• 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!

Women Should Be Allowed in Combat Units, Report Says

A few days ago I happened to meet a military forensic psychiatrist who has been to Afghanistan and Iraq. He says that combat unties have a proportionally large number of psychopaths who are in the military to kill human beings. Some of those men will also rape and kill women without hesitation. In fact some of these psychos that the Dr. was dealing with had killed women and children for fun. In combat it’s easy to kill innocent people who are in the line of fire and some of the psychos killed themselves later so that they wouldn’t have to go home. The Dr. looked at a lot of suicides and said that some were for good reasons.

Combat psychopaths are a danger to the weakest in their unit and I don’t want our young women out there with them.

So your solution is to keep the psychopaths, but not allow women?
 
Didn't the Israelis try having women in front line combat, but decided it was too damaging to morale for men to see female soldiers being killed or injured?
 
I'm not saying soldiers never fight hand to hand, but it is becoming increasingly rare. People certainly never fight in full metal body armor with war hammers like you were talking about :p

That was a historical note.


I may be lacking information about the subject though. Do you have a link you could give me about Americans engaging in hand to hand combat in Iraq?

I'm talking about what current service soldiers have told me in person. There is, obviously, no link to that.
 
Didn't the Israelis try having women in front line combat, but decided it was too damaging to morale for men to see female soldiers being killed or injured?

If someone can't focus on their job (the men you're referring to) then perhaps they should be out of the service?
 
Are you ****ing kidding me?

Reality check, women cannot, as a general rule, physically handle the rigors of combat. This is why female PRT and male PRT are DIFFERENT. How's the platoon going to handle one or more members unable to carry the normal full load out of equipment into the field? Start there, work your way through the rest of the reasons women aren't in combat roles.

This isn't just dumb, it's politically motivated politically correct stupidity that's gonna get people killed in the name of "fairness".

This will get more soldiers killed.

The physical strength of an average 21-year old female is that of a 65-year old man.

What's next? Women in the SEALS?

The only way I would let this idiocy happen is if it was an all female platoon. Anyone with a half brain would realize they would be increasing the likelihood of death significantly. It's be the military version of The Darwin Awards... removing idiocy from the gene pool.

.
 
Last edited:
This will get more soldiers killed.

The physical strength of an average 21-year old female is that of a 65-year old man.

What's next? Women in the SEALS?

The only way I would let this idiocy happen is if it was an all female platoon. Anyone with a half brain would realize they would be increasing the liklihood of death significantly. It's be the military's version of The Darwin Awards... removing idiocy from the gene pool.

.

And what about hte few women who ARE on par with the standards for men in the service? It's a small handful - not many - and I only support they be given all roles that men are granted.

Yet oddly - many people squak at that :shrug:
Can't please everyone!
 
This will get more soldiers killed.

The physical strength of an average 21-year old female is that of a 65-year old man.

What's next? Women in the SEALS?

The only way I would let this idiocy happen is if it was an all female platoon. Anyone with a half brain would realize they would be increasing the likelihood of death significantly. It's be the military version of The Darwin Awards... removing idiocy from the gene pool.

.

Nobody is suggesting letting the average woman at an average fitness level enter into combat.
 
If someone can't focus on their job (the men you're referring to) then perhaps they should be out of the service?

I hate to be rude to someone who's being polite, but if one sex has to be snubbed in front line combat forces, doesn't logic dictate that it should be women and not men? Mainly for two simple reasons: Men are highly superior to women for combat operations, due to having much higher strength and endurance levels. It's like Aphrodite in the Greek mythology. She's nearly the most powerful of the gods because of her powers over love and lust thanks to her beauty, but she cannot fight like Zeus or Ares. And second, why send women into combat unless the very survival of the nation is at stake? In American values, it's pretty much accepted that women should be protected as much as possible.

That, and it's not the man's fault that morale is damaged by seeing women being killed or injured. It's a base psychological reaction that we get from our society's values, not a choice. And not just the USA's values, either! The Israelis have the same values. The men of the IDF itself, one of the toughest armies around, suffered morale damage by seeing female soldiers hurt or killed.

Lastly, yes, it is the soldier's job to focus on his job, but it's also the job of the government, and of the military high command to keep morale as high as they can! It may be a snub to women not to get to be special forces commandos and all that, but life isn't fair. You don't mess with something as vital as the military and national defense because of fairness.

I know someone will say "if women can meet the standards, they should be allowed to be in combat..." yeah, I guess so. But that will be few, I guarantee you. As smart and beautiful as women are, they aren't as strong as men. They physically can't handle the levels of abuse that men can.
 
Last edited:
I hate to be rude to someone who's being polite, but if one sex has to be snubbed in front line combat forces, doesn't logic dictate that it should be women and not men? Mainly for two simple reasons: Men are highly superior to women for combat operations, due to having much higher strength and endurance levels. It's like Aphrodite in the Greek mythology. She's nearly the most powerful of the gods because of her powers over love and lust thanks to her beauty, but she cannot fight like Zeus or Ares. And second, why send women into combat unless the very survival of the nation is at stake? In American values, it's pretty much accepted that women should be protected as much as possible.

That, and it's not the man's fault that morale is damaged by seeing women being killed or injured. It's a base psychological reaction that we get from our society's values, not a choice. And not just the USA's values, either! The Israelis have the same values. The men of the IDF itself, one of the toughest armies around, suffered morale damage by seeing female soldiers hurt or killed.

Lastly, yes, it is the soldier's job to focus on his job, but it's also the job of the government, and of the military high command to keep morale as high as they can! It may be a snub to women not to get to be special forces commandos and all that, but life isn't fair. You don't mess with something as vital as the military and national defense because of fairness.

I know someone will say "if women can meet the standards, they should be allowed to be in combat..." yeah, I guess so. But that will be few, I guarantee you. As smart and beautiful as women are, they aren't as strong as men. They physically can't handle the levels of abuse that men can.

It's been a few pages - I'll recap my view:

I believe that everyone has a place in the military - their supreme physical abilities don't always matter. There's a position for everyone to fill. Someone needs to stock the magazines, someone needs to do some helicopter maintenance and so on.

When it comes to front line combat units - the ones that are in serious question - I feel that only women who are *actually physically equal (in ability) to most men should be even considered.*

How many is that? Maybe 500 total. They are the unique physical exception - not the standard. If they prove equally capable of carrying their comrade and handling the stresses then by all means - I think they've earned it.

Since it's such a tiny number of women overall who meet my opinion of what should be standard then there's really no debate to be had on it - most units won't have females. And these females being the unique creatures they are, would be able to hold their ground and handle it just like the guys do.

Overall- I feel that anyone who lets issues like "she's a woman" or "he's a fag" INTERFERE with their ability to focus or do their job- perhaps then that means they aren't CAPABLE of doing there job.
If someone can't do what they're trained to do then do you trust them to handle other things?

Either step up and get things done - and done right - or end up dead. Whatever floats an idiots boat.

My view is really quite simple.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for putting my exact views so clearly into words Aunt Spiker. I completely agree with everything you just said.
 
And what about hte few women who ARE on par with the standards for men in the service? It's a small handful - not many - and I only support they be given all roles that men are granted.

Yet oddly - many people squak at that :shrug:
Can't please everyone!
What about the few women who are on par? Too bad for the few women.

How long will they be "on par" with men? For that moment they trained like hell? Vincent makes the case beyond physical qualifications in post #158.

Then there is the fear standards will be lowered, or women will be brought in to make a statement.

Nobody is suggesting letting the average woman at an average fitness level enter into combat.
It was used to make a point how physically weak women are. There might be the one in ten million who is strong enough, has the stamina... for a while, and actually wants to fight. Too bad for her.

.
 
Last edited:
It's been a few pages - I'll recap my view:

I believe that everyone has a place in the military - their supreme physical abilities don't always matter. There's a position for everyone to fill. Someone needs to stock the magazines, someone needs to do some helicopter maintenance and so on.

When it comes to front line combat units - the ones that are in serious question - I feel that only women who are *actually physically equal (in ability) to most men should be even considered.*

How many is that? Maybe 500 total. They are the unique physical exception - not the standard. If they prove equally capable of carrying their comrade and handling the stresses then by all means - I think they've earned it.

Since it's such a tiny number of women overall who meet my opinion of what should be standard then there's really no debate to be had on it - most units won't have females. And these females being the unique creatures they are, would be able to hold their ground and handle it just like the guys do.

Overall- I feel that anyone who lets issues like "she's a woman" or "he's a fag" INTERFERE with their ability to focus or do their job- perhaps then that means they aren't CAPABLE of doing there job.
If someone can't do what they're trained to do then do you trust them to handle other things?

Either step up and get things done - and done right - or end up dead. Whatever floats an idiots boat.

My view is really quite simple.

Do you also advocate allowing women into the NFL? What about for getting rid of mens/womens catagories in the olympics and letting everyone compete against each other without regard to sex at all?

For some reason I always see the "women in combat units" arguments but I never see these arguments. Is there a difference?
 
Do you also advocate allowing women into the NFL? What about for getting rid of mens/womens catagories in the olympics and letting everyone compete against each other without regard to sex at all?

For some reason I always see the "women in combat units" arguments but I never see these arguments. Is there a difference?

Yeah sure - why not.
Is it that big of a deal to base things on ability and not gender?

Be bothered all you want - but some women are on par with men.

A lot of men are on par with the average women - and they're excluded from the service and they don't have a period, don't have cramps - don't risk the likelihood of getting pregnant. :shrug:

They also aren't in the NFL - and on and on.

If everything was completely based on gender then all men would be in - but it's not - it's based on ability - and so-so on gender.

Now - where does the equalty cry go wrong? Let's look at sports: colleges are REQUIRED by law to have an equal number of men and an equal number of women enrolled in athletic programs. That means that many men who could swim well aren't permitted on the team because less women are interested in being on the swim team- period.

That's not fair, either.

If someone can hack it - they should be permitted to do it. (though I've strayed from the topic a bit) the idea the we should be equally balanced head-count wise is just as skewed as barring someone from service because of what they *might* have to deal with due to their gender.
 
Last edited:
Yeah sure - why not.
Is it that big of a deal to base things on ability and not gender?

Be bothered all you want - but some women are on par with men.

A lot of men are on par with the average women - and they're excluded from the service and they don't have a period, don't have cramps - don't risk the likelihood of getting pregnant. :shrug:

I'm not bothered at all, I've only said that they should be held to the same standard. Problem is, they probably won't.

I do find it strange, however, that I don't see special interests out there singling the NFL etc like they always do the military.

They also aren't in the NFL - and on and on.

If everything was completely based on gender then all men would be in - but it's not - it's based on ability - and so-so on gender.

Not sure what you mean here...

Now - where does the equalty cry go wrong? Let's look at sports: colleges are REQUIRED by law to have an equal number of men and an equal number of women enrolled in athletic programs. That means that many men who could swim well aren't permitted on the team because less women are interested in being on the swim team- period.

That's not fair, either.

If someone can hack it - they should be permitted to do it. (though I've strayed from the topic a bit) the idea the we should be equally balanced head-count wise is just as skewed as barring someone from service because of what they *might* have to deal with due to their gender.

For the most part I agree with you, but you are focusing only on the physical requirements for life as part of an infantry unit. There are many other factors that apply. If a woman can physically perform the required role, she should not be barred because of physical inability. Physiologically, however, women have unique traits that make them less suited to life in a typical line infantry outfit.
 
Last edited:
My question is this: Would you ever suggest that we create an army division of all women with all support for that division by women and think it reasonable for them to carry out a large scale military operation without the help of any men? I am not saying that there is not the odd woman who is stronger and more able than the average man but you don't want to set up the military whereby it is compelled to use women because they meet some minimal qualifications for combat. Just like every other idea like this it becomes an unwritten mandate or quota system to get a certain number of women on the front lines. It's not a good idea in my opinion.
 
My question is this: Would you ever suggest that we create an army division of all women with all support for that division by women and think it reasonable for them to carry out a large scale military operation without the help of any men? I am not saying that there is not the odd woman who is stronger and more able than the average man but you don't want to set up the military whereby it is compelled to use women because they meet some minimal qualifications for combat. Just like every other idea like this it becomes an unwritten mandate or quota system to get a certain number of women on the front lines. It's not a good idea in my opinion.

They would not have to be stronger than men. They would only have to be strong enough to do the job, which more than a few women are. Those women are exceptional, but so are every person in our military.
 
If women can pass the same requirements as men, and go through the same training as if they were men, I would see no problem with allowing them to enter combat units.

in segregated units, as Tashah proposes, perhaps. however, you have the problem that the military does not hold women to the same requirements as men at current (that would be 'sexist', apparently).

but just modifying it so that women go into current infantry formations? verrrrrrrry bad idea.
 
If someone can hack it - they should be permitted to do it. (though I've strayed from the topic a bit) the idea the we should be equally balanced head-count wise is just as skewed as barring someone from service because of what they *might* have to deal with due to their gender.

here i have to disagree; the military isn't a solo sport. whether or not someone can 'hack it' is a far second-rate consideration next to whether or not they will help the team.
 
combat theaters are typically nasty, dirty, spartan kind of places. usually without running water, etc. If women were/are willing to give up some of the "perks" they get because they are female, I have no problem with them being there.

but when I have to go a week without a shower because there are only two shower tents and 200 guys have to share one and 5 females get the other to themselves., or I have to cram into an 8 man tent with 15 other guys so that the 5 females can have a tent to themselves... that just ain't right.

other than that, if a female can physically and mentally hack the rigors of combat, I have no problem with them being there.

so that is my only problem with women in combat. because there are so few that could actually handle it physically it requires the males to sacrifice even more on the basic niceties, due to the army's stance on segregating males and females.
 
Last edited:
Didnt read all these pages but this is how I feel.

If women can pass all the standard requirements then they should be allowed to fight if they want too.

I do NOT think and standards should CHANGE to make it easier though.
 
They would not have to be stronger than men. They would only have to be strong enough to do the job, which more than a few women are. Those women are exceptional, but so are every person in our military.

I think we should have an all woman army. I mean come on, men did it alone for thousands of years....they owe us. Of course they'll have to take the kids with them. :mrgreen:
 
in segregated units, as Tashah proposes, perhaps. however, you have the problem that the military does not hold women to the same requirements as men at current (that would be 'sexist', apparently).

Already addressed at length in this very thread.
 
Already addressed at length in this very thread.

the problem with segregated female combat units is that you would be hard pressed to find enough females physically capable to make it logistically and financially feasible. and, of course, you run into the age old "separate but equal" issue.
 
the problem with segregated female combat units is that you would be hard pressed to find enough females physically capable to make it logistically and financially feasible. and, of course, you run into the age old "separate but equal" issue.

Not the part I mentioned already being addressed, or at least not the part I meant to say was already being addressed(the different standard part). Yes, what you point out is a potentially very real issue with such a proposal.
 
Back
Top Bottom