• 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 women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the military?

Should women be allowed in combat roles in military?

  • Yes

    Votes: 45 68.2%
  • No

    Votes: 14 21.2%
  • IDK/other

    Votes: 7 10.6%

  • Total voters
    66
ABsolutley fine with women being aloud in combat as long as the meet the same standards as everyone else. This thought process for me goes for anything. Police officers firefighters, fbi, cia etc etc etc.

Standards are in place to do the job not to purposely exclude anybody or any gender and as long as those standards are in fact based on job requirements im all good with ANYBODY serving.
 
look up the marine female pt standards,they are barely any lower than mens but higher than army male standards.

They do their pushups like men?
 
Then why do all militery branches hold females to much lower Phisical Training standards?

Cause how many push UPS one can do or how fast you run a mile have little value in modern warfare. Women can kill as well as men with our modern technology.
 
truthfully i think women can of they meet combat stress tests.other than the marine corps women i dont see any toher branches holding women to combat standards.

the air force has low physical standards all around but their arent a combat arms branch of the military.

the navy im not sure about except for the navy cb's which are like marines with a navy badge.

the army holds high standards for men but rediculously low standards for women.the fact what takes me at age 25 to pass my pt test would get an 18 year old female an almost perfect score.the army also has lower standards for eigh and tape for females than it does males.the army recently started changing from a standard pt test to one more similar to the marines,and focuses on combat ability more than a scoresheet.it wasnt fully implemented when i left but no mention was made if females would have a different standard.if the army holds its upcoming pt standards the same on females i can almost guarantee 90% of females would be booted out of the army for failing to meet physical standards,since the new standard focuses alot on strength needed to carry wounded soldiers full battle loads and sprinting with 2 ful ammo cans.

the marines pretty much hold their females to the same standard,even though marine females dont get combat arms as an mos the marine corps treats everyone as infantry first and holds them to that standard.

This discussion has been held many times here. I am not going to go into my opinion, but I do want to correct a misconception that I think you are falling into. Military PFT tests are designed to measure overal fitness and not ability to do a job. Since men and women are physically different, what an average fit male and female can do is different. That is why the standards are different for men and women, just as the standards change as you get older, and for the same reason.
 
This discussion has been held many times here. I am not going to go into my opinion, but I do want to correct a misconception that I think you are falling into. Military PFT tests are designed to measure overal fitness and not ability to do a job. Since men and women are physically different, what an average fit male and female can do is different. That is why the standards are different for men and women, just as the standards change as you get older, and for the same reason.

i agree that the pft was originally to test fitness,but the army is changing it because it has no relevance to actual combat fitness,the new tests are designed to make sure everyone is combat ready.
 
They definitely should not be allowed to serve on Navy Combatants. They can't handle the physical requirements like carrying a P250 or P500 submersible pump on a DC party........They get pregnant to often and have to leave the ship without a replacement . The average age of a sailor on a navy combatant is 19 years.....The juices are running and men and women get together and have sex. Life aboard a Navy Combatant is dangerous and there are enough problems already with out adding women to the mix....You want to put them on hospital ships or those luxury liners air craft carriers fine, but not on cruisers destroyers and submarines........


I wonder how many of you libs who voted yes have ever even been near a combat situation.
 
Last edited:
i agree that the pft was originally to test fitness,but the army is changing it because it has no relevance to actual combat fitness,the new tests are designed to make sure everyone is combat ready.

Which I think is a good move. I was in the navy, so a standard PFT was about all that is needed. AIr Force just has to measure a person's abiulity to get out of bed in the morning. Army and Marines however, I could see job based or simply combat based PT tests, which would have to be the same for both genders.
 
They definitely should not be allowed to serve on Navy Combatants. They can't handle the physical requirements like carrying a P250 or P500 submersible pump on a DC party........They get pregnant to often and have to leave the ship without a replacement . The average age of a sailor on a navy combatant is 19 years.....The juices are running and men and women get together and have sex. Life aboard a Navy Combatant is dangerous and there are enough problems already with out adding women to the mix....You want to put them on hospital ships or those luxury liners air craft carriers fine, but not on cruisers destroyers and submarines.........

what is your problem with women?
 
Which I think is a good move. I was in the navy, so a standard PFT was about all that is needed. AIr Force just has to measure a person's abiulity to get out of bed in the morning. Army and Marines however, I could see job based or simply combat based PT tests, which would have to be the same for both genders.

agreed on that,i still think its stupid that army females have super low standards but marine females have higher standards than army men.if a women can meet marine standards then they can meet army combat standards.
 
simple question.......If your in a foxhole getting ready to go into hand to hand combat who do you want to have your back a 6'2" 200 lb guy or a 5' 100 lb woman?
 
simple question.......If your in a foxhole getting ready to go into hand to hand combat who do you want to have your back a 6'2" 200 lb guy or a 5' 100 lb woman?

if the 100 pound woman can carry the full combat load plus supplies and a loaded 249 it wouldnt matter.
 
simple question.......If your in a foxhole getting ready to go into hand to hand combat who do you want to have your back a 6'2" 200 lb guy or a 5' 100 lb woman?

LOL this is called stacking the deck for two reasons.

1.) its very possible the women could beat the man
2.) wonder why you described a man of ABOVE average size and a women BELOW average size?

are you ever honesty in your posts?

I couldnt pick just based on physically description.
 
if the 100 pound woman can carry the full combat load plus supplies and a loaded 249 it wouldnt matter.

Why couldn't she just use a hummer or dolly to carry heavy stuff like other modern humans?
 
They definitely should not be allowed to serve on Navy Combatants. They can't handle the physical requirements like carrying a P250 or P500 submersible pump on a DC party........They get pregnant to often and have to leave the ship without a replacement . The average age of a sailor on a navy combatant is 19 years.....The juices are running and men and women get together and have sex. Life aboard a Navy Combatant is dangerous and there are enough problems already with out adding women to the mix....You want to put them on hospital ships or those luxury liners air craft carriers fine, but not on cruisers destroyers and submarines........


I wonder how many of you libs who voted yes have ever even been near a combat situation.

The best Hull Tech I ever knew was a woman.
 
if the 100 pound woman can carry the full combat load plus supplies and a loaded 249 it wouldn't matter.

No offense but my example was a 5' 100 lb woman which is probably about the average size in the army give or take a couple of inches and a few pounds.
 
No offense but my example was a 5' 100 lb woman which is probably about the average size in the army give or take a couple of inches and a few pounds.

a 5' woman..is above average height?

:lamo

the average height of American women, is around 5' 4".
 
Last edited:
Navy guys don't like women. That's why they join the Navy.
 
Why couldn't she just use a hummer or dolly to carry heavy stuff like other modern humans?

we dont have dollies or carts or humvees to make up for lack of combat fitness.i didnt even get a dolly or a pallet jack my whole deployment,we had to move15 tons of equipment in our motor pool from one side of post to the other,with 12 people and one forklift,and we did it in less than 15 hours.

if we were gonna hand out exceptions to combat,might as well let blind people drive buses or let people in whell chairs join the army,its ok we can build wheelchair ramps under fire so they can move in.

point is this isnt a civilian job where accomodations are made,you meet the standards or you dont,and if you dont stay away im not gonna die because someone thought it was discrimination to hold women to the same standards as men.
 
Santorum says no, they should be banned. So do many other Republicans. What say you?

I have very mixed feelings about this. I was an airborne infantryman in afghanistan. I only have two issues with women serving in combat roles:
- I'm a little worried about the way men act when women are around. Considering the amount of testosterone filled chest beating that goes around in the infantry, I find that more often than not, they start acting dumb as s*** when females are around, it can be very distracting. This however is obviously a problem with men, not women, and I think in the end it may work out anyway.
- As far as the army's current policy, women can't be in the field longer than 3 days without a shower due to feminine hygiene issues. I have no idea about any of that, can anyone shed any light on that for me? We went weeks without showers walking up and down mountains, and even we had major hygiene issues because of it. Most of the deployment we used water bottles poured over our heads as a shower. If it would be damaging because of a woman's physiology to go through that, I would say maybe just have them be in combat situations where hygiene can be maintained at reasonable intervals.

And lastly, the physical requirements should be exactly the same. It is absolutely unacceptable to have different standards for entry within a combat unit.
 
Last edited:
One other issue to consider is the the extreme logistical challenges that women pose in a fully integrated military.

At my retirement last year, I commented on some of the things that I saw change in my 26 year career. Then I stated some of the changes that I saw in the future. One of them will be full co-Ed berthing Navy wide. The cost of the separate berthings on the ship and shore stations will drive that. Maybe women in the infantry will push ghat along as well.
 
No offense but my example was a 5' 100 lb woman which is probably about the average size in the army give or take a couple of inches and a few pounds.

the average female in the army is probably closer to 5'4" and 180 pounds,thats right army women eat more before breakfast than you do all day.
 
Back
Top Bottom