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

Redress said:

10 % is way high, but note that even then it was so high as to be noteworthy. It was far from the norm.

Click to expand...

no, in fact, it is the standard.

cpwill said:

sadly, you are wrong. 18-22 year olds continue to be 18-22 year olds.

Click to expand...

Does this mean maturity is not to be expected?

Boo Radley said:

Does this mean maturity is not to be expected?

Click to expand...

most people who join the military arent mature enough for the military.

in basic training we had a few 17 year olds who shown they werent ready.maturity happens from time,and someone young may be able to pass basic or bootcamp but not handle realisty without someone babysitting them.this is reality,most those that cant hack it are chaptered out,a select few get sent to prison because they think they can run the military.

you cant change youth,the only thing you can do is let them know they will be punished and most will listen,but no matter how hard you try some always think they can beat the system.

cpwill said:

no, in fact, it is the standard.

Click to expand...

Actually 10 % was so high that the ship was dubbed the love boat.

question am i the only one who imagines navy prides words in popeyes voice,becase for me it makes it easier to read.

taxigirl said:

I would definitely say that 10% is pretty high! Half of the onus does fall on the men though. I think that men and women can do better when dealing with tight quarters and no fresh faces if we expect them to.

Click to expand...

That is true, the men are just as guilty the point I am trying to make though is before women were allowed to serve aboard Navy Combatants we had zero pregnancies.....Women have a place to serve in the Navy, I will admit that but it should not be on a Navy Combatant....There are enough dangers and problems aboard those ships already without inserting females

Well its now 21-6 and I wonder how many of those people who said its OK to serve in combat ever have been in combat. Its not like the movies and John Wayne.

Can we see a show of hands?

Navy Pride said:

Well its now 21-6 and I wonder how many of those people who said its OK to serve in combat ever have been in combat. Its not like the movies and John Wayne.

Can we see a show of hands?

Click to expand...

never been in combat but served in war,i got the lucky straw on that one but came close like 40 times to being killed were it not for my uzbekistan frien in the afghani army tipping me and my unit off.

however i will say women can serve in combat,but they must prove equal,its wrong to say they cant but even more wrong to allow them to do so under lesser conditions than men.

combat isnt fun and games either you are capable of doing your job or people die,if yu cant do your job youll be stuck as a glorified secretary in a combat uniform,seem it happen many times in aghanistan.


the only fault i see is that the navy the air force arent combat arms except air force sf and navy seals and navy cb's.their tests check for job readiness.the branch most exposed to combat is the army,the marines even though they destroy everything around them are mostly used in early battles and the army takes their place after initial invasion to allow heavy machinery to devastate the enemy.the amry however has no tests for combat readiness though they are about to initiate it.

ive seen a few women that can keep up with men,most fail horribly,this isnt due to the fact they cant handle combat,but do to the fact they have a lower standard,and most people strive tom do the minimum.if the army said women must meet male standards i guarantee shortly after all women would graduate basic on male standards,but since they arent required most wont.

may i ask is this womens fault or the military using double standards.its one thing to measure physicle fitness,but when they cant handle combat stress,the army sends them to the fob to handle paperwork.

in my opinion that is sexist.if a women couldnt handle her mos the army throws them aside,i saw this alot in my mechanic mos,95% of females couldnt hack it and begged to be paper pushers,while the army should have said no you signed uo we payed you go do it.

you cant blame female soldiers because branches like the army held them to such low standards they were equal to housemaids in combat uniform,if someone wants women in combat meet mens standars go to your commander and ask something be done.

also women in combat thing started with the marine women throwing a fit,unlike army and airforce marine women needed combat arms experience in the marines to make it to the top,which meant women were excluded,whereas the army allowed fobbits to make highest ranks despite deployment history.nothing pisses off army soldiers more than being run by an e-9 whos never served a day in combat but feels he/she has the right to tell you how to do it.

Nothing wrong with saying something that should be hard cold fact.

If you are capable - you should be able to serve wherever and however it's fit.

beerftw said:

most people who join the military arent mature enough for the military.

in basic training we had a few 17 year olds who shown they werent ready.maturity happens from time,and someone young may be able to pass basic or bootcamp but not handle realisty without someone babysitting them.this is reality,most those that cant hack it are chaptered out,a select few get sent to prison because they think they can run the military.

you cant change youth,the only thing you can do is let them know they will be punished and most will listen,but no matter how hard you try some always think they can beat the system.

Click to expand...

I agree young people are more prone to mistakes, but the question was should we expect maturity? If we can't expect most will be mature, then we really shouldn't have them in these life and death situations. I personal believe that whiel young will be young, most will meet the expectation, if we have expectations.

Boo Radley said:

I agree young people are more prone to mistakes, but the question was should we expect maturity? If we can't expect most will be mature, then we really shouldn't have them in these life and death situations. I personal believe that whiel young will be young, most will meet the expectation, if we have expectations.

Click to expand...

most those that cant handle it are weeded out long before combat,usually if they defy basic orders ad cack under basic training pressure,they get chaptered out.

some make it though basic but get chaptered out in a combat zone,i have seen it happen befoe,a guy snaped after wroking mwr every other week and threatened the sergeant major,we took his weapon but the sergeant major decided he snapped because he didnt have enough mwr time,so mwr detail was doubled to 2 weeks,how anyone thinks 1 week staring at a pen and paper wasnt enough with nothing lse to to do is beyond me.so 2 weeks mwr detail more snapped and he again thought because it wasnt enough time staring at paper for 12 hours a day.

guess what im saying is some people cant hack it but the army definatley tests you mental limits,and any normal person wuld snap and kill everyone columbine style if the had to deal with what soldiers do every day,

beerftw said:

most those that cant handle it are weeded out long before combat,usually if they defy basic orders ad cack under basic training pressure,they get chaptered out.

some make it though basic but get chaptered out in a combat zone,i have seen it happen befoe,a guy snaped after wroking mwr every other week and threatened the sergeant major,we took his weapon but the sergeant major decided he snapped because he didnt have enough mwr time,so mwr detail was doubled to 2 weeks,how anyone thinks 1 week staring at a pen and paper wasnt enough with nothing lse to to do is beyond me.so 2 weeks mwr detail more snapped and he again thought because it wasnt enough time staring at paper for 12 hours a day.

guess what im saying is some people cant hack it but the army definatley tests you mental limits,and any normal person wuld snap and kill everyone columbine style if the had to deal with what soldiers do every day,

Click to expand...

I was in the military. 82nd Airborne. My experience was that most can handle it, and that they weed out. So, I guess my comment was more for CP who I believe sees many as too immature to handle it.

Boo Radley said:

I was in the military. 82nd Airborne. My experience was that most can handle it, and that they weed out. So, I guess my comment was more for CP who I believe sees many as too immature to handle it.

Click to expand...

if you were 82nd i salut you,my brother is in 82nd in afghnistan right now and most people cant hack the army,let alone 82 which is the best the army has short of sf and rangers.

beerftw said:

if you were 82nd i salut you,my brother is in 82nd in afghnistan right now and most people cant hack the army,let alone 82 which is the best the army has short of sf and rangers.

Click to expand...

I was proud to serve. And as I'm not fond of hieghts, proud of my 62 jumps. I was assigned to HHB Divarty. I served 77-80.

82nd dont mess around they the best of the normal enlisted,the army holds the 82nd and 101st as the best of the best below the rangers.

i was told to go airborne ranger in ait because i heavily exceeded my peers,wish now i had gone but at the time i was thinking about the quickest way i could get wasted on a dailey basis,not my carrer.

beerftw said:

82nd dont mess around they the best of the normal enlisted,the army holds the 82nd and 101st as the best of the best below the rangers.

i was told to go airborne ranger in ait because i heavily exceeded my peers,wish now i had gone but at the time i was thinking about the quickest way i could get wasted on a dailey basis,not my carrer.

Click to expand...

I ended up there on accident. The recuiter asked me if I wanted to go airborne. I said what's that. He said an extra $55 a month. I said sure. But I enjoyed the discipline. I have always been competitive, so that worked for me as well. Though hard about being coming a career man, but ultimately choose to venture elsewhere. No regrets, but I don't think I'd have had any had I stayed either.

Here is an interesting overview of women serving in the military in the US.

Women In Military Service For America Memorial

This site also has information about the Women's Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. I have been there all three times I visited Arlington.

taxigirl said:

Here is an interesting overview of women serving in the military in the US.

Women In Military Service For America Memorial

This site also has information about the Women's Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery. I have been there all three times I visited Arlington.

Click to expand...

good for those that havent served.

i have been around women in a combat zone hoguh.like i said before some women can handle it,most cant.not because their bodies cant but because they are held to a low standard.

most women you are gonna see in combat are 91b which is mechanic.a 91b about 2 and a half years ago switched to combat status because throughout the wars they had to roll with infantry.ill tell you now infantry does not call mechanics potg's.infantry needs running vehicles and when i was in afghanistan being in a potg unit the 10nth mountain infantry attached to us would be me to fiz their trucks.to infantry if their trucks fail infantry men die.


women are allowed n combat mos but not combat arms mos.combat mos regularly sees combat a combat arms mos does 100% combat jobs with the exceotion of a very few who get potg jobs of base defense.

so yes women see combat,but it isnt their job,but even with a non combat mos they can see combat,doesnt mean they can knock down doors and handle full combat loads and chase enemies with full combat loads.

this is why im for combat stress tests,men or women dont matter if yo cant pass the test you aint going to combat.we have enough volunteers army wide to support afghanistan yet we turn em down because we prefer full brigades.screw sending them if we have enough volunteers to make 50 brigades why are we ignoring them and sending people who dont want to or cant go.

Goshin said:

Some women can, but generally they are exceptional physical specimens and work out a lot.

A 5'6" 140 lb man usually has considerably more upper/core body strength than a 5'6 140 lb woman. Simple fact.

There are exceptions, sure.

The truth is that front-line combat is mainly for those who are young and very very fit. I could not qualify anymore, for instance. For one thing my age is a barrier, I'm not allowed to enlist at 46... but there are reasons for that. Even if age were not a barrier, I could not hump 100 lbs of gear on my back across 20 miles of rugged terrain anymore, as many young front-line soldiers have to do.



Give it another 20, 25 years. Then, it will be all drones, robots and armored exoskeletons and physical fitness will be a secondary issue.

Click to expand...

I don't think physical fitness will be a secondary issue, but I would agree that physical limitations of the job would be a secondary issue.

And yes I am a woman who does not believe that women in combat is a good idea yet. With time and a lot more changes to the military men mindset (about several things), women can serve in combat roles with minimal problems, particularly related to the fact that they are women.

beerftw said:

good for those that havent served.

i have been around women in a combat zone hoguh.like i said before some women can handle it,most cant.not because their bodies cant but because they are held to a low standard.

most women you are gonna see in combat are 91b which is mechanic.a 91b about 2 and a half years ago switched to combat status because throughout the wars they had to roll with infantry.ill tell you now infantry does not call mechanics potg's.infantry needs running vehicles and when i was in afghanistan being in a potg unit the 10nth mountain infantry attached to us would be me to fiz their trucks.to infantry if their trucks fail infantry men die.


women are allowed n combat mos but not combat arms mos.combat mos regularly sees combat a combat arms mos does 100% combat jobs with the exceotion of a very few who get potg jobs of base defense.

so yes women see combat,but it isnt their job,but even with a non combat mos they can see combat,doesnt mean they can knock down doors and handle full combat loads and chase enemies with full combat loads.

this is why im for combat stress tests,men or women dont matter if yo cant pass the test you aint going to combat.we have enough volunteers army wide to support afghanistan yet we turn em down because we prefer full brigades.screw sending them if we have enough volunteers to make 50 brigades why are we ignoring them and sending people who dont want to or cant go.

Click to expand...

I thought that some people on this thread might be interested in the web site to read about women's history in the military. There is no need to say "good for those that havent served.' or display evidence of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Boo Radley said:

I agree young people are more prone to mistakes, but the question was should we expect maturity? If we can't expect most will be mature, then we really shouldn't have them in these life and death situations. I personal believe that whiel young will be young, most will meet the expectation, if we have expectations.

Click to expand...

Does it take maturity or pure idiocity to throw yourself in the middle of a futile struggle for life concerning a cause that's moot?

Navy Pride said:

Well its now 21-6 and I wonder how many of those people who said its OK to serve in combat ever have been in combat.

Click to expand...

If we're going to use this logic, then you should probably stay silent on this matter as well, since you are not, nor have you presumably ever been a woman, so you don't have the life experience to know what you're talking about.

Boo Radley said:

I was in the military. 82nd Airborne. My experience was that most can handle it, and that they weed out. So, I guess my comment was more for CP who I believe sees many as too immature to handle it.

Click to expand...

Sua Sponte.....my brutha! Rangers Lead The Way. Huah!

I say, lets do away with the military as it is now.
Wars are soon to be a thing of the past.
Peace should be a thing of NOW, more so than the future.
No more combat, but building, creating, improving, working with people rather than against them.
For this purpose woman is as much a necessity as man.

earthworm said:

I say, lets do away with the military as it is now.
Wars are soon to be a thing of the past.
Peace should be a thing of NOW, more so than the future.
No more combat, but building, creating, improving, working with people rather than against them.
For this purpose woman is as much a necessity as man.

Click to expand...

So your advocating Diplomacy, not war? Sounds good. To start you off here are some things you should look (since it worked so will in the past) up which will give you a base to build on:

1. League of Nations negotiations w/ Mussolini and Ethiopia
2. Chamberlain with Hitler at Munich
3. UN with Iraq on the occupation of Kuwait

and something a little more current and a quicker lesson:

4. UN with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Those all worked out so well. History is a great teacher, IMO.