

This is not true and I have posted scientific evidence TO YOU that says no in this post: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-combat-roles-military-26.html#post1060311251

Cooperation, it turns out, is a little more complex than the common assumption that women tend to be better at it than men. In fact, researchers have found that that men cooperate as well as women — and cooperate better with other men than women do with each other. - Men Cooperate as Well as Women – Sometimes | Psych Central News

You Just Don't Understand
by Deborah Tannen, Ph.D.

"For males, conversation is the way you negotiate your status in the group and keep people from pushing you around; you use talk to preserve your independence. Females, on the other hand, use conversation to negotiate closeness and intimacy; talk is the essence of intimacy, so being best friends means sitting and talking. For boys, activities, doing things together, are central. Just sitting and talking is not an essential part of friendship. They're friends with the boys they do things with."
It's not hard, from even these simple observations, to see the potential problems when men and women communicate. Women create feelings of closeness by conversing with their friends and lovers. Men don't use communication in this way, so they can't figure out why their women are continually talk, talk, talking. Eventually, many men just tune their women out. The ubiquitous image of the housewife at the breakfast table talking to her husband who has his head buried in the newspaper comes to mind. - Communication styles of men and women, Tannen

So your matter of fact statement is total bull**** with no evidence at all to back it up, none.

So you just keep ignoring the facts and I will continue to point it out.

Boo Radley said:
And the point about men being unable to do the job any more had nothing to do with how that happened. In fact, to the point, focusing on how it happened seems like a deliberate effort to avoid the point. The point is, nothing would stop. Fires would still be fought, government would still run and function, and everything done by men would be done by women. It is good practice to step outside one's belief system and question the assumptions they accept.
Click to expand...

That is pure speculation and flies in the face of reality.

Again your primes is just mind numbingly out there.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
It's what they told me in the military. The ideal soldier was smaller, quicker. Brute strength was not a requirement. Doesn't the PT test still have the inverted crawl? This is not meant for a large man.
Click to expand...

So in other words, someone who had no idea what he was talking about gave you their opinion, and you took it as fact? That is somehow evidence of something?
 
Blackdog said:
So in other words, someone who had no idea what he was talking about gave you their opinion, and you took it as fact? That is somehow evidence of something?
Click to expand...

If he said it was not about strength, that right there should have raised the bull**** flag.
 
Blackdog said:
This is not true and I have posted scientific evidence TO YOU that says no in this post: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-combat-roles-military-26.html#post1060311251

Cooperation, it turns out, is a little more complex than the common assumption that women tend to be better at it than men. In fact, researchers have found that that men cooperate as well as women — and cooperate better with other men than women do with each other. - Men Cooperate as Well as Women – Sometimes | Psych Central News

You Just Don't Understand
by Deborah Tannen, Ph.D.

"For males, conversation is the way you negotiate your status in the group and keep people from pushing you around; you use talk to preserve your independence. Females, on the other hand, use conversation to negotiate closeness and intimacy; talk is the essence of intimacy, so being best friends means sitting and talking. For boys, activities, doing things together, are central. Just sitting and talking is not an essential part of friendship. They're friends with the boys they do things with."
It's not hard, from even these simple observations, to see the potential problems when men and women communicate. Women create feelings of closeness by conversing with their friends and lovers. Men don't use communication in this way, so they can't figure out why their women are continually talk, talk, talking. Eventually, many men just tune their women out. The ubiquitous image of the housewife at the breakfast table talking to her husband who has his head buried in the newspaper comes to mind. - Communication styles of men and women, Tannen

So your matter of fact statement is total bull**** with no evidence at all to back it up, none.

So you just keep ignoring the facts and I will continue to point it out.



That is pure speculation and flies in the face of reality.

Again your primes is just mind numbingly out there.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what study you pull:

Women play a more central role than men in a successful society by focusing more on cooperating than competing, suggests a study published today.

Study finds women cooperate better than men - Telegraph

But, you too seek to skip the point. Any task has more than one way to accomplish it, and if need be, a focus on working smarter instead harder, or stronger, might be just as effective. How can I get you too the point?
 
Boo Radley said:
I guess it depends on what study you pull:

Women play a more central role than men in a successful society by focusing more on cooperating than competing, suggests a study published today.

Study finds women cooperate better than men - Telegraph

But, you too seek to skip the point. Any task has more than one way to accomplish it, and if need be, a focus on working smarter instead harder, or stronger, might be just as effective. How can I get you too the point?
Click to expand...

A story from 2007 from the telegraph? :lol:

So no, not really.
 
Blackdog said:
A story from 2007 from the telegraph? :lol:

So no, not really.
Click to expand...

So, you can't be brought to the point? It's a common tactic, but a cheap one. Again, it depends on what study you use. You confuse the link with the source of the study, which is also a common mistake. But, as it was never the point, I ask again, what does it take to bring you to actually answering the point?
 
Boo Radley said:
But, you too seek to skip the point. Any task has more than one way to accomplish it, and if need be, a focus on working smarter instead harder, or stronger, might be just as effective. How can I get you too the point?
Click to expand...

I wanted to address this separately.

OK please tell me how humping a 60lb ruck and full gear for over 25 miles can be attained by "working differently?" Or loading many 50lb shells in under 5 seconds into a cannon while in a tank? Or how about even heavier ammunition into an 8" artillery piece?

It can't. The problem is sometimes, it just takes a strong male.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, you can't be brought to the point? It's a common tactic, but a cheap one. Again, it depends on what study you use. You confuse the link with the source of the study, which is also a common mistake. But, as it was never the point, I ask again, what does it take to bring you to actually answering the point?
Click to expand...

The study is as outdated and unreliable as the source. Mine is from 2011 and includes recent study's if you bothered to look. So for a third time you fail.

Funny how I can find nothing else on this "research" at Edinburgh University. It does however go on to say in another story on the research....

Women are better at working in teams, deal-making and peace-brokering, while men are more likely to excel at bamboozling and cheating, according to a new study. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3308304/Men-are-better-at-cheating.html

LMAO!
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
The study is as outdated and unreliable as the source. Mine is from 2011 and includes recent study's if you bothered to look. So for a third time you fail.
Click to expand...

You should know that reading you link, they borrowed from other studies, including this one. But again, you are skipping the point. I ask again, what will it take to get you to actually address the point.
 
Blackdog said:
I wanted to address this separately.

OK please tell me how humping a 60lb ruck and full gear for over 25 miles can be attained by "working differently?" Or loading many 50lb shells in under 5 seconds into a cannon while in a tank? Or how about even heavier ammunition into an 8" artillery piece?

It can't. The problem is sometimes, it just takes a strong male.
Click to expand...

I've seen women do that, but as have I seen small men do it. And I suspect most are strong enough to this, as you don't need to be Samson to do it. But they could problem solve, as we all have to in any particular situation. But the test for this would be to carry that weight for that long, and not much of what is on a PT test.

And would bet if given the opportunity, I could find a way to both easier. I've spent a life time doing such things. ;) I even suspect you could as well, if you wanted to and we allowed to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom