• 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 females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

Should women be allowed to specialize as infantry

  • Yes, and they should be integrated with the males

    Votes: 44 46.3%

  • Yes, but keep their units seperate from male units

    Votes: 11 11.6%

  • No, but women should be given some basic infantry skills beyond basic training

    Votes: 25 26.3%

  • No, women should never serve in a role where they may encounter combat

    Votes: 6 6.3%

  • Other....

    Votes: 9 9.5%
  • Total voters
    95
I think women should be able to specialize as infantry. I did vote to keep the units segregated, as the last thing one needs on a battlefield is a distraction by attraction.
 
gabrielh said:
I think women should be able to specialize as infantry. I did vote to keep the units segregated, as the last thing one needs on a battlefield is a distraction by attraction.
Click to expand...

That sounds like you're arguing to keep gays out of the military....."distraction by attraction", and all.
 
WI Crippler said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...nsiders-lifting-combat-ban-female-troops.html

That is the discussion that has given birth to this particular poll.

I want to be clear with the question here. I am asking if you think females should be allowed to serve as infantrymen(persons?) in the military. That means, they are not a cook or aircraft mechanic who has some basic infantry skills gleaned from either boot camp, or extra infantry training like the Marines put all personnell though.

What we are asking is if you think women should be allowed to be grunts.
Click to expand...

I say other. If they can carry M240B ,carry a 40 plus pound ruck sack, have all their gear, filled water canteens,ammo and a flak vest on for 12 mile road march under 4 hours, pass a pt test with same requirements as her male counterparts, have no special requirements be made,must tolerate cursing then sure females should be allowed to join the infantry.
 
jamesrage said:
I say other. If they can carry M240B ,carry a 40 plus pound ruck sack, have all their gear, filled water canteens,ammo and a flak vest on for 12 mile road march under 4 hours, pass a pt test with same requirements as her male counterparts, have no special requirements be made,must tolerate cursing then sure females should be allowed to join the infantry.
Click to expand...

We'll have to re-design the firearm because it looks like a penis and that's offensive :roll:
 
herenow1 said:
BTW, anyone ever notice that civilians and military personnel(BTDT'S) ALWAYS have a different take on these matters? I wonder why that is:cool:
Click to expand...

Because most civilians do not know squat about a lot of professions.This isn't limited to the military, this also applies to other professions as another poster pointed out with the fireman.
 
I'm assbackwards on this and will have feminists hating me. I do not think women belong on the battlefield. I think it's a distraction. I think it stirs up lots of drama with men who are far from their families and wives serving with these women. And more importantly there's still a chivalrous nature to many of our men that would lead to issues on the battlefield where some men would feel an onus to protect the women present in such a manner that it was distracting to the overall job whether it was warranted or not. I also think captured women face a host of issues that men do not.

Basically I don't believe women belong in battle.
 
I just can't see any gain to introducing sexual tensions to the battlefield.
 
The silenced majority said:
Sex, gender identity or sexual preference for that matter are irrelevant and inconsequential in regards to a person's ability to be an efficient killer and carry their own load.

I choose the 1st option.
Click to expand...

Few people argue that women don't have the ability to be efficient killers or anything like that, though. Really the only argument I hear to women in the military is along the lines of "the men can't handle it." IMO the men should grow the **** up, but that doesn't mean they will and that doesn't mean it's not a valid argument.
 
talloulou said:
I just can't see any gain to introducing sexual tensions to the battlefield.
Click to expand...

The kind of females that would have to be able to pass the same standards as male counterparts in the infantry probably wouldn't be very attractive or sexually appealing.
 
jamesrage said:
The kind of females that would have to be able to pass the same standards as male counterparts in the infantry probably wouldn't be very attractive or sexually appealing.
Click to expand...




Dunno, on a six month tour, any port in the storm, no? :lol::lol:
 
jamesrage said:
The kind of females that would have to be able to pass the same standards as male counterparts in the infantry probably wouldn't be very attractive or sexually appealing.
Click to expand...

Oh, you're assuming that the standards wouldn't be lowered in order that they got in? See I'd never assume that.
 
"Promote them all I say, there is no greater pleasure than getting a bj from a superior officer"
 
jamesrage said:
I say other. If they can carry M240B ,carry a 40 plus pound ruck sack, have all their gear, filled water canteens,ammo and a flak vest on for 12 mile road march under 4 hours, pass a pt test with same requirements as her male counterparts, have no special requirements be made,must tolerate cursing then sure females should be allowed to join the infantry.
Click to expand...

Do you know many women in the military? Most are not only not bothered by cursing, but could probably make you blush with what comes out of their mouths.
 
talloulou said:
I'm assbackwards on this and will have feminists hating me. I do not think women belong on the battlefield. I think it's a distraction. I think it stirs up lots of drama with men who are far from their families and wives serving with these women. And more importantly there's still a chivalrous nature to many of our men that would lead to issues on the battlefield where some men would feel an onus to protect the women present in such a manner that it was distracting to the overall job whether it was warranted or not. I also think captured women face a host of issues that men do not.

Basically I don't believe women belong in battle.
Click to expand...

There is more downtime in war, than there is actual combat. I can't see where sexual tension is going to be an issue, whilst RPGs and small arms fire is coming your way. But those moments account for small fractions of time spent in combat zones.
 
Personally, I think any grunt who gets distracted in battle merely by the presence of tits has no business being there. I wouldn't want to be within a click of any such unprofessionalism. Give me the chic who can double-tap.

That said, I have no problem with the way the IDF and the Marines go about training and managing female soldiers. Full basic and some AIT, and only then trained and in a specialty other than Infantry.

Trust me when I say that with many specialties, the specialists do indeed wind up in the thick of the suck. I know this personally. With a shockingly rapid pace of movement and the growing dependence on technology in waging modern warfare, this is unavoidable.
 
I voted "other".

As far as military service goes, a woman's place is in the brothel.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Few people argue that women don't have the ability to be efficient killers or anything like that, though. Really the only argument I hear to women in the military is along the lines of "the men can't handle it." IMO the men should grow the **** up, but that doesn't mean they will and that doesn't mean it's not a valid argument.
Click to expand...

yeah, do a submarine stores load when there's a 120 pound split tail at the bottom of the hatch picking up the full cases of TDU weights you're lowering to her.

Worse, be below a 120 pound split tail that's lowering those 100 pound cases of steel weights right over your head.
 
Tashah said:
Personally, I think any grunt who gets distracted in battle merely by the presence of tits has no business being there. I wouldn't want to be within a click of any such unprofessionalism. Give me the chic who can double-tap.
Click to expand...

That sounds good but ignores all the women who got pregnant over in Iraq, while deployed. Both in our military and in the UKs. It's an issue, it's a distraction, and it's a problem.
 
talloulou said:
That sounds good but ignores all the women who got pregnant over in Iraq, while deployed. Both in our military and in the UKs. It's an issue, it's a distraction, and it's a problem.
Click to expand...

Do you have figures on this? I know there was some problem, but last I had heard, it was not really a serious one.
 
talloulou said:
That sounds good but ignores all the women who got pregnant over in Iraq, while deployed. Both in our military and in the UKs. It's an issue, it's a distraction, and it's a problem.
Click to expand...

I would say that deliberately incurring a disability while in uniform is a court-martialling offence. Yeah, I said "disability", since that's what silly US laws consider pregnancy.

If a man deliberately broke his arm to avoid duty, he'd be court martialled or at least subjected to some form of non-judicial punishment.

What? I hear someone saying women get knocked up accidentally. Yeah, right, and if a sailor is injured because he didn't follow the written procedures, he too is subject to NJP for damaging government property. There are ways women can avoid getting pregnant. Their failure to use those methods propery is negligent act that puts a US government asset at risk.
 
talloulou said:
That sounds good but ignores all the women who got pregnant over in Iraq, while deployed. Both in our military and in the UKs. It's an issue, it's a distraction, and it's a problem.
Click to expand...
Maybe soldiers should be celibate?

Oh wait, that's priests.

Oh wait.... :2razz:
 
Redress said:
Do you have figures on this? I know there was some problem, but last I had heard, it was not really a serious one.
Click to expand...

British female soldiers getting pregnant in Iraq and Afghanistan - Digital Journal: Your News Network

US Army covers up an ‘embarrassment’ (Pregnancies)

It happens routinely enough to be considered a problem on many fronts. It causes sexual tension, it often involves married men who have wives back home, and it's a major distraction. I can't imagine a guy being on the battlefield worrying about the women he's sleeping with who is also on the battlefield.

It's just ridiculous and unnecessary. It has no business on the battlefield and it's commonplace enough that the repercussions of the behavior both on the home front and on the battlefield are too significant to ignore.
 
Tashah said:
Maybe soldiers should be celibate?

Oh wait, that's priests.

Oh wait.... :2razz:
Click to expand...
So you don't think there's needless distraction in say different men fighting over the same woman while trying to serve as a brotherhood on a battlefield? This is inevitable given that there will never be as many women as there are men on the battlefield. Furthermore you know how a great many women have broken up a great many male bands? Same concept applies. The men can't bond in the way they ultimately need to if they're dealing with sexual tensions and a bunch of b.s. And, I'm also not altogether apathetic towards the men and women who are here at home while their spouses are cheating while deployed.

I just see no benefit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom