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

Blackdog said:

No I agree, no reason to ban women from the front lines as they preform admirably and are just as effect as their male counter parts. No one is suggesting this as I said.

The only thing being said is they should not be in ground combat units as in infantry, armor and artillary because of the physical makeup of the female body. It is just not geared for ground combat rolls.

Click to expand...

I agree the average women's body is not able to do these tasks as an average male's, but I wouldn't want to preclude the exception, for I'm sure there are some women who can do these tasks within the spectrum of 'male acceptability.' If no such women exists, then, no, they certainly shouldn't be able to fill those posts.

Also, before said women could fulfill such roles, the issue of "more instinct than professional" would have to be trained out of their male counterparts.

Blackdog said:

When it comes to modern combat, you still need endurance and physical strength to be effective in a ground combat roll. Without this, no matter how many different ways you try, you will fail, period. Just like the majority of women in the studies.

Click to expand...

No where near as important than it used to be. But has very little to do with I'm arguing.

Some reading to think about:

Thanks to my friend Michael who prompted me to write an article with more ‘meaty’ content. In honor of potential 2012 Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich, I thought I would focus on women in combat.

Women Warriors – A History of Real Women in Combat « Indiana Jen

The Soviet Union deployed women snipers extensively, and to great effect, including Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya and Ukrainian Lyudmila Pavlichenko (who killed over 300 German soldiers). The Soviets found that sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient, deliberate, have a high level of aerobic conditioning, and normally avoid hand-to-hand combat.

Women served as machine gunners, tank drivers, medics, communication personnel and political officers. Manshuk Mametova was a machine gunner from Kazakhstan and was the first Soviet Asian woman to receive the Hero of the Soviet Union for acts of bravery.

Women crewed the majority of the anti-aircraft batteries employed in Stalingrad. Some batteries, including the 1077th Anti-Aircraft Regiment, also engaged in ground combat.

Soviet women in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evidence – from large-scale organized female participation through various types of gender integration through the participation of individual women – shows that when women have found their way into combat, they have generally performed about as well as most men have.

http://www.warandgender.com/chap2pap.htm

I know exactly what your argument is. It is just a far fetched premise based on loose philosophy that means nothing in the real world, and does not in any way fit real world examples. I mean really the assumption according to your examples was down right stupid. Hell Jerry had no idea what you where even asking because you were so obtuse.

Click to expand...

You think it is far fetched because you don't challenge the assumption. I come with no fixed philosophy. I don't even have an opinion on whether women are or are not strong enough. This depends on what we mean by enough. I have only asked if the standard is as correct as we think it is.

So, you are still not addressing me.

shelphs said:

I agree the average women's body is not able to do these tasks as an average male's, but I wouldn't want to preclude the exception, for I'm sure there are some women who can do these tasks within the spectrum of 'male acceptability.' If no such women exists, then, no, they certainly shouldn't be able to fill those posts.

Also, before said women could fulfill such roles, the issue of "more instinct than professional" would have to be trained out of their male counterparts.

Click to expand...

The problem is the number of women who could fulfill the roles would be minimum. Lets not even go into extended time in the field without support. Just to many issues for something that is not needed.

Some more:

Navy secretary on women in combat - YouTube

Boo Radley said:

No where near as important than it used to be. But has very little to do with I'm arguing.

Click to expand...

How would you know? Have you been in the military? It looked pretty important in Afghanistan and Iraq. :roll:

Boo Radley said:

Some reading to think about:

Thanks to my friend Michael who prompted me to write an article with more ‘meaty’ content. In honor of potential 2012 Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich, I thought I would focus on women in combat.

Women Warriors – A History of Real Women in Combat « Indiana Jen

The Soviet Union deployed women snipers extensively, and to great effect, including Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya and Ukrainian Lyudmila Pavlichenko (who killed over 300 German soldiers). The Soviets found that sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient, deliberate, have a high level of aerobic conditioning, and normally avoid hand-to-hand combat.

Women served as machine gunners, tank drivers, medics, communication personnel and political officers. Manshuk Mametova was a machine gunner from Kazakhstan and was the first Soviet Asian woman to receive the Hero of the Soviet Union for acts of bravery.

Women crewed the majority of the anti-aircraft batteries employed in Stalingrad. Some batteries, including the 1077th Anti-Aircraft Regiment, also engaged in ground combat.

Soviet women in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Yes those are well known facts. That was also desperation and a complete militarizing to confront the Nazi threat. In the end they also removed women from ground combat rolls, why?

Boo Radley said:

The evidence – from large-scale organized female participation through various types of gender integration through the participation of individual women – shows that when women have found their way into combat, they have generally performed about as well as most men have.

http://www.warandgender.com/chap2pap.htm

Click to expand...

This is just an historical view of women in combat, so what? I mean the site is biased and nothing more than opinion, as far as commentary goes.

Boo Radley said:

You think it is far fetched because you don't challenge the assumption.

Click to expand...

No. I think it's far fetched because it IS far fetched. It's about as reasonable as me saying...

Well what if all the water on the planet dried up? In response to someone wanting a drink of water. That is how silly your premise is.

Boo Radley said:

I come with no fixed philosophy. I don't even have an opinion on whether women are or are not strong enough. This depends on what we mean by enough. I have only asked if the standard is as correct as we think it is.

Click to expand...

The evidence shows it is.

Boo Radley said:

So, you are still not addressing me.

Click to expand...

Because the premise is stupid and fly's in the face of reason.

Blackdog said:

The problem is the number of women who could fulfill the roles would be minimum. Lets not even go into extended time in the field without support. Just to many issues for something that is not needed.

Click to expand...

Yes, as outlined earlier to a more minor extent, if studies show such inclusion is not pragmatic for various reasons, e.g., cost-effective analysis, additional barriers than simply women's physical abilities in the field (i.e., "more instinct than professional"), exclusion of women from ground combat roles because an overwhelming majority of them do not meet the physical requirements is reasonable.

I believe it would be more beneficial to society as a whole, though, that exceptions be permitted (e.g., women who can meet physical demands and any other requirement be permitted to fulfill any post), in terms of equality and acceptance of people based on merit rather than stereotypes. Because a stereotype is true, i.e., women on average are less strong than men, it does not mean universal accurateness. Society should always challenges these concepts, for thinking solely in terms of stereotypes is limiting.

A world perceived in generalizations is a limited one. For progress and acceptance of difference, stereotypes and generalizations must always be challenged. A society with policy based more on generalizations than individual merit is one founded on limitations of thinking.

Boo Radley said:

Some more:

Navy secretary on women in combat - YouTube

Click to expand...

This has literally nothing to do with it. That is about Santorum's stupid comment about "front lines" which was stupid. Women have been on the front lines since day one, this however is not the same as a ground combat unit.

shelphs said:

Yes, as outlined earlier to a more minor extent, if studies show such inclusion is not pragmatic for various reasons, e.g., cost-effective analysis, additional barriers than simply women's physical abilities in the field (i.e., "more instinct than professional"), exclusion of women from ground combat roles because an overwhelming majority of them do not meet the physical requirements is reasonable.

I believe it would be more beneficial to society as a whole, though, that exceptions be permitted (e.g., women who can meet physical demands and any other requirement be permitted to fulfill any post), in terms of equality and acceptance of people based on merit rather than stereotypes. Because a stereotype is true, i.e., women on average are less strong than men, it does not mean universal accurateness. Society should always challenges these concepts, for thinking solely in terms of stereotypes is limiting.

A world perceived in generalizations is a limited one. For progress and acceptance of difference, stereotypes and generalizations must always be challenged. A society with policy based more on generalizations than individual merit is one founded on limitations of thinking.

Click to expand...

Don't agree. No reason to put women in ground combat rolls. I don't really care about what the public political correctness says about anything. I do know for the reasons the study's have stated and personal experience, it at this time is a bad idea. Of course that is just my opinion.

PS I don't think this has anything to do with generalizing. It is just looking at it realistically.

Blackdog said:

Don't agree. No reason to put women in ground combat rolls. I don't really care about what the public political correctness says about anything. I do know for the reasons the study's have stated and personal experience, it at this time is a bad idea. Of course that is just my opinion.

PS I don't think this has anything to do with generalizing. It is just looking at it realistically.

Click to expand...

The last portion of my post diverted from the main theme of the discussion, definitely. Micro-policy affects macro-thinking, is my point. And, though it is realistic - as shown by that British study - to say the average women does not meet physical requirements for ground combat roles, it is not to say an exception exists.

I am envisioning a woman who does not fall into the category of most women but instead even out-performs some men. It would be a shame to exclude her based on policy that was geared toward a majority or average of individuals instead of the capabilities of the individual.

As a society, I think it's best to always fight for the right of the individual to be able to do that which they are qualified to do. This is the basis for my stance on maintaining policy that allows for exceptions.

Blackdog said:

How would you know? Have you been in the military? It looked pretty important in Afghanistan and Iraq. :roll:

Click to expand...

Yes. 82nd Airborne 77-80.

Yes those are well known facts. That was also desperation and a complete militarizing to confront the Nazi threat. In the end they also removed women from ground combat rolls, why?

Click to expand...

Not because they failed or performed badly.

This is just an historical view of women in combat, so what? I mean the site is biased and nothing more than opinion, as far as commentary goes.

Click to expand...

They've been there.

No. I think it's far fetched because it IS far fetched. It's about as reasonable as me saying...

Well what if all the water on the planet dried up? In response to someone wanting a drink of water. That is how silly your premise is.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It seems unreasonable to you because you don't consider possibilities, don't see beyond your preconceived notion.

The evidence shows it is.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. The evidence you provided is grounded in the assumption. It doesn't ask what if the assumption is wrong?

Because the premise is stupid and fly's in the face of reason.

Click to expand...

Telling yourself that helps you avoid challenging your assumptions.

shelphs said:

The last portion of my post diverted from the main theme of the discussion, definitely. Micro-policy affects macro-thinking, is my point. And, though it is realistic - as shown by that British study - to say the average women does not meet physical requirements for ground combat roles, it is not to say an exception exists.

Click to expand...

Many exceptions exist. I have known quite a few women who could do a decent job of it.

shelphs said:

I am envisioning a woman who does not fall into the category of most women but instead even out-performs some men. It would be a shame to exclude her based on policy that was geared toward a majority or average of individuals instead of the capabilities of the individual.

Click to expand...

I disagree based on modern precedent. Anytime females have been put in a roll that requires brute strength or high endurance like fireman etc. The standards were lowered to fit the common denominator. I will put it like this...

I hope if I am injured and in a building that is burning, she is not the one to find me because if she can't even move a 90lbs dummy 25ft, what chance would she have of saving me?

That is the main reason I would not support this. I agree with you as far as principal goes but unfortunately it seems to go overboard in the real world.

shelphs said:

As a society, I think it's best to always fight for the right of the individual to be able to do that which they are qualified to do. This is the basis for my stance on maintaining policy that allows for exceptions.

Click to expand...

I would agree if that is the way it worked. So far in every real world situation from the dumbing down of school curriculum's for minority students to the physical requirements for fireman and police. In the end we lose quality for quantity in the name of equality. Unfortunately in the end there is nothing equal about it.

Boo Radley said:

Say ALL men became ill, couldn't do anything any more. Would fires simply not be fought and be allowed to burn? Would there be no more police? Would we no longer defend ourselves? I believe there was a test once, and I haven't looked for it on the internet, in which a group of men and a group of women were given a task that required endurance, strength, and intelligence. Women won the test. The point is not that women are better, because that was truly too small a sample to reach such a conclusion. but what was interesting is they tackled the problems differently, but just as effectively. Isn't possible that we become too married to standards that really don't matter? I'm only asking.

Click to expand...

If all men became ill then were dealing with an advanced NBC weapon.

In this case, once again, there is only 1 way to properly and efectivly use a chem suit.

Yes because if women want to fight and die for their country then let them.

I say absolutely let them serve. I've been married 36 years and quite frankly the idea of a woman coming after me with a M-16 scares the bejeebes out of me... I say not only let them serve on the front line but make sure they have enough ammunition.

patrickbwayne said:

I say absolutely let them serve. I've been married 36 years and quite frankly the idea of a woman coming after me with a M-16 scares the bejeebes out of me... I say not only let them serve on the front line but make sure they have enough ammunition.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with you but awesome post anyway, lol.

Jerry said:

If all men became ill then were dealing with an advanced NBC weapon.

In this case, once again, there is only 1 way to properly and efectivly use a chem suit.

Click to expand...

I think you're avoiding my question.

Blackdog said:

Don't agree. No reason to put women in ground combat rolls. I don't really care about what the public political correctness says about anything. I do know for the reasons the study's have stated and personal experience, it at this time is a bad idea. Of course that is just my opinion.

PS I don't think this has anything to do with generalizing. It is just looking at it realistically.

Click to expand...

'Realistically' my pink starfish. . .at what point in time - do you imagine - you'd ever be ok with it? LOL - never. Don't pretend your view is anything other than what it is: nothing grinds my nerves more than a sexist male who tries to lie and pretend he's not just being a sexist male. ****: at least some guys around here are ballsy enough to say "I just don't flat out like women" - damn.

My honest view on men in combat: I don't even think a lot of GUYS who are permitted to serve in combat roles are remotely capable of handling the stress, performing their physical duties and coming out OK in the end - and should get the hell out. We can start with the piggly guys who are incapable of controlling their lust long enough to avoid raping other servicemembers or civilians, who can't hold their liquor on the weekends, can't stop from beating their children and their wives, and who overall have proven incapable of handling their own personal ****.

And then we can go around the ranks to all the other servicemembers who see such lowly activity - who condone it or fail to report it - and question their abilities to perform their duties properly as well.

Want to keep the unfit for duty out of duty? I'm all for it: but don't pretend like my vagina comes with a dose of weakness and inability and your magical **** comes with power and strength.

Everyone hates on the keepers of the ***** until they want to get in it. :roll:

Aunt Spiker said:

'Realistically' my pink starfish. . .at what point in time - do you imagine - you'd ever be ok with it? LOL - never. Don't pretend your view is anything other than what it is: nothing grinds my nerves more than a sexist male who tries to lie and pretend he's not just being a sexist male. ****: at least some guys around here are ballsy enough to say "I just don't flat out like women" - damn.

My honest view on men in combat: I don't even think a lot of GUYS who are permitted to serve in combat roles are remotely capable of handling the stress, performing their physical duties and coming out OK in the end - and should get the hell out. We can start with the piggly guys who are incapable of controlling their lust long enough to avoid raping other servicemembers or civilians, who can't hold their liquor on the weekends, can't stop from beating their children and their wives, and who overall have proven incapable of handling their own personal ****.

And then we can go around the ranks to all the other servicemembers who see such lowly activity - who condone it or fail to report it - and question their abilities to perform their duties properly as well.

Want to keep the unfit for duty out of duty? I'm all for it: but don't pretend like my vagina comes with a dose of weakness and inability and your magical **** comes with power and strength.

Everyone hates on the keepers of the ***** until they want to get in it. :roll:

Click to expand...

What a useless anecdotal ad hominem, fallacy filled rant that has really nothing to do with my position or why I take this position.

Typical feminazi ramblings based on well nothing. No evidence to back up anything or even reasonable anecdotal evidence. Nothing but "I am woman hear me roar." Well that does not cut it in the real world.

You mite want to read some of my posts and actually examine my reasoning so you don't come off like a ranting loon with penis envy. I mean why bother to look at why when you can just rant...

"I disagree based on modern precedent. Anytime females have been put in a roll that requires brute strength or high endurance like fireman etc. The standards were lowered to fit the common denominator. I will put it like this...

I hope if I am injured and in a building that is burning, she is not the one to find me because if she can't even move a 90lbs dummy 25ft, what chance would she have of saving me?

That is the main reason I would not support this. I agree with you as far as principal goes but unfortunately it seems to go overboard in the real world." - Blackdog

This combined with the mountain of scientific evidence say your opinion is invalid.

Blackdog said:

What a useless anecdotal ad hominem, fallacy filled rant that has really nothing to do with my position or why I take this position.

Typical feminazi ramblings based on well nothing. No evidence to back up anything or even reasonable anecdotal evidence. Nothing but "I am woman hear me roar." Well that does not cut it in the real world.

You mite want to read some of my posts and actually examine my reasoning so you don't come off like a ranting loon with penis envy. I mean why bother to look at why when you can just rant...

"I disagree based on modern precedent. Anytime females have been put in a roll that requires brute strength or high endurance like fireman etc. The standards were lowered to fit the common denominator. I will put it like this...

I hope if I am injured and in a building that is burning, she is not the one to find me because if she can't even move a 90lbs dummy 25ft, what chance would she have of saving me?

That is the main reason I would not support this. I agree with you as far as principal goes but unfortunately it seems to go overboard in the real world." - Blackdog

This combined with the mountain of scientific evidence say your opinion is invalid.

Click to expand...

I don't support lowered standards, either - which puts me at odds with a vast number of women. But I do support the general basis of women who can cut it being in the ranks and men who can't cut it being booted out.

You though - presented your whole entire view as if it's going to change . . . I know it won't. I wasn't born yesterday. Obviously it won't - because you're blanketing all women as being physicall incapable.

Aunt Spiker said:

I don't support lowered standards, either - which puts me at odds with a vast number of women. But I do support the general basis of women who can cut it being in the ranks and men who can't cut it being booted out.

Click to expand...

Men who can't make it are booted out. Where did you get this info that the US military is now accepting sub standard recruits?

Aunt Spiker said:

You though - presented your whole entire view as if it's going to change . . . I know it won't. I wasn't born yesterday. Obviously it won't - because you're blanketing all women as being physicall incapable.

Click to expand...

If you had read more of my posts instead of making a knee jerk to part of one reply to one person, you would see that is not the case. We all do it, just pointing this out.

Blackdog said:

Many exceptions exist. I have known quite a few women who could do a decent job of it.

Click to expand...

The page before the quote you saw.

Blackdog said:

Men who can't make it are booted out. Where did you get this info that the US military is now accepting sub standard recruits?

If you had read more of my posts instead of making a knee jerk to part of one reply to one person, you would see that is not the case. We all do it, just pointing this out.

The page before the quote you saw.

Click to expand...

No no - I read all of your posts and understand your numerous points quite clearly:

Many exceptions exist. I have known quite a few women who could do a decent job of it.

Click to expand...

No reason to put women in ground combat rolls. I don't really care about what the public political correctness says about anything. I do know for the reasons the study's have stated and personal experience, it at this time is a bad idea. Of course that is just my opinion.

Click to expand...

You're saying you know some women who can cut the physical standards (emotional, etc - as well) - you recognize this but still decide to generalize and deny those women combat roles because a larger percentage of women can't cut it.

So: you're all for treating women unfairly because of what other women can/cannot do.

Aunt Spiker said:

No no - I read all of your posts and understand your numerous points quite clearly:





You're saying you know some women who can cut the physical standards (emotional, etc - as well) - you recognize this but still decide to generalize and deny those women combat roles because a larger percentage of women can't cut it.

So: you're all for treating women unfairly because of what other women can/cannot do.

Click to expand...

Again you still missed it...

#1 In the quote you posted I said " it at this time is a bad idea"

#2 I disagree based on modern precedent. Anytime females have been put in a roll that requires brute strength or high endurance like fireman etc. The standards were lowered to fit the common denominator. I will put it like this...

I hope if I am injured and in a building that is burning, she is not the one to find me because if she can't even move a 90lbs dummy 25ft, what chance would she have of saving me?

That is the main reason I would not support this. I agree with you as far as principal goes but unfortunately it seems to go overboard in the real world. - http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-combat-roles-military-29.html#post1060312246

I did not generalize and gave clear reasons and supported it with evidence.

Now if you could actually address my evidence etc instead of trying to attribute things to and on me that do not apply, we can move on.

Having been one of the guys the army paid for a strong back and weak mind I can honestly say MANY women could have done the 'brute strength' tasks I did. It was more an ability to imitate a pack mule than carrying the Ma Duece at port arms for 10 klicks... Brute strength was secondary to endurance, it was secondary to mental toughness, secondary to surviving on a starvation diet, secondary to thinking under stress, without sleep...

I've seen guys break down and cry because the promised hot meal never made it out to the field.

Making broad brush statements about what an entire gender can and can't do isn't helpful. Not every guy can be a grunt, that is for damn sure. I don't think the standard would ever be lowered so ANY female could qualify but then again it shouldn't be lowered so any male would be acceptable.

But humping ALICE or the Pig doesn't take a superman, superwoman can do it to...

Blackdog said:

Again you still missed it...

#1 In the quote you posted I said " it at this time is a bad idea"

#2 I disagree based on modern precedent. Anytime females have been put in a roll that requires brute strength or high endurance like fireman etc. The standards were lowered to fit the common denominator. I will put it like this...

I hope if I am injured and in a building that is burning, she is not the one to find me because if she can't even move a 90lbs dummy 25ft, what chance would she have of saving me?

That is the main reason I would not support this. I agree with you as far as principal goes but unfortunately it seems to go overboard in the real world. - http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-combat-roles-military-29.html#post1060312246

I did not generalize and gave clear reasons and supported it with evidence.

Now if you could actually address my evidence etc instead of trying to attribute things to and on me that do not apply, we can move on.

Click to expand...

Evidence of what? You yourself said that some women are more than capable even *without* flexing for gender priviledges - but that's not enough, in your view. So: why can't these some women serve in combat - or - in your example her: serve as firefighters?

Some women are physically on par with men - whether you think they're feminine or not doesn't matter - if she could drag your ass out of a burning building why say no to her being able to do it?

And what evidence is there that 'it goes overboard in teh real world'

How could it go overboard: some strong capable women doing their jobs and doing them well = disasterous? Overboard?

Don't be silly - and stop playing ignorant as if you're making a 'solid point with verifiable evidence' - when you're actually seeing evidence to the contrary, admiting it's there, and ignoring it and siding with blind bias instead.

If just 5 women are on par with men in the service then why can't those 5 women fight alongside them - what do they have: cooties? :roll: What are men afraid of - are they more concerned with their perceived masculinity when their ass is in a sling? Afraid of being feminized if a woman is one to save them?

Aunt Spiker said:

Evidence of what? You yourself said that some women are more than capable even *without* flexing for gender priviledges - but that's not enough, in your view. So: why can't these some women serve in combat - or - in your example her: serve as firefighters?

Some women are physically on par with men - whether you think they're feminine or not doesn't matter - if she could drag your ass out of a burning building why say no to her being able to do it?

And what evidence is there that 'it goes overboard in teh real world'

How could it go overboard: some strong capable women doing their jobs and doing them well = disasterous? Overboard?

Don't be silly - and stop playing ignorant as if you're making a 'solid point with verifiable evidence' - when you're actually seeing evidence to the contrary, admiting it's there, and ignoring it and siding with blind bias instead.

If just 5 women are on par with men in the service then why can't those 5 women fight alongside them - what do they have: cooties? :roll: What are men afraid of - are they more concerned with their perceived masculinity when their ass is in a sling? Afraid of being feminized if a woman is one to save them?

Click to expand...

Am I that ****ing obtuse? How hard is it to understand ****ing English????????? No, No and NO.

I disagree based on modern precedent. Anytime females have been put in a roll that requires brute strength or high endurance like fireman etc. The standards were lowered to fit the common denominator. I will put it like this...

I hope if I am injured and in a building that is burning, she is not the one to find me because if she can't even move a 90lbs dummy 25ft, what chance would she have of saving me?

That is the main reason I would not support this. I agree with you as far as principal goes but unfortunately it seems to go overboard in the real world. - Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums

Since you are having trouble understanding I will go s l o w l y...

Every time women have been accepted into roles the majority are not suited for physically, the standards GET LOWERED, EVERY TIME, NO EXCEPTIONS. So it is reasonable according to ALL THE STUDIES DONE TO DATE ON WOMEN IN GROUND COMBAT UNITS only a very small percentage are actually up to the rigors physically and emotionally. A significantly lower percentage then men, upwards of 90% difference.

So if we let them in GROUND COMBAT UNITS, it would only be a matter of time before feminist groups etc would start the "we need more women in these positions" which would then cause the rigid standards to be lowered GREATLY as it has in EVERY SINGLE CASE BEFORE.

Now was that so hard to understand?