• 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 think it's pretty ridiculous that there is a ban on females being in a combat role. There are plenty of women that can shoot as well and better than I do and hey, that's what infantry does.

Can a average 17-30 year old woman lug around a 6-30 pound weapon ,plus ammo, filled canteens, rocket launcher,rucksack 45 pound or more,and other heavy equipment while going and down hills,mountains and other terrain? An infantryman does more than just shoot a rifle, I know this from experience.
 
Last edited:
Can a average 17-30 year old woman lug around a 6-30 pound weapon ,plus ammo, filled canteens, rocket launcher,rucksack 45 pound or more,and other heavy equipment while going and down hills,mountains and other terrain? An infantryman does more than just shoot a rifle, I know this from experience.

I don't think we should assume all women are not physically able to do the above. Nor shold we assume that all men are physically able to do the above.

I think we can safely say that most women could not do the above because it is a fact that women are not built with the physical attributes of men which is they don't have the large muscle mass or the weight most men do. I have seen men that could not do the above physically. Some men are of small stature and not physically able do all that is required to be in the Army. I don't believe we can't assume all people have the same capabilities just because they are of one sex or the other.
 
Can a average 17-30 year old woman lug around a 6-30 pound weapon ,plus ammo, filled canteens, rocket launcher,rucksack 45 pound or more,and other heavy equipment while going and down hills,mountains and other terrain? An infantryman does more than just shoot a rifle, I know this from experience.

ROFL the average man can't either.

Here's the thing... you weed the ones out that can't perform. You do it with the men, so do it with the women too. Problem solved.
 
ROFL the average man can't either.

Here's the thing... you weed the ones out that can't perform. You do it with the men, so do it with the women too. Problem solved.

It's not that easy as I have shown earlier in this thread.
 
They do it with the men all the time. Have for years.

Yes I know that as I served for 12 years. :mrgreen:

Like I said before in an earlier post which I know you read, it is not that simple.
 
Last edited:
Yes I know that as I served for 12 years.

Like I said before in an earlier post which I know you read, it is not that simple.

Simplicity is irrelevant. They do it and have done it for years. It's a non-issue.
 
Simplicity is irrelevant. They do it and have done it for years. It's a non-issue.

No it's not, and never has been.

It is not a non-issue. It is a fact backed up by evidence I have presented and you chose to ignore and offer nothing but opinion, period.

Do I really need to rehash all that?
 
No it's not, and never has been.

It is not a non-issue. It is a fact backed up by evidence I have presented and you chose to ignore and offer nothing but opinion, period.

Do I really need to rehash all that?

Not really, I'm to answer the same way I did before.

If it's not a non-issue, then how do they manage such a difficult process with the men?
 
Not really, I'm to answer the same way I did before.

Exactly trying to avoid the merry-go-round again. ;)

If it's not a non-issue, then how do they manage such a difficult process with the men?

My point is men and women are built differently physically. Things men excel at are not the same as what women excel at and visa versa.

Some females can definitely pass the tests and probably do well in combat. The problem is this is such a small percentage (according to the data) as to not be worth it in the long run. This is the conclusion the study came to and I agree.

I see no reason to put females into a situation most male solders don't want them in to begin with and neither do most females.
 
Last edited:
Exactly trying to avoid the merry-go-round again. ;)



My point is men and women are built differently physically. Things men excel at are not the same as what women excel at and visa versa.

Some females can definitely pass the tests and probably do well in combat. The problem is this is such a small percentage (according to the data) as to not be worth it in the long run. This is the conclusion the study came to and I agree.

I see no reason to put females into a situation most male solders don't want them in to begin with and neither do most females.
The reason is that some females WANT to do it. Doesn't matter if some men don't want them to. **** those men. They can ****ing bite me and all the other capable women. Doesn't matter if the majority of women don't want to do it either. Neither do the majority of men!

If the current method is too time consuming and expensive, or whatever, then change the current method. But the reason to keep women out of combat should most certainly NOT be because "the majority of women can't do it". That's not a reason to deny a right.
 
The reason is that some females WANT to do it. Doesn't matter if some men don't want them to. **** those men. They can ****ing bite me and all the other capable women. Doesn't matter if the majority of women don't want to do it either. Neither do the majority of men!

Dosent work that way and it never will.

If the current method is too time consuming and expensive, or whatever, then change the current method. But the reason to keep women out of combat should most certainly NOT be because "the majority of women can't do it". That's not a reason to deny a right.

Thats not what I said.

I am not going to waist my time with your fallacy arguments that have little to do with what I said.

This is my main point...

"The problem is this is such a small percentage (according to the data) as to not be worth it in the long run. This is the conclusion the study came to and I agree."

You see after that small percentage even make it through training then they need special accommodations and lets not even go into pregnancy (already a problem) etc. The study also mentioned even those that passed where prone to physical injuries at a much higher rate. Most had already dropped out only after the first 2 months due to physical injuries from further training after the initial basic training.

It is not worth it for a few bull dyke's (just kidding!) Females to try and prove they are men, period. It would accomplish nothing except throwing good money after bad.
 
This is my main point...

"The problem is this is such a small percentage (according to the data) as to not be worth it in the long run. This is the conclusion the study came to and I agree."
It's worth it to women who want to serve.

You see after that small percentage even make it through training then they need special accommodations and lets not even go into pregnancy (already a problem) etc. The study also mentioned even those that passed where prone to physical injuries at a much higher rate. Most had already dropped out only after the first 2 months due to physical injuries from further training after the initial basic training.

It is not worth it for a few bull dyke's (just kidding!) Females to try and prove they are men, period. It would accomplish nothing except throwing good money after bad.
They don't need special accommodations. And I already said they should require women who serve to be on some sort of birth control. And if they get pregnant anyway, then they are removed... just as they would be if they were injured.

So what if some of them incur injuries? So what if most drop out? The drop outs are a GOOD thing. That's part of the process of weeding them out.

And wth makes you think any woman is "trying to prove they're a man"?? I sure as **** have never tried to prove I was a man. Why the hell would any woman want to do that? That's just plain demeaning. :2razz: They're just trying to perform a job they want to perform.

And if the basic training is letting bad seeds slip through, then beef up the basic training.
 
It's worth it to women who want to serve.

Get used to disappointment. They can serve just as well in other jobs in the military.

They don't need special accommodations. And I already said they should require women who serve to be on some sort of birth control. And if they get pregnant anyway, then they are removed... just as they would be if they were injured.

Unconstitutional to require birth control. As for the rest, every time a solider is removed we lose.

So what if some of them incur injuries? So what if most drop out? The drop outs are a GOOD thing. That's part of the process of weeding them out.

And wth makes you think any woman is "trying to prove they're a man"?? I sure as **** have never tried to prove I was a man. Why the hell would any woman want to do that? That's just plain demeaning. :2razz: They're just trying to perform a job they want to perform.

Jobs exist that one sex or the other does better. To deny this is to deny the difference between the sexes.

You can razz me all you want. It does not change the truth of the situation. Most females and I have known a few have either a chip on the shoulder over men or want to be a man. I know it's anecdotal, but I have seen the Annie Oakley syndrome way to many times.

And if the basic training is letting bad seeds slip through, then beef up the basic training.

It's not. It's that females are not built for the rigors of combat. they are built for child rearing. It is a fact of life.
 
Get used to disappointment. They can serve just as well in other jobs in the military.
No, they cannot.

Unconstitutional to require birth control. As for the rest, every time a solider is removed we lose.
Maybe in the general realm, but I fail to see how it's unconstitutional to require something as a condition of employment.

Jobs exist that one sex or the other does better. To deny this is to deny the difference between the sexes.
I don't deny this, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are exceptions to the 'rules'.

You can razz me all you want. It does not change the truth of the situation. Most females and I have known a few have either a chip on the shoulder over men or want to be a man. I know it's anecdotal, but I have seen the Annie Oakley syndrome way to many times.
Pahlease. There are few women who want to be a man. Only women who truly want a sex change would want to be a man.

It's not. It's that females are not built for the rigors of combat. they are built for child rearing. It is a fact of life.
It's that not ALL females are built for the rigors of combat, but some are. Some are built for child rearing but some are not. It's a fact of life.
 
No, they cannot.

They can and do even as I type this. thousands of females serve proudly in non-combat arms related missions all over the world.

Maybe in the general realm, but I fail to see how it's unconstitutional to require something as a condition of employment.

This is the United States, not Communist China. We cannot require birth control as #1 it is not 100% effective and #2 Females forget to take them all the time. The main reason is because even in the military we are the owners of our body.

I don't deny this, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are exceptions to the 'rules'.

I agree. I just don't see trying to change the system when it does not need it.

Pahlease. There are few women who want to be a man. Only women who truly want a sex change would want to be a man.

You are correct and I should have been clearer. I meant females I have known who are or were in the military and police officers. I also don't mean in general, but their seemed to be allot of em.

It's that not ALL females are built for the rigors of combat, but some are. Some are built for child rearing but some are not. It's a fact of life.

Not true at all. Our bone structure proves you are wrong. This is why they can tell your sex with nothing but a skeleton.
 
They can and do even as I type this. thousands of females serve proudly in non-combat arms related missions all over the world.
Sure, and maybe that's what they wanted to do. But the ones who want to serve in combat (like I did) would not be happy in other positions.

This is the United States, not Communist China. We cannot require birth control as #1 it is not 100% effective and #2 Females forget to take them all the time. The main reason is because even in the military we are the owners of our body.
And yet employers can require people be non-smokers as a condition of employment. Odd....

Doesn't the military require certain BMI to be allowed in? I mean, could a morbidly obese man join? Isn't his body his own?

And, we are far past the time for taking pills. IUDs work even better.



I agree. I just don't see trying to change the system when it does not need it.
Obviously it does so as to stop blatant discrimination by our own government.

Not true at all. Our bone structure proves you are wrong. This is why they can tell your sex with nothing but a skeleton.
Not all women have wide hips. Some actually have hips too narrow to give birth. Some women are completely incapable of getting pregnant at all. Not all women have bodies "designed for child rearing". And, regardless of that, we're a bit beyond what mother nature may have had in mind for us. And regardless of THAT, even if every single woman in the world could give birth, that doesn't negate the fact that some of them can also perform in combat positions quite adequately. Women have proven themselves to be far more capable at multitasking than men anyway.
 
Sure, and maybe that's what they wanted to do. But the ones who want to serve in combat (like I did) would not be happy in other positions.

Like I said get used to disappointment.

And yet employers can require people be non-smokers as a condition of employment. Odd....

Employers cannot require employees to take drugs or get implants into their body as terms of employment... Odd. :roll:

Doesn't the military require certain BMI to be allowed in? I mean, could a morbidly obese man join? Isn't his body his own?

Absolutely and that would be false as it has nothing to do with requiring birth control.

And, we are far past the time for taking pills. IUDs work even better.

Does not change the current situation as again they are not 100% effective.

Obviously it does so as to stop blatant discrimination by our own government.

And some of us see it as common sense.

Not all women have wide hips. Some actually have hips too narrow to give birth. Some women are completely incapable of getting pregnant at all. Not all women have bodies "designed for child rearing". And, regardless of that, we're a bit beyond what mother nature may have had in mind for us. And regardless of THAT, even if every single woman in the world could give birth, that doesn't negate the fact that some of them can also perform in combat positions quite adequately. Women have proven themselves to be far more capable at multitasking than men anyway.

Irrelevant.
 
so it would seem that after a cost-benefit analysis, it is not cost effective to weed out the overwhelming majority of women who can not make it, just to get the few that can.
 
so it would seem that after a cost-benefit analysis, it is not cost effective to weed out the overwhelming majority of women who can not make it, just to get the few that can.

Well I do agree with Riverrat that it is unfair, but lots of things in this world are unfair.

So your assessment is correct as far as the raw data shows.
 
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.

This would greatly put many lives in danger in combat.

Complete focus is needed during battle that could last days and any room for one mans distractions from the task at hand could prove fatal for the entire squad.
 
This would greatly put many lives in danger in combat.

Complete focus is needed during battle that could last days and any room for one mans distractions from the task at hand could prove fatal for the entire squad.

First the statement that women were not physically able to do the job of a grunt was made and now it is the fact that they can't focus. A big laugh on that one. Try having a baby and the doctor is telling you to focus all you attention on pushing while you are in severe pain and then tell me about focus.

Second, it was a while back but a 19 year old girl was decorated for saving the life of a guy in her unit. Her job was not combat but support of the troops but all troops thankfully are trained to shoot and what to do in a combat situation. They were attacked in Iraq and pinned down and her friend was wounded and she covered him with her body until help came. She got wounded in the process and got a purple and heart and a lot of troops didn't like it just because she was a woman.

We are presently running out of troops to fight our wars. Guys being sent into combat over and over because we are in desperate need of more toops and they are thinking of taking criminals from prison who are not violent into the Army. I think I prefer a woman who can't focus to that alternative.:lol:
 
First the statement that women were not physically able to do the job of a grunt was made and now it is the fact that they can't focus. A big laugh on that one. Try having a baby and the doctor is telling you to focus all you attention on pushing while you are in severe pain and then tell me about focus.

Second, it was a while back but a 19 year old girl was decorated for saving the life of a guy in her unit. Her job was not combat but support of the troops but all troops thankfully are trained to shoot and what to do in a combat situation. They were attacked in Iraq and pinned down and her friend was wounded and she covered him with her body until help came. She got wounded in the process and got a purple and heart and a lot of troops didn't like it just because she was a woman.

We are presently running out of troops to fight our wars. Guys being sent into combat over and over because we are in desperate need of more toops and they are thinking of taking criminals from prison who are not violent into the Army. I think I prefer a woman who can't focus to that alternative.:lol:

I was referring to placing women with the men would put into play the possible distraction and loss of focus of one or more of the men.

No matter how well trained soldiers may be, sex is a basic human instinct, expecially for most young men with strong hormones within the ages usually recruited into the military.

This same arguement can be made for a valid reason to keep gays out of the military.
 
First the statement that women were not physically able to do the job of a grunt was made and now it is the fact that they can't focus. A big laugh on that one. Try having a baby and the doctor is telling you to focus all you attention on pushing while you are in severe pain and then tell me about focus.

Comparing pushing a baby out and infantry requirements is comparing apples to oranges. Infantry doesn't require a tolerance to severe pain.



We are presently running out of troops to fight our wars. Guys being sent into combat over and over because we are in desperate need of more toops and they are thinking of taking criminals from prison who are not violent into the Army. I think I prefer a woman who can't focus to that alternative.:lol:


If women are not held to the same physical standards as their male counterparts then they should not be in the infantry period. Being a infantryman requires more than just being able to shoot. I seriously doubt most women with the same exact training as their male counterparts could do just as well as their male counterparts. The Army and even Marines have lower standards for females. Maybe it is a cost-benefit analysis as another posted why females are not allowed in the infantry or even combat arms MOSs.
 
Women aren't as anatomically able as their male counterparts. It's not sexism, it's simply biology. If a fully grown, averagely sized man struggles to lug around his weight in military equipment than a fully grown, averagely sized women is going to simply fail. This is leaving out of the variables, such as freakisly large women, but you know.

I'll put it this way: the fastest man in the world is faster than the fasters woman. The strongest man in the world is stronger than the strongest woman.

Women aren't designed for heavy labour jobs. It's an evolutionary imperative for the males, the hunter gatherer, and not the females. This will probably change one day but the female body has not adapted to the strain that the male body can cope with. A large lacuna on testosteron production helps, too.

It's not about firing a pistol. It's about anatomic capabilities. The female body could put the lives of male soldiers in danger on the frontline.

I await the cries of foul play.
 
Back
Top Bottom