• 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
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.

You have a feminist card? :shock: I didn't know they gave those to evil conservatives.
 
Last edited:
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 ?

And based upon the fact that some women can in fact meet the requirements for serving in the infantry, something you have no experience in yourself there tough guy, and some men can't meet the requirements, then I suspect a very valid case for women serving in an infantry role does in fact exist.

Talk to da hand, because da face, it ain't listenin'.
 
And based upon the fact that some women can in fact meet the requirements for serving in the infantry, something you have no experience in yourself there tough guy, and some men can't meet the requirements, then I suspect a very valid case for women serving in an infantry role does in fact exist.

Talk to da hand, because da face, it ain't listenin'.

It would be a far more believable case if the women who were serving currently in the positions the military currently allows women right now -the standards weren't already lowered for women.
 
I get it done upstairs or not at all.

Bodi baited me into some heated responses, and there was a thread ban.

Probably ok modding in my view, but that does not change the fact that my side of our argument was cut short. This is all my comment addressed.
 
Moderator's Warning:
This is all off topic and gets borderline 6a to boot. So quit it. There silenced again.
 
Moderator's Warning:
This is all off topic and gets borderline 6a to boot. So quit it. There silenced again.

I bet you could kick some ass on the battlefield Tal...come on, admit it...you could easily take an rifle butt to some dudes skull and you know it.

:2razz:
 
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.

This was addressed and refuted earlier in this thread. PT standards are based on overall physical fitness. Since men and women are different(yes, I admit it), the physical requirements for overall fitness are different.

What I am saying, to be clear, is that for women to be able to serve in infantry, actual standards that are the same across the board would need to be put in place. This is different from PT standards currently in place. Certain jobs do require specific standards, this would just be along those lines.

Note that if the military could not do this, I would tend to then oppose women in infantry/combat. The standards do need to accurately reflect the job required in modern combat, and should not be designed to get a specific result(ie either so easy that most women could complete it, or so difficult it is specifically designed to exclude women).

By the way, I consider a "feminist" as some one who wants what is best for women and society. Under that definition, you get to keep your feminist card. Just because we do not agree does not mean we don't both want what is best.
 
I bet you could kick some ass on the battlefield Tal...come on, admit it...you could easily take an rifle butt to some dudes skull and you know it.

:2razz:

Maybe so, but ultimately I think the infighting caused by my goddess like presence would be too much of a distraction.
 
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.


Unfortunately we're not talking about unarmed combat in a stadium. The M16A3 is a great equalizer even in the most fragile of hands.


I wouldn't rush to chastise someone about babbling given your priors here.


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.


I know women who could do this and men who could not. You're not helping your argument here.

Well, well, for someone so knowledgeable of the infantry, you certainly don;t seem to know much about how or why they are used.

Having served in Airborne, light, Ranger, and mechanized infantry units, I will tell you that infantrymen in all of them require intense physicality to gain and maintain an edge in combat.

Where do we use mechanized infantry?

Well, there is certainly Korea. Whose masive mountains require infantrymen, wearing the same combat gear, to scale the mountains either in conjunction with fire from the armored assets, or to pass assets through the mountain passes to attack the enemies main forces. Does climbing mountains qualify as physical? Does the armor in support make it easier?

There is also the reality of the other extreme, open desert. Nobody walked to Baghdad or Kabul, but when the battle starts, and especially in the close quarters of Urban Combat, the battles range intense and physical. And M-4 might be a great equalizer, but you have to bring it to bear in a manner that takes advantage of your enemies positioning. You must be able to reposition faster and more effectively then your enemy, and the sheer environment of passing between floors, pushing through barricades and often hand to hand combat that result, regardless of how you were delivered to battle (Airborne, Air Assault, or Mechanized) the reality is often the same.

Not too mention, having seen a few destroyed armored vehicles, are women going to be able to reach in and carry out a an injured comrade from a turret?

That still does not address the sexual competition between the sexes. If you think that levels of discipline between infantry units and logistics units are the same you are flat out wrong. It will also not prevent the inevitable gambit from emerging, "If Johnny goes through the door first, I'll get Suzie," and when such acts become obvious they will rip a unit apart.

This is not about societal equity, this is about winning battles. Sometimes a same sex environment is necessary to help ensure that reality.
 
And based upon the fact that some women can in fact meet the requirements for serving in the infantry, something you have no experience in yourself there tough guy,

Lerxst just can't keep him self from the same kind of baiting.

and some men can't meet the requirements, then I suspect a very valid case for women serving in an infantry role does in fact exist.

The approach you have attempted in this post is rather sad Jeff.

You see, Scarecrow's hypotheticals both spoke of the genders, as a group.

In both instances, you attempted to counter his assertions, with anecdotes about specific individuals. Individuals are not groups. Groups are what is under discussion here, as you can note in the thread title. You yourself, only switch back to the topic at hand, the whole group, in your end statement, which regards your preferred policy. So your policy on a group is being determined by data based on individual anecdotes.

As I stated previously . . .

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

You're not helping your argument here.
 
This was addressed and refuted earlier in this thread. PT standards are based on overall physical fitness. Since men and women are different(yes, I admit it), the physical requirements for overall fitness are different.

What a logical fallacy. The "requirements" come from the task and do not vary because the job is the job.
 
This was addressed and refuted earlier in this thread. PT standards are based on overall physical fitness. Since men and women are different(yes, I admit it), the physical requirements for overall fitness are different.

What I am saying, to be clear, is that for women to be able to serve in infantry, actual standards that are the same across the board would need to be put in place. This is different from PT standards currently in place. Certain jobs do require specific standards, this would just be along those lines.

Note that if the military could not do this, I would tend to then oppose women in infantry/combat. The standards do need to accurately reflect the job required in modern combat, and should not be designed to get a specific result(ie either so easy that most women could complete it, or so difficult it is specifically designed to exclude women).

By the way, I consider a "feminist" as some one who wants what is best for women and society. Under that definition, you get to keep your feminist card. Just because we do not agree does not mean we don't both want what is best.

The expectations and training for the same positions would need to be EXACTLY the same for it even to begin to sound remotely acceptable. No ifs, ands, or buts. Unfortunately, we've already set a precedent that this won't be the case. Once you decide to let the women in then you have to deal with the fact that they're still being kept out because they can't perform or train the same. So then we give them different standards of training & PT. This may very well be acceptable on many levels for many jobs while remaining completely unacceptable on any level for other jobs.
 
Note that if the military could not do this, I would tend to then oppose women in infantry/combat. The standards do need to accurately reflect the job required in modern combat, and should not be designed to get a specific result(ie either so easy that most women could complete it, or so difficult it is specifically designed to exclude women).

Actually, I woudl oppose it, as well. The worst possible scenario is women being treated differently for purely political reasons.
 
The expectations and training for the same positions would need to be EXACTLY the same for it even to begin to sound remotely acceptable. No ifs, ands, or buts. Unfortunately, we've already set a precedent that this won't be the case. Once you decide to let the women in then you have to deal with the fact that they're still being kept out because they can't perform or train the same. So then we give them different standards of training & PT. This may very well be acceptable on many levels for many jobs while remaining completely unacceptable on any level for other jobs.

Well, there is a country that does this in practice: Sweden.

If a women can meet the same physical standards, she can join the infantry. Do you know how have, at least according to my Swedish counter-parts? Zero.

Are they being kept out for other less obvious reasons? I don't know, but I do know that Israel once allowed women in infantry roles and it no longer allows them, perhaps with good reason.
 
Well, well, for someone so knowledgeable of the infantry, you certainly don;t seem to know much about how or why they are used.
I absolutely do know how they are used because it's what I did on active duty. You've obviously not read this thread in it's entirety. Such a shame as you just wasted a bunch of effort in railing on me without cause.
Having served in Airborne, light, Ranger, and mechanized infantry units, I will tell you that infantrymen in all of them require intense physicality to gain and maintain an edge in combat.
No kidding? What's your point? That women can't get physical enough for combat?
Where do we use mechanized infantry?

Well, there is certainly Korea. Whose masive mountains require infantrymen, wearing the same combat gear, to scale the mountains either in conjunction with fire from the armored assets, or to pass assets through the mountain passes to attack the enemies main forces. Does climbing mountains qualify as physical? Does the armor in support make it easier?
So women can't hump a ruck through the mountains? Care to prove that point?

There is also the reality of the other extreme, open desert. Nobody walked to Baghdad or Kabul, but when the battle starts, and especially in the close quarters of Urban Combat, the battles range intense and physical. And M-4 might be a great equalizer, but you have to bring it to bear in a manner that takes advantage of your enemies positioning. You must be able to reposition faster and more effectively then your enemy, and the sheer environment of passing between floors, pushing through barricades and often hand to hand combat that result, regardless of how you were delivered to battle (Airborne, Air Assault, or Mechanized) the reality is often the same.
Again, you're implying women in general can't do that. I want you to prove it.

Not too mention, having seen a few destroyed armored vehicles, are women going to be able to reach in and carry out a an injured comrade from a turret?
Some could and some men couldn't. I've already addressed this dynamic previously.

That still does not address the sexual competition between the sexes. If you think that levels of discipline between infantry units and logistics units are the same you are flat out wrong.

It will also not prevent the inevitable gambit from emerging, "If Johnny goes through the door first, I'll get Suzie," and when such acts become obvious they will rip a unit apart.
I didn't say that and you apparently have missed several of my other posts in this thread. I've already made this same case as to why we shouldn't integrate women into male dominated combat units. Reading if fundamental. Go back a few pages.

The argument I am no engaged is countering the very foolish notion that women can't do the job. Some can in fact do the job. Conversely some men can't.
 
Why has no one even mentioned a "separate but equal" approach ?

Is it still the leftover racism baggage ?

What about an all woman specialized infantry unit ?

Any Thoughts ?
 
The expectations and training for the same positions would need to be EXACTLY the same for it even to begin to sound remotely acceptable. No ifs, ands, or buts. Unfortunately, we've already set a precedent that this won't be the case. Once you decide to let the women in then you have to deal with the fact that they're still being kept out because they can't perform or train the same. So then we give them different standards of training & PT. This may very well be acceptable on many levels for many jobs while remaining completely unacceptable on any level for other jobs.

Expectations and training would have to be the same, yes.

I think we are still not communicating right on the rest though. The goal of the standards now on the books is for overall physical fitness. Since women are different than men, they can have the same level of fitness, while being able to do things differently. Not sure if it is still used, but when I served, body fat standards where implemented(stupid system, easy to cheat, and highly inaccurate in way it was measured). Women had different body fat percentages allowed, not because women where special, but because women's bodies are different. Current PT standards are the same as this kinda. The idea is to get the same end result, but since women and men are different, the route there is different.

For combat/infantry, universal standards would have to be implemented though, and this is make or break, no compromise. Any speculation on whether this is achievable is just that, speculation. I would note though that the military is surprisingly good at getting results.
 
Actually, I woudl oppose it, as well. The worst possible scenario is women being treated differently for purely political reasons.

They're not political reasons they're biological ones and it happens everyday in our current military and other jobs like firefighters. The physical test requirements for men as a group are often higher than they are for women. This is treating them differently and it's a necessity if you really want to "let women in" as they wouldn't likely "get in" under the male requirements.
 
Expectations and training would have to be the same, yes.

I think we are still not communicating right on the rest though. The goal of the standards now on the books is for overall physical fitness. Since women are different than men, they can have the same level of fitness, while being able to do things differently. Not sure if it is still used, but when I served, body fat standards where implemented(stupid system, easy to cheat, and highly inaccurate in way it was measured). Women had different body fat percentages allowed, not because women where special, but because women's bodies are different. Current PT standards are the same as this kinda. The idea is to get the same end result, but since women and men are different, the route there is different.

For combat/infantry, universal standards would have to be implemented though, and this is make or break, no compromise. Any speculation on whether this is achievable is just that, speculation. I would note though that the military is surprisingly good at getting results.

If the PT for men is that they run 3 miles within such and such amount of time a woman should have to do the same - when the job is serving in infantry. If a man has to be able to do so many pull ups then so should a woman - for battle readiness.

If they can't then you are basically giving a unit a weaker peer by giving them a woman and on the battlefield that is flat out unacceptable.

You can't argue it away by saying, "they're different so they do things differently," if the difference is brute strength it's an issue not to be poo poohed away.
 
So women can't hump a ruck through the mountains? Care to prove that point?

Again, you're implying women in general can't do that. I want you to prove it.


Some could and some men couldn't. I've already addressed this dynamic previously.

I think you might be missing the point a bit here. Perhaps gree0232 is not saying that women can't accomplish it, but that in general, they cannot win in a competition at said activity against a group of males. Winning against a group of males is sort of part of what the armt wants in specialized infantry, and in specialized infantry contests, the prize for second place is not one you want.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst just can't keep him self from the same kind of baiting.
Your sexist, macho projections are too disingenuous to ignore. My weakness I suppose.

The approach you have attempted in this post is rather sad Jeff.
Not at all.
You see, Scarecrow's hypotheticals both spoke of the genders, as a group.
So? Generalizations have no place here when we are talking about allowing women to specialize in a particular MOS. You either meet the qualifications or you don't. Period.
In both instances, you attempted to counter his assertions, with anecdotes about specific individuals. Individuals are not groups. Groups are what is under discussion here, as you can note in the thread title. You yourself, only switch back to the topic at hand, the whole group, in your end statement, which regards your preferred policy. So your policy on a group is being determined by data based on individual anecdotes.
No, the gross generalizations are what is being discussed here. That's what I am taking issue with. And they are wrong. Why? Because of that fact that there are many females who do not fit his stereotype. That fact blows his generalization out of the water and with it any validation he thought he had about "groups." You are trying to frame my argument for me, it won't work. You should know this by now...every time you try it it blows up in your face.

As I stated previously . . .
And you were wrong previously.
 
Back
Top Bottom