• 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!

Aclu sues over policy barring women from combat

Granted, there are women who are not fit enough for combat ... but there also are. So we just completely ban all women now? Brilliant logic.
Even more brilliant logic is to totally ignore all of the proof and opinion I presented of why this move would be detrimental to the military by singling out the one sentence you know you can refute and attempting to refute it with a very simple and basic argument followed by an equally simple and basic attempt at insulting me with your "brilliant logic" comment.
What would be brilliant is if you could conjure up a way to dispute the mountains of facts and the chain reaction that I believe would happen if we totally opened up combat mos's to women. Of course, you can't do that because A) You have no data to refute it B) You have no experience to refute it C) You seem to lack the mental agility to refute it. Now, how about an honest debate instead of lumping a group of people into one post and offering one liners and snide comments back at them.
 
Even more brilliant logic is to totally ignore all of the proof and opinion I presented of why this move would be detrimental to the military by singling out the one sentence you know you can refute and attempting to refute it with a very simple and basic argument followed by an equally simple and basic attempt at insulting me with your "brilliant logic" comment.
What would be brilliant is if you could conjure up a way to dispute the mountains of facts and the chain reaction that I believe would happen if we totally opened up combat mos's to women. Of course, you can't do that because A) You have no data to refute it B) You have no experience to refute it C) You seem to lack the mental agility to refute it. Now, how about an honest debate instead of lumping a group of people into one post and offering one liners and snide comments back at them.
Calm down, I wasn't arguing against your data, in fact I quite literally said that there are definitely more women who are unfit for duty. However I'm saying it's unrealistic to just make broad generalizations about women based on your numbers. It's brilliant logic because your statement "women shouldn't be in combat, period" is ridiculously absolutist and is the very same logic that just keeps sexism and discrimination alive.

I "lumped a group of people into one post" because I don't want to make like 6 consecutive posts in a row. Also, I made one liners mostly because some of the comments in this thread are just so hilarious that I'm at a loss for words.

So the question still stands, do we just ban ALL women? Even those who WOULD be fit for front line combat?
 
Well, it isn’t the kind of issue that can be resolved by just changing one thing. You are right, if the only change is all females have to meet the male standard then that would be disastrous for women in the Armed Forces. What I am saying is it is the job that matters. If a female can be a veterinary assistant in the Army without having to run two miles in 15 minutes, than a male should be held to that same standard. But to be infantry you would likely need to score much higher on a PT than a vet tech though not as high on an ASVAB.
The issues you would run into is this. 1) Physical fitness must matter due to health care costs. A healthy force equals a cheap force. This is why we have a minimum standard. 2) Unlike anywhere else in the US (besides Hooters), appearance matters here. We have to look fit. 3) The minimum standards for the Marine Corps are the highest of the 4 branches. They are also not very hard to meet IMO. If someone can't meet our standards, I don't think they have any business being in a uniform.
We set different ASVAB requirements for different MOSs so I don’t see why we can’t do the same for physical fitness. I realize the USMC is the smallest of the forces and the only one that doesn’t have problems meetings its recruitment goals, so it can likely afford to be more picky.
I think when you're referring to the ASVAB you are speaking of mental agility/ability, which really can't be improved in a tangible way like physical fitness. More or less you have it or you don't. I think the difference is that our leaders think it's easier to improve someone physically than it is mentally. If someone can meet a minimum standard of physical fitness, they at least have the template of a service member that can be improved. With the ASVAB, you are measuring something that can't be improved. Sure, a servicemember can learn new skills. But their ability to learn new things isn't going to improve. Therefore, we need people capable of learning at the level we need to execute each MOS.
I think it should be dependent on the MOS, not the gender. And why do we lower the standards for the older members? Some say it is because they are in leadership positions and less likely to have to do the grunt work. I say then the requirement should be adjusted by RANK, not by AGE. But that is just me.
It's harder for an older guy to meet the same standards. That's all there is to it. I'm 32 and it's harder to stay healthy enough to be in elite shape than it used to be. I can still smoke all the younger kids, but it hurts worse to do it lol.
 
Generalizations almost never work. Determine a persons worth on an individual basis. Is that not why we have drill sergeants?
 
Generalizations almost never work. Determine a persons worth on an individual basis. Is that not why we have drill sergeants?
You have to have minimum standards. I can't set standards for each person. Then discrimination, favortism, racism, sexism, etc will be accused at all turns.
 
So you have a better measuring stick? Let's hear it instead of vague statements.

Haven't thought about it all that much, but your argument as I read hinges on it actually being the needed standard. And with a long history of males dominating the field it is possible there is more than a bit of group think going on. At some level I find that an interesting possibility.
 
Calm down, I wasn't arguing against your data, in fact I quite literally said that there are definitely more women who are unfit for duty. However I'm saying it's unrealistic to just make broad generalizations about women based on your numbers. It's brilliant logic because your statement "women shouldn't be in combat, period" is ridiculously absolutist and is the very same logic that just keeps sexism and discrimination alive.
I "lumped a group of people into one post" because I don't want to make like 6 consecutive posts in a row. Also, I made one liners mostly because some of the comments in this thread are just so hilarious that I'm at a loss for words.

So the question still stands, do we just ban ALL women? Even those who WOULD be fit for front line combat?

Its not sexism. I don't have an issue with women. I have an issue with their ability. I didn't have an issue with DADT being repealed because being gay doesn't effect one's ability to perform one's duties as required by MOS. Women are proved to be weaker. What you are proposing is that women should be double screened to go into combat MOS's while males would not be. That isn't fair either and will be an issue brought up by the "fair mongers". Therefore, my chain reaction I presented will go into effect.
 
You have to have minimum standards. I can't set standards for each person. Then discrimination, favortism, racism, sexism, etc will be accused at all turns.

Why not? Either a person will, or will not, make a good soldier. Just because someone can do a lot of pushups, does not a soldier make. ****, dude, I can do 70 pushups in one round somewhat easily, does NOT make me a good person to have your back in a combat situation.
 
Haven't thought about it all that much, but your argument as I read hinges on it actually being the needed standard. And with a long history of males dominating the field it is possible there is more than a bit of group think going on. At some level I find that an interesting possibility.

There has to be a standard bro. You know that. You've served. If we want fairness, there should be a TRUE standard. Not a standard based on sex. I see what you're saying though. That maybe the standard is skewed based on the ability of males because males came up with it. However, I can't think of any physical events that women would be better at than men or are even with men on that could be included in a physical fitness test. The only way to go would be to lower standards, which I think we could both agree is bad business
 
Last edited:
Why not? Either a person will, or will not, make a good soldier. Just because someone can do a lot of pushups, does not a soldier make. ****, dude, I can do 70 pushups in one round somewhat easily, does NOT make me a good person to have your back in a combat situation.
So what if I think only women with big tits make good soldiers because I'm a sexist predator?
What if Sgt Big Black Guy thinks that only big black guys make good soldiers?
What if Sgt Closet Nazi thinks that only white guys with blue eyes and fair skin make good soliders?
 
Sure. Why not? Let (RE nearly all white) females be killed for no better reason than our ( mostly white ) males are being killed.
:fueltofir
 
Its not sexism. I don't have an issue with women. I have an issue with their ability.
Okay, how do you not see the irony in this statement?

I didn't have an issue with DADT being repealed because being gay doesn't effect one's ability to perform one's duties as required by MOS. Women are proved to be weaker. What you are proposing is that women should be double screened to go into combat MOS's while males would not be. That isn't fair either and will be an issue brought up by the "fair mongers". Therefore, my chain reaction I presented will go into effect.
No, I never proposed anyone be double screened. Actually I think the military should screen everyone equally and leave gender out of it. I suppose statistically you will end up with more males, but I'm sure you'd end up with some females too. Banning women altogether is an overreaction.

The irrational folks who think women should be given special treatment can cry all they want.
 
There has to be a standard bro. You know that. You've served. If we want fairness, there should be a TRUE standard. Not a standard based on sex. I see what you're saying though. That maybe the standard is skewed based on the ability of males because males came up with it. However, I can't think of any physical events that women would be better at than men or are even with men on that could be included in a physical fitness test. The only way to go would be to lower standards, which I think we could both agree is bad business

Yes, I did serve and found much of it not all that needed and knew folks who failed various aspects. And was told the military was large best suited for smaller men, and larger overly muscled men. In any case, I did call for no standards.

As for better than men, I think I recall they naturally shoot better than men. But I'd have to look that up. The question is what if those are not the need criteria for the world today?
 
Yes, I did serve and found much of it not all that needed and knew folks who failed various aspects. And was told the military was large best suited for smaller men, and larger overly muscled men. In any case, I did call for no standards.

As for better than men, I think I recall they naturally shoot better than men. But I'd have to look that up. The question is what if those are not the need criteria for the world today?

I wouldn't say they "naturally" shoot better... It's more of a learned thing. Women tend not to be less likely to have shot a weapon before so when they get taught, they learn the correct way from the start, while men often have some unlearning to do before they learn the correct way. And therefore women generally do score better on the range than their men counterparts.
 
I wouldn't say they "naturally" shoot better... It's more of a learned thing. Women tend not to be less likely to have shot a weapon before so when they get taught, they learn the correct way from the start, while men often have some unlearning to do before they learn the correct way. And therefore women generally do score better on the range than their men counterparts.

What I meant by natrual was their bodies provided a better natural base. Better balance on the whole.
 
for those of you who have never been in the military, you do not have your normal natural rights under the constitution while you serve.

when you sign the paper to join our military, you give up your rights, and you accept, the uniform code of military justice... UCMJ, for your rights.

there is no free speech, secure in your person, as well as the others, you do as your told, when told to jump, you ask " how high"

so you dont have rights to fight in combat.
 
So what if I think only women with big tits make good soldiers because I'm a sexist predator?
What if Sgt Big Black Guy thinks that only big black guys make good soldiers?
What if Sgt Closet Nazi thinks that only white guys with blue eyes and fair skin make good soliders?

In all of those cases, it wouldn't take long for those people to get fired.


All I'm saying is, I think a drill sergeant is a better judge on who can do what than a bureaucrat.
 
This whole discussion is silly. For more than a single reason. I'm not a sexist, I have believed in equal pay and equal rights all my life. I served 20 years in the USMC. Women were some of the best Marines that I ever lead. They (for the most part) were some of the best performers in their specific occupations, however, once we left garrison and entered the field things changed.

Female Marines are not suited for the rigors of combat. Yes, this is a generalization, but the vast majority of them cannot deal with the task just in training environments and training while intented to simulate actual combat never does. People don't actually get shot in training, they don't actually get blown up in training and the mental strain is never the same.

As much as some people like to disclaim, there are physical and emotional differences between the sexes. There are things that women can do and certain strains they can handle that men are not suited to do, the opposite is true also. Serving in direct combat skills is one of those things that women are not suited to do.
 
If women want to be in combat let them as long as they receive the same exact training as men, they have every right to be there too.

I'm all for women serving in combat arms units, as long as those units are all female units. Coed units won't work.

As far as receiving the same training, you will never see an end to gender norming and you can thank the feminazis for that.

A right? No, they don't have a right to serve in the military as they choose. The military has standards--as well it should--and anyone that can't meet those standards isn't allowed to serve.
 
This whole discussion is silly. For more than a single reason. I'm not a sexist, I have believed in equal pay and equal rights all my life. I served 20 years in the USMC. Women were some of the best Marines that I ever lead. They (for the most part) were some of the best performers in their specific occupations, however, once we left garrison and entered the field things changed.

Female Marines are not suited for the rigors of combat. Yes, this is a generalization, but the vast majority of them cannot deal with the task just in training environments and training while intented to simulate actual combat never does. People don't actually get shot in training, they don't actually get blown up in training and the mental strain is never the same.

As much as some people like to disclaim, there are physical and emotional differences between the sexes. There are things that women can do and certain strains they can handle that men are not suited to do, the opposite is true also. Serving in direct combat skills is one of those things that women are not suited to do.

I would like to expand on this sentence by adding that the female menstrual cycle makes them unsuited for combat condtions. A combat arms unit can't afford to loose a significant percentage of it's strength because of a bunch of sick cooters.

An all male mechanized infantry unit has 130 +/- officers and men. A an all female units would have to have half-again-more soldiers, because a significant portion of the unit would be on sick call, or on medical profile.
 
Okay, how do you not see the irony in this statement?
No. Sexism would mean I hold an unfounded bias towards women, which isn't the case. It is a proven fact that most women are not as physically capable as most men. Again, I'm not doubting the mental ability of women to handle a combat MOS. I think they would do just fine in that aspect. Unfortunately for them, the military requires the physical ability to project that skill onto the battlefield, which most women lack.
No, I never proposed anyone be double screened. Actually I think the military should screen everyone equally and leave gender out of it. I suppose statistically you will end up with more males, but I'm sure you'd end up with some females too. Banning women altogether is an overreaction.
Unfortunately, you and I both know that this will never happen. It's just the way it is in our country. We'll see how it plays out.
 
What I meant by natrual was their bodies provided a better natural base. Better balance on the whole.

Not to sound crude or anything (honestly I'm not trying to), this depends on the females chest size and hips. If a woman has a A cup breast and skinny hips, this is a null and void point.
 
Back
Top Bottom