• 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


  • Total voters
    95
We'll separate the men from the women in world competitions on swimming, basketball, and everything else but on the battlefield we'll pretend the sexes are the same. Makes sense, right? :doh

Sense is over-rated, you need Faith, Faith in the god of Political Correctness.
 
Well, that is two posts in a row of ad hominem baiting.

Thanks so much for gracing us with your presence, I wonder how forlorn PF is knowing they have to do without your valuable services.
 
Well, that is two posts in a row of ad hominem baiting.
You keep using that phrase. I do not think you know what it means.

Thanks so much for gracing us with your presence, I wonder how forlorn PF is knowing they have to do without your valuable services.

Many tears have been shed. :wink:
 
There are a couple of things that need to brought to light in this reality. The first is that men and women are not equal in everything, including ability and the way in which they are treated and behave.

The obvious difference is physical as there are no female professional football players, and there are no women winners of the Tour De France for example.

The second is that women and men, in intense sexual competition engage in very different behavior and are treated very differently as a result.

Those who think modern infantrymen no longer require great strength or endurance are kidding themselves. The average combat load is nearly a 100 lbs when you add in body armor, ammunition, water, food, batteries, radios, and medical kits. If you have never spent days in days in massive heat under this load walking patrols and think that all women will be able to take this kind of punishment you are fooling yourself.

There are women who can, but that introduces the second issue, there will always be few women in the ranks of infantrymen.

Men will behave as men do, and when they are 19 years old it is a safe bet that many men will simultaneously fall in love with the few women, anyone who has seen the 'queens of Iraq (for a year)' will know what I am talking about in general, and will see clearly that it will be magnified many times over in a fierecely machismo environment like an infantry platoon.

The simple fact of the matter is that the infantry's mission is to close with and destroy the enemy, and it must behave in a cohesive manner that same sex environments help to create. The sexual competition is fine in the barracks, not so helpful when the bullets start flying in reality.

The infantry exists to deliver victory for its nation, not a social tool to address percieved or actual injustice. When women only schools are eliminated, whose necessity is clearly not life and death, then maybe we can start addressing things like allowing women to serve in the infantry.
 
Strenhgt of arm has lost much of its importance in modern combat. Accuracy and the ability to function under stress are much more important.
And in case you are wondering, with the proper training, women outperform men in stress tests hands down.

Strength has not lost it's importance. I have seen all the stuff these men must wear and carry. Things have not yet changed so much that strength isn't important. And when you're discussing battle missions at any moment any member of the unit may need to become a rescuer carrying another man -wearing all the same heavy gear, out of battle. I'm sorry but I know way too many men who serve who DO NOT WANT WOMEN IN INFANTRY for good reasons and I respect their opinions. There are a great many ways women can serve in the military, but infantry is not one of them.

To argue strength isn't important anymore is just beyond ridiculous considering the outfit and gear alone, let alone other tasks one might have to do.
 
Do you think there is a single woman on earth who ISN'T aware of the possibility of being raped, AS A CIVILIAN?

So you support the right to carry concealed weapons to protect the innocent?

The risk increases in the military.
The battlefield simply is not the place for women.

Men's roles are to protect them... and most civilized men do it instinctively.
Then there is the sexual aspect... those tensions are not needed.

For one moment let's say women should be... then they should have to meet the standards men have to achieve. No watering down the entry level.

Watering them down will surely get people killed.

.
 
1) The friggin' thread is about "infantry", got it? The infantry consists ultimately of those coarse hairy goons who are willing to bust someone's head with a rock if that's what it takes to survive the battle and win the war.
You've never served in the infantry have you? There are individuals of all different sized, shapes, and characters in the infantry. Ultimately it's not about coarse hairy goons at all.

2) Take a hundred average men of military age. Take a hundred women average men of military age. Throw them naked in the Rose Bowl and tell them that the side that incapacites the other side completely will earn five million dollars apiece, and say also that there's no rules. Wanna bet which team wins?
Unfortunately we're not talking about unarmed combat in a stadium. The M16A3 is a great equalizer even in the most fragile of hands.

Of course the men will win, so quit babbling about relative differences.
I wouldn't rush to chastise someone about babbling given your priors here.

Don't like that comparison? Take the same teams, give them 100 lb packs with field rations and rifles, and tell them to start marching, that anyone who sits down or even leans against a pole is disqualified, and see which team wins the money.
I know some women who could do that. I know some men who could not. What's your point? Not every soldier can qualify to be a Ranger, airborne, of hang in the light infantry. But they could potentially serve in a mechanized infantry unit.

Remember, we're talking infantry here, and those guys march all over the damn place at times. (Sometimes the trucks run out of gas.)
I know women who could do this and men who could not. You're not helping your argument here.
 
I put mine in me and my training. Police, are most often historians, come to document the carnage. :wink:

Pretty much spot on. You are your own first line of defense and nobody can protect you better than yourself. I suggest lots of range time and mat time. :happy:
 
I know women who could do this and men who could not. You're not helping your argument here.

You are trying to change the context from generalities to anecdotes about specific individuals.

You're not helping your argument here.
 
I'm under the impression that the job changes at the drop of a hat. It's not neatly as outlined as most other jobs. Going into ground battle is wildly unpredictable. So IMO talking about the "job" and the "job requirements" is a little absurd.

Sorry for the delay replying to this. Rev Hellhound had me distracted in another thread, so we can blame him.

Not all men in combat are physically able to do everything already. Somehow things do get done. I am actually proposing improving that, as with actual strength standards(remember, the PT standards currently used are not a measure of strength but overall physical fitness) that are uniform, this would weed out weakling men.

I'm aware that when men and women are in peak condition the vast majority of men are stronger than the vast majority of women which is why men and women rarely compete head to head in the Olympics.

Irrelevant. The vast majority are not in the military. The vast majority is not how we should base decisions. If women can achieve strength standards(this is an important caveat, without that I would agree with you), they should be allowed to serve in infantry/combat.

In ground battle I would think optimally unless we're highly outnumbered we want the absolute strongest infantry we can find. Since men are naturally stronger than women and this is obvious when both sexes are in optimum condition the strongest infantry possible is an infantry of men.

Close, but not quite true. In any combat situation, you want optimally the best infantry we can find. Men and women are different and bring different strengths to any job. When I was in the navy, guess who got called when work needed to be done in tight spaces as just one example.

The pregnancy issue is two fold. The first part is the distractions, the sexual relationships, the mess it inevitable creates that there is no room for IMO. The second is the actual pregnancies and being "battle ready."

And we are still talking about a tiny issue, based on the numbers you supplied. 1.8 %
 
You are trying to change the context from generalities to anecdotes about specific individuals.

You're not helping your argument here.

You apparently don't even know what my argument is there Sparky.

:2wave:
 
So you support the right to carry concealed weapons to protect the innocent?

hell to the yes.

The risk increases in the military.
Proof?

The battlefield simply is not the place for women.

NOTED.

Men's roles are to protect them... and most civilized men do it instinctively.

I've always preferred the uncivilized ones, myself.

Then there is the sexual aspect... those tensions are not needed.
Speak for yourself, man.

For one moment let's say women should be... then they should have to meet the standards men have to achieve. No watering down the entry level.

Works for me.

Watering them down will surely get people killed.
If you say so. You are the expert, after all.
 
You've never served in the infantry have you? There are individuals of all different sized, shapes, and characters in the infantry. Ultimately it's not about coarse hairy goons at all.

Standard Cephalopod Stereotype there.
 
You apparently don't even know what my argument is there Sparky.

:2wave:

You would like it if that were true, but it isn't.

This thread is titled : "Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?"

The thread you apparently thought you were posting in must be titled : "Should the toughest women Lerxst has personally encountered be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?"

Should I start that thread and meet you there ?
 
hell to the yes.


Proof?



NOTED.



I've always preferred the uncivilized ones, myself.


Speak for yourself, man.



Works for me.


If you say so. You are the expert, after all.

And that's the ball game.


Catz, you have some of these boys all wrapped around the axle. Methinks they really don't know how to react here. What was it you said, kick you in the shins then ask you to play kickball? ;)
 
I am actually proposing improving that, as with actual strength standards(remember, the PT standards currently used are not a measure of strength but overall physical fitness) that are uniform, this would weed out weakling men.

I don't see this as possible. The training PT for men and women is already different, with different standards, right this very second for the jobs in which women are allowed to serve. They have already reduced standards and requirements for women in terms of what is required when it comes to how fast they run a mile and what exercises they need to be able to do in the positions they allow women to have in the military. There is absolutely nothing which suggests they wouldn't do the same when allowing women onto the battlefield. I'm adamantly against it and don't give a hoot if that means I don't get to keep a feminist card in my back pocket.
 
And that's the ball game.


Catz, you have some of these boys all wrapped around the axle. Methinks they really don't know how to react here. What was it you said, kick you in the shins then ask you to play kickball? ;)

:3oops: Thanks.

I do love some kickball.
 
Back
Top Bottom