• 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!

What's your opinion on female soldiers?

How do you feel about female soldiers?

  • Like them, GI Jane is HOT

    Votes: 13 26.0%
  • Like them, but not on the front lines

    Votes: 10 20.0%
  • I'm a realist, I don't like them

    Votes: 5 10.0%
  • Potato

    Votes: 22 44.0%

  • Total voters
    50
A soldier is anyone who serves in the military, so, yes, marines are soldiers too. :2razz:

NOO they are not.... they are MARINES....

This statement just showcases the ignorance with which you speak.
 
Last edited:
Even if that disqualifies 99.999% of women from the job?
Yes, of course. Nobody should be put in a position that they are not qualified for. But you're seriously underestimating women if you think only one out of 10000 could meet those requirements!
 
Yes, of course. Nobody should be put in a position that they are not qualified for. But you're seriously underestimating women if you think only one out of 10000 could meet those requirements!

Why is that an underestimation? I have yet to see anything to suggest otherwise. Heck, it even disqualifies 15-20% of men as well.
 
Why is that an underestimation? I have yet to see anything to suggest otherwise. Heck, it even disqualifies 15-20% of men as well.

Well what exactly is it that you think a strong woman can't do? I think you're far overestimating the differences between the sexes. If you chart the strength of women vs the strength of men you get 2 bell curves that overlap. You speak as though they wouldn't even touch each other.... Not true. So even if you discount the bottom 20% of men, that might mean you discount the bottom 60 or 80% of women, but certainly not 100%
 
Well what exactly is it that you think a strong woman can't do? I think you're far overestimating the differences between the sexes. If you chart the strength of women vs the strength of men you get 2 bell curves that overlap. You speak as though they wouldn't even touch each other.... Not true. So even if you discount the bottom 20% of men, that might mean you discount the bottom 60 or 80% of women, but certainly not 100%

They overlap yes, of course. But what I am saying, is that where they overlap is an area which is still below most armed forces standards that we are talking about. I made an error saying it disqualifies 15-20% of men, I meant to say it disqualifies all but 15-20% of men. Women usually have around ~ the strength of men. Now some men may be 2-3x times stronger then other men, so obviously there is overlap where the strongest woman who is half as strong as the strongest man might still be stronger then the bottom 30-40% of men. Put it into perspective, look at this site Women's Raw American Records
Just quickly running through the collegiate women's powerlifters and weight lifters, the highest record bench press I could find was 253 pounds in the 198 pound class (most records were ~150ish). Personally, (not to brag or anything) I was doing close to 300 pounds at around 190 pounds by the time I was a sophomore in high school with two years of lifting under my belt. A sophomore in high school, doing more then the best collegiate women's athletes.

Not saying that is enough to completely dismiss the idea, but I think you see my point. Its quite well known that the presence of a Y chromosome leads to an average of 10 times of a natural level of androgens for males as compared to females. Thats no insignificant number (its also why men commit 90% of all crimes and murders).

Don't Put Women in Combat, Says Female Combat Veteran

I found that article quite persuasive on the topic.
 
NOO they are not.... they are MARINES....

This statement just showcases the ignorance with which you speak.
Forgive a civilian's ignorance, but what's the difference?
 
Forgive a civilian's ignorance, but what's the difference?

The occupation, lifestyle, the culture and baptism of fire. A soldier is a person who serves in the U.S. ARMY. A sailor/seaman/skipper is a person (various titles here) who serves in the U.S. Navy. An airman is someone who serves in the U.S. Air Force. And a person who serves in the USMC is called a MARINE, because he/she, whether he/she is an enlisted or commissioned Marine, went through some of the toughest training in the U.S. military to earn the Eagle, Globe and Anchor. There is a warrior/combat culture in the Marine Corp. If you're a Marine, regardless of your occupation you WILL be deployed somewhere where there is conflict at least once in your career because that's what the USMC does. The USMC is different from the US Army, and it is important to distinguish the fact that someone is a MARINE, while someone else is a SOLDIER.
 
The occupation, lifestyle, the culture and baptism of fire. A soldier is a person who serves in the U.S. ARMY. A sailor/seaman/skipper is a person (various titles here) who serves in the U.S. Navy. An airman is someone who serves in the U.S. Air Force. And a person who serves in the USMC is called a MARINE, because he/she, whether he/she is an enlisted or commissioned Marine, went through some of the toughest training in the U.S. military to earn the Eagle, Globe and Anchor. There is a warrior/combat culture in the Marine Corp. If you're a Marine, regardless of your occupation you WILL be deployed somewhere where there is conflict at least once in your career because that's what the USMC does. The USMC is different from the US Army, and it is important to distinguish the fact that someone is a MARINE, while someone else is a SOLDIER.
The US Army is more a reserve force, than one constantly on active stand-by? Again, apologies in advance for any misinterpretation.
 
They overlap yes, of course. But what I am saying, is that where they overlap is an area which is still below most armed forces standards that we are talking about. I made an error saying it disqualifies 15-20% of men, I meant to say it disqualifies all but 15-20% of men. Women usually have around ~ the strength of men. Now some men may be 2-3x times stronger then other men, so obviously there is overlap where the strongest woman who is half as strong as the strongest man might still be stronger then the bottom 30-40% of men. Put it into perspective, look at this site Women's Raw American Records
Just quickly running through the collegiate women's powerlifters and weight lifters, the highest record bench press I could find was 253 pounds in the 198 pound class (most records were ~150ish). Personally, (not to brag or anything) I was doing close to 300 pounds at around 190 pounds by the time I was a sophomore in high school with two years of lifting under my belt. A sophomore in high school, doing more then the best collegiate women's athletes.

Not saying that is enough to completely dismiss the idea, but I think you see my point. Its quite well known that the presence of a Y chromosome leads to an average of 10 times of a natural level of androgens for males as compared to females. Thats no insignificant number (its also why men commit 90% of all crimes and murders).

Don't Put Women in Combat, Says Female Combat Veteran

I found that article quite persuasive on the topic.

Well we can argue about the percentages of women that will meet the requirements. I don't think you have any evidence for the numbers you are throwing out here. (Besides the college bench pressing stats, although I'm not quite sure why that's relevant. Obviously the men's records are higher. This is nothing profound.) But my point is the same. Anyone who meets the requirements of the job should be allowed to have the job. They should be awarded the respect and honor a soldier deserves, and be free from all the BS and prejudice this thread portrays.
 
The US Army is more a reserve force, than one constantly on active stand-by? Again, apologies in advance for any misinterpretation.

No... just different culture. The U.S. Army is a self sufficient army in the traditional since of the word, that has various jobs and undertakings. The Marine Corp is a fighting force focused almost exclusively around combat operations, making it smaller, and much more reliant on the the Navy for transportation cheifly among other things. Everything kill! Every Marine a rifleman, first and foremost. Which is why basic training/OCS is inherently much tougher and much longer process. YOu can be a cook in the Army if you so desire, so why spend valuable extra tax dollars on training a cook to efficiently kill. That will not be the case in Marine Corp.
 
No... just different culture. The U.S. Army is a self sufficient army in the traditional since of the word, that has various jobs and undertakings. The Marine Corp is a fighting force focused almost exclusively around combat operations, making it smaller, and much more reliant on the the Navy for transportation cheifly among other things. Everything kill! Every Marine a rifleman, first and foremost. Which is why basic training/OCS is inherently much tougher and much longer process. YOu can be a cook in the Army if you so desire, so why spend valuable extra tax dollars on training a cook to efficiently kill. That will not be the case in Marine Corp.
Good post, dude. Cheers for clearing that up.
 
If women can meet the same physical standards as men, and not watered-down, I have no problem with it, but do have reservations. This includes the potential difficulty of close foxhole quarters and how to handle personal hygene needs there. However, in the modern military, many such concerns can be handled. But I DO NOT support under any circumstances any watering down of the physical requirements for soldiers.
 
If women can meet the same physical standards as men, and not watered-down, I have no problem with it, but do have reservations. This includes the potential difficulty of close foxhole quarters and how to handle personal hygene needs there. However, in the modern military, many such concerns can be handled. But I DO NOT support under any circumstances any watering down of the physical requirements for soldiers.

A comment here - I see no "hygiene problem" in the trenches. You're too wiped out, afraid, and disgusted to worry about seeing another person's body.
 
Back
Top Bottom