• 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

Aunt Spiker said:
My squabble with him was more about his overall view of women in general...

I'll state it one last time and be done with it:

"level the physical fitness standards - no more differentia between the sexes." (this is what I oppose)
"Those who qualify - are in - regardless of sex"

No more unbalanced standards.
As it stands I feel that having unequal standards puts individuals in danger and weakens the overall capability of the force. . . you do seem to agree on that. . . so, those who are in are UNQUESTIONABLY ABLE. And then they would qualify without the differentia and they're in. Yes?

Yes.

Very good then . . . What's so hard about that? That's my view - that's where I stand.

The single most annoying thing to me is this: "I want to be in - but I can't perform like everyone else is expected to - so I want you to lower the standards for me. . . " which is bs.

In some areas it just doesn't matter, tech, provisional, oversight and supply, etc - but in other areas it's a huge issue.
Click to expand...

Gender norming will never go away and even if it did menstrual cycles and the accompanying hygene issues will not.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
My squabble with him was more about his overall view of women in general...

I'll state it one last time and be done with it:

"level the physical fitness standards - no more differentia between the sexes." (this is what I oppose)
"Those who qualify - are in - regardless of sex"

No more unbalanced standards.
As it stands I feel that having unequal standards puts individuals in danger and weakens the overall capability of the force. . . you do seem to agree on that. . . so, those who are in are UNQUESTIONABLY ABLE. And then they would qualify without the differentia and they're in. Yes?

Yes.

Very good then . . . What's so hard about that? That's my view - that's where I stand.

The single most annoying thing to me is this: "I want to be in - but I can't perform like everyone else is expected to - so I want you to lower the standards for me. . . " which is bs.

In some areas it just doesn't matter, tech, provisional, oversight and supply, etc - but in other areas it's a huge issue.
Click to expand...

Gender norming will never go away and even if it did menstrual cycles and the accompanying hygene issues will not.
 
apdst said:
Gender norming will never go away and even if it did menstrual cycles and the accompanying hygene issues will not.
Click to expand...

Repeated for effect :D - kidding. You guys really amp us all up like we're walking bacteria factories or something . . . is that your experience with women: never ending flowing blood rivulettes of the most vile manor? Geesh - sounds rough and freakish but oddly nothing I've ever dealt. :shrug:

You know - when men were coming down with stds left and right - they gave them condoms.

It should, though - levelize it all . . . problem solved. I think it's hardly fair to let women in con differentia and keep others out sans differentia. It's unjust to both groups, honestly.
 
apdst said:
History is full of examples where coed combat arms units have failed on the battlefield.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Two example of that are the Soviets in WWII and today's Israeli Army.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Exactly. Two example of that are the Soviets in WWII and today's Israeli Army.
Click to expand...

Oh - so we're failures, now? The US army is coed in most scenarios. . . .evidence it's successful when balanced properly.

We're not talking about overall entry into the service, you know.
 
Last edited:
johnny_rebson said:
Women in the Russian and Soviet military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Women in the Israel Defense Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm very well aware of militant history worldwide. Are you aware that both still allow women - in various balances? Or are you not reading your own links, there, and assuming that at some point along the way they booted them all out?

Just like us at present - they have decided on their own balance . . . we have decided ours. They can change theirs and we can change ours. . . if that's what each country wants to do.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Repeated for effect :D - kidding. You guys really amp us all up like we're walking bacteria factories or something . . . is that your experience with women: never ending flowing blood rivulettes of the most vile manor? Geesh - sounds rough and freakish but oddly nothing I've ever dealt. :shrug:

You know - when men were coming down with stds left and right - they gave them condoms.

It should, though - levelize it all . . . problem solved. I think it's hardly fair to let women in con differentia and keep others out sans differentia. It's unjust to both groups, honestly.
Click to expand...

I'm not a biologist, but the current Army policy is that women can not be in the field or downrange for more than 3 days without access to a shower for feminine hygiene reasons. Now, assuming that that is a real concern, that is an absolutely unacceptable condition for combat. When I was an infantryman in Afghanistan I spent weeks living out on top of a mountain or in a humvee with nothing but water bottle baths. It was absolutely brutal. If women biologically can't handle living in the mud for months, then they simply can't perform the job. Nothing against them, but that's the way it is.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm not a biologist, but the current Army policy is that women can not be in the field or downrange for more than 3 days without access to a shower for feminine hygiene reasons. Now, assuming that that is a real concern, that is an absolutely unacceptable condition for combat. When I was an infantryman in Afghanistan I spent weeks living out on top of a mountain or in a humvee with nothing but water bottle baths. It was absolutely brutal. If women biologically can't handle living in the mud for months, then they simply can't perform the job. Nothing against them, but that's the way it is.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Oh - to be a normal woman and all that bull****. I guess I'm not missing out on much, am I? Because sometimes I honestly think I am. LOL!
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Repeated for effect :D - kidding. You guys really amp us all up like we're walking bacteria factories or something . . . is that your experience with women: never ending flowing blood rivulettes of the most vile manor? Geesh - sounds rough and freakish but oddly nothing I've ever dealt. :shrug:

You know - when men were coming down with stds left and right - they gave them condoms.

It should, though - levelize it all . . . problem solved. I think it's hardly fair to let women in con differentia and keep others out sans differentia. It's unjust to both groups, honestly.
Click to expand...

An, when male soldiers contract an std, they can face disciplanary action.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Oh - so we're failures, now? The US army is coed in most scenarios. . . .evidence it's successful when balanced properly.

We're not talking about overall entry into the service, you know.
Click to expand...

Only support arms units are coed. The topic is women serving in combat arms units--infantry, artillery, armor and combat engineers.
 
Curious why the ACLU did not bring this pressing constitutional/sex discrimination issue up during the height of the Vietnam draft. Hmm...
 
It's not only a physical aspect of it, but also psycological.

For example, say a squad with a woman in it were captured. Do you think it would be easier to break the other men using the female against them? I can only speak for myself, but if I were to hear a woman being tortured versus a man, it would definitely be different and I could be more prone to giving information to stop the woman from being tortured.

That's but one example of many that I could see women not being allowed in combat arms units.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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.
Click to expand...

Women and men are not physically equal. The only way to accomplish this is to reduce to training requirements for men so that everybody does girl push-ups, etc. And God help us if we put girls in combat and then need to have a draft. The only reason females are exempt from Selective Service registration and the draft is combat. Doesn't logic dictate this politically correct stuff has gone a little too far this time?
 
Smeagol said:
Women and men are not physically equal. The only way to accomplish this is to reduce to training requirements for men so that everybody does girl push-ups, etc. And God help us if we put girls in combat and then need to have a draft. The only reason females are exempt from Selective Service registration and the draft is combat. Doesn't logic dictate this politically correct stuff has gone a little too far this time?
Click to expand...


Sorry, but that is not the only way. I knew several women that could perform the male standards of the physical fitness test. I do not want women serving in combat arms for other reasons, but some women CAN meet the male standards.
 
What is the basis for considering a position as being in combat? When your are a front line position or when people start shooting at you? For the latter, not really sure what difference it makes if you are on the ground in a hole or on a ship or plane.

I don't have any issues with this either way. There should be objective standards.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
What is the basis for considering a position as being in combat? When your are a front line position or when people start shooting at you? For the latter, not really sure what difference it makes if you are on the ground in a hole or on a ship or plane.

I don't have any issues with this either way. There should be objective standards.
Click to expand...

In the Army there are MOS (jobs) that are specifically combat arms that females cannot be in. After that, they take a look at the mission and/or location. If a location/mission is deemed to be combat, sometimes they will restrict females from supporting or being there.

There is no completely 100% failsafe to keep females out of combat entirely, but the military does its best to limit the exposure of women in direct combat.
 
DiAnna said:
Women in combat should be treated the same as men in combat in the same situations. I don't want to hear about men who will "protect women" more than they will "protect their own comrades in arms". Soldiers are soldiers. Women in the military have the same responsibilities as their male counterparts. If they can fight for their country, and die for their country, they deserve equality. The USA is at war. Women who serve are at war. I cry to see our veterans return with their limbs and their minds destroyed because of what they have suffered... but I cannot and will not dismiss the sacrifice of women who have served with honor, simply because they lacked a penis in the field of battle.
Click to expand...

It's not just a penis they lack though.

Women on average are significantly smaller, slower, weaker, and less agile then men. There are many tasks they can do just as well as men but there are actual physical limitations that prevent them from being as effective as men when it comes to combat.
 
Donahue said:
It's not just a penis they lack though.

Women on average are significantly smaller, slower, weaker, and less agile then men.
Click to expand...

On average yes, so on the surface you can make the females have to do the same as the males.

The underlying problem is what I posted earlier and that is psycological problems that can happen with females in combat arms units such as situations being captured.
 
Obviously women are not as big or strong or fast as men on average. You guys aren't providing any profound input when you tell us that. But when you put these qualities on a graph, it's a bell curve for men and women that overlap. That means there are some women who are stronger and faster than the average man. And some men who are weaker than the average woman. So what we need to do is set minimum requirements that EVERYONE needs to pass. A lot of men won't meet the standards, and fewer women will. But for anyone who can prove they are physically capable of performing the job, there is absolutely no reason to exclude them. Every other reason I've seen men post on here to exclude women are due to weaknesses of men. You think women will be raped? Guess what, that means we have a problem with the MEN in these units. You think men's morale will break when he sees a woman injured? Again, an issue the men will have to get over. Really guys, if you wanted to join a group and fight for your country and it was something you were capable of doing, would you really accept that you weren't being let in because the existing members would be uncomfortable with it?
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
On average yes, so on the surface you can make the females have to do the same as the males.

The underlying problem is what I posted earlier and that is psycological problems that can happen with females in combat arms units such as situations being captured.
Click to expand...

No one should be denied a job because the people around them will worry about them too much. That is really their problem. It is entirely different if the person is physically unable to do the work.
 
Donahue said:
No one should be denied a job because the people around them will worry about them too much. That is really their problem. It is entirely different if the person is physically unable to do the work.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest, this isn't a Burger King hamburger flipping job either. This could potentially put national securty and people's lives at risk.
 
TheNextEra said:
Let's be honest, this isn't a Burger King hamburger flipping job either. This could potentially put national securty and people's lives at risk.
Click to expand...

I don't really believe soldiers are likely to behave this way though. Perhaps one or two but not enough where it would bother me.
 
Donahue said:
I don't really believe soldiers are likely to behave this way though. Perhaps one or two but not enough where it would bother me.
Click to expand...

A break down in discipline, even by one, or two soldiers, is enough to get people killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom