• 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

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'll be honest, they gross me out. I don't like them one bit.

First, it's a waste of tax dollars to give women guns and have them running around playing GI Jane.

Second, what happens if a woman is caught in battle? A woman is a liability out there.

Women are physically, mentally, and emotionally not cut out to be soldiers. For that reason, they have not been soldiers all throughout human history.

It's only in our modern, metrosexual era where Hollywood replaces reality that we are deluded enouigh to believe that men and women are exactly the same in every respect.
 
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I'm sure we all treasure it, especially on this subject.
 
So many straw men and false statements in this argument I don't even know where to begin. And it doesn't make you in any way a realist.
 
I'll be honest, they gross me out. I don't like them one bit.

First, it's a waste of tax dollars to give women guns and have them running around playing GI Jane.

Second, what happens if a woman is caught in battle? A woman is a liability out there.

Women are physically, mentally, and emotionally not cut out to be soldiers. For that reason, they have not been soldiers all throughout human history.

It's only in our modern, metrosexual era where Hollywood replaces reality that we are deluded enouigh to believe that men and women are exactly the same in every respect.

I didn't vote because I can't do so intelligently. First, I don't know how they compare shoulder-to-shoulder with guys. And secondly, I don't know the mindset of a male soldier. Does he think his female compatriot has to be protected more than a male counterpart? I don't know. I think guys in our current military could answer much more intelligently than the rest of us.
 
I'll be honest, they gross me out. I don't like them one bit.

First, it's a waste of tax dollars to give women guns and have them running around playing GI Jane.

Second, what happens if a woman is caught in battle? A woman is a liability out there.

Women are physically, mentally, and emotionally not cut out to be soldiers. For that reason, they have not been soldiers all throughout human history.

It's only in our modern, metrosexual era where Hollywood replaces reality that we are deluded enouigh to believe that men and women are exactly the same in every respect.

Personally if I was caught in a battle I'd rather have one of my female Soldiers out there than you.

I voted potato because I think the OP's intelligence is on par with one.
 
I'll be honest, they gross me out. I don't like them one bit.

First, it's a waste of tax dollars to give women guns and have them running around playing GI Jane.

Second, what happens if a woman is caught in battle? A woman is a liability out there.

Women are physically, mentally, and emotionally not cut out to be soldiers. For that reason, they have not been soldiers all throughout human history.

It's only in our modern, metrosexual era where Hollywood replaces reality that we are deluded enouigh to believe that men and women are exactly the same in every respect.
I'm in an engineer company. Honestly the gender doesn't make an impact. Women operate heavy equipment on par with men. In Afghanistan, men are more likely to be raped than women, because that's Pashtun sexuality. Our female soldiers can use weapons as well as any of the rest of us.

Where the presence of women starts making a conflict in the service is exactly the same as any other professional setting: Relationships. Even when sex is not performed, the tensions caused by the creation and brake up of even light romantic relationships works against unit cohesiveness.

This is by no means unique to the military, but exists everywhere on Earth men and women work together. To say women don't belong in the military is to say that women don't belong in the professional world at all, and I don't agree with that.

The only caveat I make, is that the military consistently dumbs down the standards for women. Combat is unforgiving. A woman absolutely must be able to meet the same minimum requirements as a man for a given position. Unfortunately that is not how the military handles it. THe service makes a double standard for women, and that allone costs lives.
 
Last edited:
Wow, what a truly sexist OP.

This is the 21st Century. Our frontlines are nothing like those from either WW or even Korea/Vietnam. We do plenty of things that are considered "front line" that require finesse and intelligence, not strength and confrontation. And women are more than capable of keeping their emotions in check, some even more so than men. Anger is still an emotion. Bloodlust is an emotion.

And in today's battlefield most situations do not require a person, any person to be able to carry their buddy away from battle, not that all men could physically do that either. But women are more than capable of being trained and conditioned to be able to do what is physically required of them.

Women have been soldiers throughout history. Many may not have been known to be women when they were soldiers and there weren't a lot of them, but there have been women soldiers in the past.

That being said, I do think we need to be cautious about letting women into certain areas of battle mainly because the men would find it hard to handle and until we do make equipment more easily carried/operated (which should be something we strive for even without allowing women in major combat roles) so that more than just a handful of women are qualified to do the job throughout the military. The biggest problem I see is the men being able to view the women as viable soldiers instead of weaklings. This is a problem with the men and this stupid mindset that women don't make good soldiers.
 
I didn't vote because I can't do so intelligently.
Potato is a valid option. For example:

MicrowaveMashedPotatoes.JPG

That is a perfect bowl of potatoes, there simply is no argument against that.
 
It's only in our modern, metrosexual era where Hollywood replaces reality that we are deluded enouigh to believe that men and women are exactly the same in every respect.

I like how in Grimm's world, men only come in one of these two ways.

metrosexualiy3.jpghank-hill-1.jpg

Also, I like how the poll options are 1) Sex object, 2) Women are inferior but not really inferior, and 3) ad hom attack on anyone who doesn't think that women are inferior. Also potato, which is clearly the superior choice.
 
I'll be honest, they gross me out. I don't like them one bit.

First, it's a waste of tax dollars to give women guns and have them running around playing GI Jane.

Second, what happens if a woman is caught in battle? A woman is a liability out there.

Women are physically, mentally, and emotionally not cut out to be soldiers. For that reason, they have not been soldiers all throughout human history.

It's only in our modern, metrosexual era where Hollywood replaces reality that we are deluded enouigh to believe that men and women are exactly the same in every respect.


I'm more concerned of their being raped by American soldiers and the military ignoring it. I don't like the idea of women in combat being used for sexual pleasures by our troops.

Apparently, you didn't grow up in a time where dad worked and mom managed the children all summer long. A gun would have suited my mother and her ability to reign in her tough and tumble sons, but she did just fine with her whistle and fly swatter.;)
 
I'll be honest, they gross me out. I don't like them one bit.

First, it's a waste of tax dollars to give women guns and have them running around playing GI Jane.

Second, what happens if a woman is caught in battle? A woman is a liability out there.

Women are physically, mentally, and emotionally not cut out to be soldiers. For that reason, they have not been soldiers all throughout human history.

It's only in our modern, metrosexual era where Hollywood replaces reality that we are deluded enouigh to believe that men and women are exactly the same in every respect.

During my time I have met, worked with a couple of women I would welcome on the front lines with me. But only a couple. These two could tote a 50 pound back with weapon and make it 20 miles through a jungle or the mountains. Heck, they could out run the majority of men in the 2 mile run and hiking, they put most of the young soldiers to shame.

I think it is pick and choose, take the ones who qualify going through the same thing the men do, the rest, leave behind. The two I told you about, I would trust them with my life under any and all circumstances. I couldn't say the same for at least half the men.
 
During my time I have met, worked with a couple of women I would welcome on the front lines with me. But only a couple. These two could tote a 50 pound back with weapon and make it 20 miles through a jungle or the mountains. Heck, they could out run the majority of men in the 2 mile run and hiking, they put most of the young soldiers to shame.

I think it is pick and choose, take the ones who qualify going through the same thing the men do, the rest, leave behind. The two I told you about, I would trust them with my life under any and all circumstances. I couldn't say the same for at least half the men.

Your last sentence says it all. There are qualified and non-qualified on both sides of the gender line.
 
I didn't vote because I can't do so intelligently. First, I don't know how they compare shoulder-to-shoulder with guys. And secondly, I don't know the mindset of a male soldier. Does he think his female compatriot has to be protected more than a male counterpart? I don't know. I think guys in our current military could answer much more intelligently than the rest of us.

There are some mentally and physically tough women in the army which could serve on the front lines without a problem or having guys worrying about protecting them. But these gals, at least that I know of, have found out, are in the minority. A blanket order of placing women in the combat skill MOS's would be very wrong and probably lead to extra deaths. But to pick and choose those who qualify the same as a man, got get them girl.
 
Your last sentence says it all. There are qualified and non-qualified on both sides of the gender line.

That is correct, I spent 3 years as a Drill Sergeant at Ft. Leonard Wood and another 3 as NCOIC of Willard Training Area at Ft. Gordon. It is all about training and matching capabilities. Little Miss Petite usually wouldn't cut it. But having said that, some would definitely surprise. It is all about keeping the standards the same regardless of gender. But that is not how we usually approach these issues. An example is the difference between a male and female PT tests. The females only have to do around half of what a male has to do to pass. But if a female can pass a male PT test, in my book, she is most welcome to join me.
 
There are some mentally and physically tough women in the army which could serve on the front lines without a problem or having guys worrying about protecting them. But these gals, at least that I know of, have found out, are in the minority. A blanket order of placing women in the combat skill MOS's would be very wrong and probably lead to extra deaths. But to pick and choose those who qualify the same as a man, got get them girl.

This I agree with. Most women can't be in combat MOS's. It isn't right to make quotas or reach certain goals to fill with women. But women can handle other roles in the military just fine at the same level of competence and ability as their male counterparts, if not more depending on the woman and the men she is serving with. And there are definitely places on the front lines for women, especially in the conflicts/wars we are currently fighting, even if they aren't technically combat roles. One that has been showing success is sending women in to relate to the women of the countries we are in, teaching them skills to make them more independent and showing them that women can be more than just property of men.
 
There are some mentally and physically tough women in the army which could serve on the front lines without a problem or having guys worrying about protecting them. But these gals, at least that I know of, have found out, are in the minority. A blanket order of placing women in the combat skill MOS's would be very wrong and probably lead to extra deaths. But to pick and choose those who qualify the same as a man, got get them girl.

I don't mind them filling the positions as long as the physical requirements are the same for women and men. Given that and what I've bolded from your comment, I just don't want to hear feminists cry foul about more men filling front line positions than women.
 
This I agree with. Most women can't be in combat MOS's. It isn't right to make quotas or reach certain goals to fill with women. But women can handle other roles in the military just fine at the same level of competence and ability as their male counterparts, if not more depending on the woman and the men she is serving with. And there are definitely places on the front lines for women, especially in the conflicts/wars we are currently fighting, even if they aren't technically combat roles. One that has been showing success is sending women in to relate to the women of the countries we are in, teaching them skills to make them more independent and showing them that women can be more than just property of men.

Almost all the women I knew in the army were competent at what their job was, just like the men. I do not know the percentages of men vs. women in the army today, outside there are a ton of more women than when I retired from active duty. All of them do their job and duty first rate. But tracing through the jungles or mountains also takes physical stamina, determination along with being good at what you do.

There was an MP company in Iraq that had a female CO and quite a lot of female MP's who was ambushed, they gave as good as they took if not more so.
 
I don't mind them filling the positions as long as the physical requirements are the same for women and men. Given that and what I've bolded from your comment, I just don't want to hear feminists cry foul about more men filling front line positions than women.


That is my point, as long as the standards remain the same for both men and women. If they meet the standards, by all means.
 
Now I know why there are no female priests...
 
That is my point, as long as the standards remain the same for both men and women. If they meet the standards, by all means.

Standards like pull ups?
 
Standards like pull ups?

The army's PT test consisted of three events, situps, push ups and the 2 mile run. But I have heard the army is going to go to a different type of PT test with 5 events shortly or perhaps already has.

Ready, set, go: Army introduces new fitness tests | Article | The United States Army

Here, read all about it and be sure to click on the arrows to the side of the chart/pictures.

I don't know how this new test will work out, but we shall see.
 
Women soldiers are soldiers.

They do needed jobs. They get shot at. When circumstances require, they return fire.

Thus, they are soldiers.


Do I think there will be many women qualifying for special combat teams like SEALS, Greenie Beanies, Rangers, etc? No, not unless standards are lowered which I hope does not happen... but if there are some that ARE able to qual under existing standards, then more power to 'em.
 
The army's PT test consisted of three events, situps, push ups and the 2 mile run. But I have heard the army is going to go to a different type of PT test with 5 events shortly or perhaps already has.

Ready, set, go: Army introduces new fitness tests | Article | The United States Army

Here, read all about it and be sure to click on the arrows to the side of the chart/pictures.

I don't know how this new test will work out, but we shall see.

I can see the run, but what do sit ups and push ups have to do with soldiering? If they get surrounded by the enemy, are they going to jump out, drop and do 50 in front of them?
 
Back
Top Bottom