• 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
Redress said:
The problem is that the reasons for such things as not allowing women the honor of serving in infantry(or gays to serve openly) are not logical. They come from deep, ingrained programming, and as such, logical arguments are almost always doomed to fail with these people.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the whole "protection of females" idea comes from two things:

1. Patriarchy- keeping women oppressed so they can't compete with men,
and
2. Tribalism- keeping the bloodlines pure. In ancient times, allowing enemies around females was an invitation to rape and pillage; women ended up pregnant and bore the offspring of invaders.
Now, of course, no woman has to remain pregnant if she doesn't want to, and we've kind of moved beyond the idea that foreign blood is contaminated, anyway, or that bearing the offspring of people who are different from us weakens us as a nation or a people.
Even in ancient times, people just dealt with this minor inconvenience.
Jews decided that Jewishness is passed through the maternal line. In many African tribes, nobility passed to the chief's sister's male offspring, rather than to the male offspring of the chief himself. Only by passing leadership on to his nephew could the purity and continuity of the royal bloodline be 100% assured.
All over Europe, we see the genetic results of ancient plunder; this 'foreign' blood hasn't weakened the European people, it's strengthened them. The Black Irish- who likely have some Iberian blood- can withstand the sun without dying of melanoma, while those of unadulterated celtic blood are unlikely to live to old age without treatment for malignant skin lesions.

Regardless, we should be beyond that sort of thinking today.
Unlike some woman from a millenium ago (or a Southern Belle from two centuries ago, or a fundamentalist Islamic woman shrouded in hijaab today), I am not willing to cower in some dark closet and miss participating in the larger world, just because rape- and even impregnation by rape- is a possibility.
That would be a foolish waste of a life, and we only get one.
If all women behaved thus, it would be a ridiculous waste of strength and resources as well; we would not have won WWII without the aid and participation of females.
We will not, as a nation, accomplish future goals, without women working side by side with men as equal partners.
 
1069 said:
Well, I think the whole "protection of females" idea comes from two things:

1. Patriarchy- keeping women oppressed so they can't compete with men,
and
2. Tribalism- keeping the bloodlines pure. In ancient times, allowing enemies around females was an invitation to rape and pillage; women ended up pregnant and bore the offspring of invaders.
Now, of course, no woman has to remain pregnant if she doesn't want to, and we've kind of moved beyond the idea that foreign blood is contaminated, anyway, or that bearing the offspring of people who are different from us weakens us as a nation or a people.
Even in ancient times, people just dealt with this minor inconvenience.
Jews decided that Jewishness is passed through the maternal line. In many African tribes, nobility passed to the chief's sister's male offspring, rather than to the male offspring of the chief himself. Only by passing leadership on to his nephew could the purity and continuity of the royal bloodline be 100% assured.
All over Europe, we see the genetic results of ancient plunder; this 'foreign' blood hasn't weakened the European people, it's strengthened them. The Black Irish- who likely have some Iberian blood- can withstand the sun without dying of melanoma, while those of unadulterated celtic blood are unlikely to live to old age without treatment for malignant skin lesions.

Regardless, we should be beyond that sort of thinking today.
Unlike some woman from a millenium ago (or a Southern Belle from two centuries ago, or a fundamentalist Islamic woman shrouded in hijaab today), I am not willing to cower in some dark closet and miss participating in the larger world, just because rape- and even impregnation by rape- is a possibility.
That would be a foolish waste of a life, and we only get one.
If all women behaved thus, it would be a ridiculous waste of strength and resources as well; we would not have won WWII without the aid and participation of females.
We will not, as a nation, accomplish future goals, without women working side by side with men as equal partners.
Click to expand...

How is it that everything -- everything -- comes back to abortion for you?
 
Harshaw said:
How is it that everything -- everything -- comes back to abortion for you?
Click to expand...

The direction this thread has taken is that it is being asserted that "the purpose of civilization is to protect women and children".
Protect women from what?
Oh, yeah: rape by and unwanted pregnancy from foreign invaders.

The fact that abortion is now safe and accessible is both relevant and apt.
It changes the equation.

Likewise, in the days when women were unable to control the number of offspring they bore and it was typical for a woman to endure nine to fourteen pregnancies over a reproductive lifetime, there was little possibility of women participating in the world outside the home as the equals of men. They were physically handicapped by pregnancy for the majority of their adult years.
Again, technology now exists which allows women to control their destinies by controlling their reproductive functions.

When it is asserted- as it has been many times on this thread- that women are not only not the equals of men but that they are mentally and physically inferior to men, discussion of modern advances that change this long-held belief and render it obsolete are certainly timely and relevant.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
You both seem to be under the assumption that the reason women require extra protection is because they are weak, or somehow less capable of defending themselves. The reason that women require more protection from society is not because they are weaker, but because they are more essential to our survival as a nation. A society that loses a generation of its young men is hurt, but it will muddle through; a society that loses a generation of its young women is walking dead.

Just because someone can protect themselves doesn't mean they don't need society's protection. And just because somebody can't, doesn't mean they deserve it.
Click to expand...


Korimyr the Rat said:
Perhaps. Modern warfare is certainly lighter on military casualties than previous methods. But I believe the principle stands: a society that sends its young women off to die in foreign wars has broken moral priorities and is not much longer for this world.

Exceptions, such as nations facing prolonged war on the homefront, noted.
Click to expand...

You are starting to see the flaw in your argument, but are not quite there. To serve in infantry requires a certain set of physical abilities, which are not as common in women as men. It also requires a certain amount of desire. The percentage of women in our society that have both are very small(< 1 % at a guess). Therefore, the idea that allowing women to choose to serve in infantry same as men is not going to deplete our society of women to a point where it is an issue.


Korimyr the Rat said:
I have no problem with homosexuals serving openly in the military, or gay men serving in combat arms roles.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is an entirely separate issue. I simply think that most of the objections to both stem not from logic, but from an emotional reactions. I did not mean to imply that people against one would be against the other.
 
1069 said:
The direction this thread has taken is that it is being asserted that "the purpose of civilization is to protect women and children".
Protect women from what?
Oh, yeah: rape by and unwanted pregnancy from foreign invaders.
Click to expand...

That is what you would see through your uterus-covered lens, I have no doubt. :roll:
 
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 know I'll be thought of as "out-dated" by this, but when I Served,,,the guys would've placed themselves into danger more often, if women were at risk. That's the Nature of Men...To protect the Women. :)
 
Redress said:
This may have been true at one time, but is not true in the modern world. The biggest thing holding up women being allowed to serve as infantry is getting past outmoded attitudes held by out of date people who don't realize the world has moved past them.
Click to expand...

Such as...
 
Redress said:
The problem is that the reasons for such things as not allowing women the honor of serving in infantry(or gays to serve openly) are not logical. They come from deep, ingrained programming, and as such, logical arguments are almost always doomed to fail with these people.
Click to expand...

Whatever. If that's what you think then there's no discussion to be had. You and the rest of the enlightened crowd can sit around a pat each other on the back for being oh-so-tolerant while us cavemen just renew our objections to radical changes in military policy based upon nothing more than PC politics.
 
Other than physical what can females bring to the battle field? I think they have a lot to add.
 
winston53660 said:
Other than physical what can females bring to the battle field? I think they have a lot to add.
Click to expand...

It is within the realm of possibility that their presence in theater (not necessarily on the front lines) has a civilizing effect on male soldiers, leading to less rape and other atrocities committed against the civilian population, as well as less depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among soldiers.
 
Ethereal said:
Whatever. If that's what you think then there's no discussion to be had. You and the rest of the enlightened crowd can sit around a pat each other on the back for being oh-so-tolerant while us cavemen just renew our objections to radical changes in military policy based upon nothing more than PC politics.
Click to expand...

There is no logical reason to keep people who are qualified and desire to serve in the infantry from doing so. Feel free to try and prove me wrong in that statement, but I do not believe you will be able to.
 
Ethereal said:
Whatever. If that's what you think then there's no discussion to be had. You and the rest of the enlightened crowd can sit around a pat each other on the back for being oh-so-tolerant while us cavemen just renew our objections to radical changes in military policy based upon nothing more than PC politics.
Click to expand...

So if a woman is a great sniper you would deny service because she has a vagina?
 
winston53660 said:
Other than physical what can females bring to the battle field? I think they have a lot to add.
Click to expand...

The same things that men bring to a battlefield. What more should they need to bring?
 
winston53660 said:
Other than physical what can females bring to the battle field? I think they have a lot to add.
Click to expand...

They can bring an assortment of hygiene issues that would have otherwise been absent.

Walking around in 140 degree heat with a piece of cotton in your vagina without having bathed for a few weeks (I had to go six weeks once) just seems like a recipe for disaster. Although, after having eaten and slept so little in that time period I'd be surprised if the woman was capable of having a period at all.

Oh, and I'm sure the Iraqis would LOVE have American women busting into their homes, telling them what to do and how to do it. That would really endear them to us...
 
Ethereal said:
They can bring an assortment of hygiene issues that would have otherwise been absent.

Walking around in 140 degree heat with a piece of cotton in your vagina without having bathed for a few weeks (I had to go six weeks once) just seems like a recipe for disaster. Although, after having eaten and slept so little in that time period I'd be surprised if the woman was capable of having a period at all.

Oh, and I'm sure the Iraqis would LOVE have American women busting into their homes, telling them what to do and how to do it. That would really endear them to us...
Click to expand...
No because Iraqis just love it when Americans male soldiers are busting into their homes and telling them what to do.

What the ****.
 
Redress said:
There is no logical reason to keep people who are qualified and desire to serve in the infantry from doing so. Feel free to try and prove me wrong in that statement, but I do not believe you will be able to.
Click to expand...

I guess I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of specialized "indoc" for exceptional females. Assuming they could find enough of these bad bitches (and I use that term with the utmost respect) to create a homogenous infantry unit then I see no reason to deny them the opportunity to serve in combat.
 
Apocalypse said:
No because Iraqis just love it when Americans male soldiers are busting into their homes and telling them what to do.

What the ****.
Click to expand...

How many Iraqi men have you personally met, friend?
 
Apocalypse said:
Billions of 'em.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you haven't met any Iraqi men? Thanks for clearing that up.

You see, Arabic/Muslim men would NEVER tolerate a group of women patrolling through their neighborhoods, busting down their doors, barking orders at them and their family - even conversing with them is out of the question. That's just reality, buddy. Once word got out that a female infantry unit was patrolling through Iraq or Afghanistan it wouldn't be long before that unit was wiped out in a massive, coordinted attack. I wonder what they'd do to the ones they captured...
 
1069 said:
It is within the realm of possibility that their presence in theater (not necessarily on the front lines) has a civilizing effect on male soldiers, leading to less rape and other atrocities committed against the civilian population, as well as less depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among soldiers.
Click to expand...

Women, on the Islamic Terrorist Front haven't had much of a "Calming Effect" as suicidal bombs...Or, thought very highly of by the terrorists either. I'd say your spot on the way our Enemies operate though.:(
 
1069 said:
It is within the realm of possibility that their presence in theater (not necessarily on the front lines) has a civilizing effect on male soldiers, leading to less rape and other atrocities committed against the civilian population, as well as less depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among soldiers.
Click to expand...

Not sure how it affects their comrades but it would only serve to inflame the locals and our enemies.
 
It's the "front line" concept that's funny. Are any of you even aware of the wars we fight anymore and the wars that are coming? There's no "front line" to keep the women from.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Oh, so you haven't met any Iraqi men? Thanks for clearing that up.

You see, Arabic/Muslim men would NEVER tolerate a group of women patrolling through their neighborhoods, busting down their doors, barking orders at them and their family - even conversing with them is out of the question. That's just reality, buddy. Once word got out that a female infantry unit was patrolling through Iraq or Afghanistan it wouldn't be long before that unit was wiped out in a massive, coordinted attack. I wonder what they'd do to the ones they captured...
Click to expand...
You're trying to present this as if Iraqis are very tolerant towards American male soldiers patrolling their areas and searching their houses, and the only problem they have is with female soldiers doing this.

And of course I'm aware of the female status in the Muslim society, I'm from the ME buddy. :2razz:
 
Realist1 said:
Women, on the Islamic Terrorist Front haven't had much of a "Calming Effect" as suicidal bombs...Or, thought very highly of by the terrorists either. I'd say your spot on on the way our Enemies operate though.:(
Click to expand...

American Women soldiers didn't have much of a civilizing influence in Abu Ghraib, either, unfortunately.
I think the trick is that the women have to have power equal to that of the men, and in order for that to happen, there must be sufficient numbers of women, and they must be of a certain caliber.
When there's one woman in a group for every twenty or thirty men, and when the women are of the caliber of Megan Ambuhl and Lindee England (young, uneducated, and of the lowest conceivable military rank), and when their immediate supervisors are male, you get a situation where these females cannot possibly exert a positive influence. They are too powerless. At best, they are subservient to the men, catering to them in hopes of being safe and fitting in.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom