• 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!

Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:57]

Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

  • Total voters
    87
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Tucker Case said:
In my experience, the average person who weighs 140 pounds is fairly easy to toss around, regardless of their gender. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

Ok, Chewbacca. I'm 6'1 180-200, but I'll have you know something. Some of those tiny bastards can fight like spider monkeys.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

ecofarm said:
Ok, Chewbacca. I'm 180-200, but I'll have you know something. Some of those tiny bastards can fight like spider monkeys.
Click to expand...

Some, sure. Some of both gneders would knock me into the next century with one shot.

But not most.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Sure they would. As an accountant, I can tell you that they get more money and most, if not all, is tax exempt if it's in a combat zone.

So I say go kill the bad guys and I'll make sure you get a bigger piece of that pie when you come back to me.

Win/win.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:

Navy Pride said:
In my 21 years in the military I have never heard of one person be they man or woman who wanted to serve in combat.
Click to expand...
That's kind of the whole reason one joins the service...to enter combat in one form or another.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

ttwtt78640 said:
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Asserting that now all three mile treks will simply have to take more time and that smaller, lighter, weaker soldiers will be better "on balance" is simply dishonest. Dropping the basic physical requirements of all, to be more "fair" to some, is insane. As you pointed out, bigger is not always better, but the goal of best is never attained by simply redefining it as adequate, to let more have a chance to "participate".
Click to expand...

No the TEAM is only as strong as it's weakest link which is a breakdown in teamwork. No one in any patrol, fireteam, squad, platoon was the overall best. We covered each other's weaknesses, mine was first aid and Mk1 eyeball range guestimation. Dropping the standards so a 100 pound skinny girl can qualify is silly, but i have met many country girls who the endurance and hard work isn't as daunting to them as many suburban/city boys.

FYI the goal is never the best, it is MISSION. Heart, drive, determination- not always best measured by who can do the most push-ups, but by who keeps pressing on under fire. A difficult thing to quantify.

I never was the best by any stretch of the imagination, only barstool rangers are 'the best'.

But as the Infantry motto said at the entrance to Ft. Puke a lifetime ago for many young men... I was second to none.... see the subtle difference there?
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Tucker Case said:
In my experience, the average person who weighs 140 pounds is fairly easy to toss around, regardless of their gender. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
It's important to compare a female soldier to the enemy, not her male counterpart.

The average Afghan male grew up with poor nutrition and weighs about 110lbs. I have personally witnessed one of our more petite females knock one of these guys to the ground with one rifle-punch.

A 140lb female soldier wearing full battle-rattle weighs 180-200lbs. That's a 70-90lb advantage over the typical Afghan male.

That being said, it is because of women in the service that we have the 9mm pistol instead of a 45 as standard issue. Women in general, with their smaller hands, have a difficult time properly gripping and firing the larger double-stack 45.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Tucker Case said:
Some, sure. Some of both gneders would knock me into the next century with one shot.

But not most.
Click to expand...

Course as one of my old play-toon sargeants once said,'it only takes running into that one skilled/lucky bastard to ruin an otherwise OUTstanding military career'

my observation includes this as well... they rarely stop at one hit, stab, or shot. ;)

Lots of names on a wall in DC that got put there by some pretty small fellas, who lacked massive air/arty/gunship support- they did most of it the low tech old fashioned way.

Oh just remembered one other thing an old salt was fond of saying...'if you are down to bare hands you have soooo pooched the mission planning!'

FIDO! what you thought you'd live forever??!!
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

notquiteright said:
No the TEAM is only as strong as it's weakest link which is a breakdown in teamwork. No one in any patrol, fireteam, squad, platoon was the overall best. We covered each other's weaknesses, mine was first aid and Mk1 eyeball range guestimation. Dropping the standards so a 100 pound skinny girl can qualify is silly, but i have met many country girls who the endurance and hard work isn't as daunting to them as many suburban/city boys.

FYI the goal is never the best, it is MISSION. Heart, drive, determination- not always best measured by who can do the most push-ups, but by who keeps pressing on under fire. A difficult thing to quantify.

I never was the best by any stretch of the imagination, only barstool rangers are 'the best'.

But as the Infantry motto said at the entrance to Ft. Puke a lifetime ago for many young men... I was second to none.... see the subtle difference there?
Click to expand...

I will agree 100% that military physical standards are not the only important factor, but equality of those standards surely are. If a man runs as fast as a woman, what makes him less "qualified"? I can see slight relaxation of the physical standards with age, as experience/training/specialization is then often increased to compensate, but no such justification exists based simply on gender. Either the standard is required or it is not. If one 20 year old soldier is OK with a running time 15 minutes then they all are, male or female. I simply doubt the resolve of the military to not lower standards to achieve some politically correct "fairness" than to adopt truely unisex or gender neutral standards. The first thing the Army did when allowing "some" women in was to "adjust" the requirements to fit the female soldiers, not to hold the female soldiers to the existing requirements. We will see, but I expect more "separate but unequal" standards to persist, in the name of "fairness".
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Goshin said:
Ahhhhh.... look: I have no problem with women in combat, as long as they are trained and conditioned to the unit's required standards without regard to gender.


However, it is most evident that there are physical differences in the genders regarding certain physical performance capabilities.

Most of the time, in comparing a 140 lb man and a 140 lb woman, who are both comparably trained and conditioned, the man will typically have more strength and endurance, more muscle and bone mass, and will likely be a bit faster overall. If you look at athletic records it becomes quickly evident that in most sports where strength or endurance are the major factors, male athletes typically outperform female athletes on average.

Not to say there aren't exceptional female athletes who are capable of competing with top-rank male athletes... yes there are a few, but only a few.

Now I figure most women who'd want to be a Ranger, and are capable of qualifying under existing standards, would be exceptional physical specimens with exceptional drive and committment to excel already, so if they qual I have no problem with them doing it.

But pretending that there aren't significant differences in physical performance capacity between the genders, speaking in terms of averages and generalities, is just not factual.
Click to expand...

I don't recall commenting on dropping requirements for the 75th regt. I was speaking of grunts, not snake eaters.

The military isn't high school sports. grunts are not put into weight classes and fight same sized enemy. Nor do we compete against each other by size/weight.

We exceed the standard and we are good to go.

Now there is a bit of fallacy once you try and bring world class athletes into this. I have seen 200 pound bubbas wash out of AIT because they had never hit the wall before. they had no experience with having to pick themselves up after a crash and burn. Much smaller fellas knew the routine and could adapt and overcome. heart and determination isn't measured on a scale nor by who can dead lift the most.

Grunts are not kept at peak nutritional and getting plenty of rest. grunts push on when hungry, bone tired, exhausted from heat, or numb with cold. They ENDURE far more than they actually grunt. No massages or whirlpool after 3 hours of competition.

Who ever 'turns blue' continues a long and proud tradition pogues never can grasp. I would never endorse a lowering of the standards for anyone. But I can easily seeing a 140 pound woman with that look in her eye doing every bit as much as I ever did and probably with a bit more style, class and grace... :peace
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Tucker Case said:
In my experience, the average person who weighs 140 pounds is fairly easy to toss around, regardless of their gender. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

To also be fair...the "average" guy I know whose in the military and actually in active duty rather than perhaps behind a desk tend to be in much better shape than the "average" guy of similar height/weight in the gen pop.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

ttwtt78640 said:
I will agree 100% that military physical standards are not the only important factor, but equality of those standards surely are. If a man runs as fast as a woman, what makes him less "qualified"? I can see slight relaxation of the physical standards with age, as experience/training/specialization is then often increased to compensate, but no such justification exists based simply on gender. Either the standard is required or it is not. If one 20 year old soldier is OK with a running time 15 minutes then they all are, male or female. I simply doubt the resolve of the military to not lower standards to achieve some politically correct "fairness" than to adopt truely unisex or gender neutral standards. The first thing the Army did when allowing "some" women in was to "adjust" the requirements to fit the female soldiers, not to hold the female soldiers to the existing requirements. We will see, but I expect more "separate but unequal" standards to persist, in the name of "fairness".
Click to expand...

it all sounds good to me, but let me point out one thing...soldier isn't grunt. most soldiers don't run anywhere. I was visiting with a FIRES Bde. company 1SG and his REMF company have a laundry list of soldiers on the fat boy program. So the double standard is SOP already. So if the system was rigged for the girls then it was long ago rigged for the REMFs.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

For the record, there are some beastly women out there, not all women are 5' 100 lbs:

femalebodybuilder.jpg



I don't know too much about the military but looking at this from the perspective of a manager in order to make a business run smoothly you want to maximize on the areas that an individual excels in while working to improve on areas that they don't in any downtime that you might have. So coming from that perspective I would say put people in the position that they do best in (that they're best qualified for), I don't care about whether they're male or female. You need the right people in the right position to maximize efficiency. Of course things don't always run that smoothly but I think having that perspective and being flexible enough to 'wing it' when you have to is what makes you successful.

I'm not sure how much that would apply to the military but 'winging it' is the last resort, if you need someone to take on a role that they aren't the best at then you use them as a last resort. I wouldn't put any woman or man in a combat role just to satisfy societies demand for what they perceive to be 'equality'. You put them in that position if that's the area that they're going to excel in or if you run out of other options.

Just my perspective.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Kind of silly poll. I don't think anyone should WANT to go into a combat zone, ie I wish there was no war and people could just debate or leaders would box it out, but alas. Should be allowed in the combat zone? Hell yes if they are capable enough, but how many of them want to is entirely different
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:

Sherman123 said:
I'm in total disbelief at that. I dabbled in ROTC and I have a dozen friends serving overseas as enlisted or newly commissioned officers with varying degrees of service time, and in my extremely short exposure to the military I have met literally hundreds of people who desired combat arms branches or MOS's and wanted the opportunity to deploy to a combat zone like Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't know how you could possibly have gone 21 years in the military without meeting someone who didn't want to go to a combat branch and experience combat.
Click to expand...

You still don't answer the question.....If men have to serve in combat and register for the draft why shouldn't all women required to do the same?
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Monserrat said:
For the record, there are some beastly women out there, not all women are 5' 100 lbs:

View attachment 67141328



I don't know too much about the military but looking at this from the perspective of a manager in order to make a business run smoothly you want to maximize on the areas that an individual excels in while working to improve on areas that they don't in any downtime that you might have. So coming from that perspective I would say put people in the position that they do best in (that they're best qualified for), I don't care about whether they're male or female. You need the right people in the right position to maximize efficiency. Of course things don't always run that smoothly but I think having that perspective and being flexible enough to 'wing it' when you have to is what makes you successful.

I'm not sure how much that would apply to the military but 'winging it' is the last resort, if you need someone to take on a role that they aren't the best at then you use them as a last resort. I wouldn't put any woman or man in a combat role just to satisfy societies demand for what they perceive to be 'equality'. You put them in that position if that's the area that they're going to excel in or if you run out of other options.

Just my perspective.
Click to expand...

They are the exception rather the rule.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:

Navy Pride said:
You still don't answer the question.....If men have to serve in combat and register for the draft why shouldn't all women required to do the same?
Click to expand...

Not all men have to serve in combat. Even when there was a draft not all men were drafted. Those that were, not all of them were assigned combat roles. In fact I'd say most weren't. I agree, if all men should be required to register with selective service, so should all women. But the combat thing is a non-flyer.

Again, not all men who voluteer serve in combat. The ones that do compete for the position.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:

OK here we go again....My point is if you allow women to serve in combat then all women should have to do it............Not just all males.....I know some of you on the left have a hard time concentrating on a point but please try to..........thank you.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:

clownboy said:
Not all men have to serve in combat. Even when there was a draft not all men were drafted. Those that were, not all of them were assigned combat roles. In fact I'd say most weren't. I agree, if all men should be required to register with selective service, so should all women. But the combat thing is a non-flyer.

Again, not all men who voluteer serve in combat. The ones that do compete for the position.
Click to expand...

If they don't serve in combat or get drafted it is the luck of the draw..........I would venture to say at the moment if your a male in the army or marines your chance of being in combat are very high. I will admit I joined the Navy so I would not get drafted into the army.....THat is what most of the men in 1956 were doing.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:

clownboy said:
Not all men have to serve in combat. Even when there was a draft not all men were drafted. Those that were, not all of them were assigned combat roles. In fact I'd say most weren't. I agree, if all men should be required to register with selective service, so should all women. But the combat thing is a non-flyer.

Again, not all men who voluteer serve in combat. The ones that do compete for the position.
Click to expand...

Honestly, you're right and you're wrong. You're absolutely right about not all men in the Army or Marines are in REAL combat. Most of them are support and keep their asses on the fob. You're semi-wrong about the compete for the position thing. For the most part, if you sign up for combat arms, there's a 98% chance you'll be in combat. The only ones they exempt from it are the totally incompetent bitches who will get someone killed. In which case they stick them in headquarters.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:

Navy Pride said:
If they don't serve in combat or get drafted it is the luck of the draw..........I would venture to say at the moment if your a male in the army or marines your chance of being in combat are very high. I will admit I joined the Navy so I would not get drafted into the army.....THat is what most of the men in 1956 were doing.
Click to expand...

I volunteered (69) for duty myself but was not placed in a combat role though I was stationed in DaNang. Many, many more like me, draftee and volunteer. And I disagree, at the moment you have a far less chance of being assigned a combat role. But it doesn't really work like that. Folks sign up for the general duty they are after. If you sign up as a hill humper, yes, chances are, if you cut the mustard, you'll be assigned a combat role. But if you don't the service will most likely use you to fill in the blanks at whatever other role is currently understaffed.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Zyphlin said:
To also be fair...the "average" guy I know whose in the military and actually in active duty rather than perhaps behind a desk tend to be in much better shape than the "average" guy of similar height/weight in the gen pop.
Click to expand...

Of course. But the same is true abut the average woman in the military. Ultimately it comes down to training,
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

notquiteright said:
Course as one of my old play-toon sargeants once said,'it only takes running into that one skilled/lucky bastard to ruin an otherwise OUTstanding military career'

my observation includes this as well... they rarely stop at one hit, stab, or shot. ;)

Lots of names on a wall in DC that got put there by some pretty small fellas, who lacked massive air/arty/gunship support- they did most of it the low tech old fashioned way.

Oh just remembered one other thing an old salt was fond of saying...'if you are down to bare hands you have soooo pooched the mission planning!'

FIDO! what you thought you'd live forever??!!
Click to expand...

Which is why training is so much more important that strength.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Jerry said:
It's important to compare a female soldier to the enemy, not her male counterpart.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And training makes far more of a difference than size/strength.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

It is obvious that that most of the people responding do not have daughters or wives of military age or they might give this a second thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom