• 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 females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

Should women be allowed to specialize as infantry


  • Total voters
    95
So, these things are imagined? They do not happen now?

19 year old men and women do not engage in this sort of behavior, so we should ignore it?

Ar eyou willing to lead infantry units into battle and face the consequences if these things come into play during a battle? Are you willing to confront the familes of the men and women who may potentially die when these 'imagined' deterrents pop up?

Are you willing to control the men of a unit and prevent atrocity the first time a female soldier in found raped? What do you think would have happened if those had been young women pulled off street corners in Iraq instead of young men?

Are you truly willing to face these things? Battle is not a kind or friendly activity and weaknesses and mistakes are exploited with absolute ruthlessness. Simply dismissing things because you do not want to acknowledge them does not mean that your enemy will ignore them in battle.

Are you suggesting women don't have any stomach for violence or lack leadership capacity? If so, what evidence do you have to sustain this?
 
No, the idea that woman are emotionally and physically suited to withstand the rigors of extended combat operations as part of an infantry platoon.

Provide evidence to support your assertion. Not your sexist opinion, but actual proof.
 
Provide evidence to support your assertion.

There's no proof either way, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Not your sexist opinion, but actual proof.

Spare me the PC hogwash. I'm just being honest.
 
Why? Am I supposed to wander around pretending that I have the upper body strength of a man despite all evidence to the contrary? We rarely ever integrate sports competitions because of the obvious fact that if we did women wouldn't make it on to most teams. But let's PC up the combat field. We'll separate the men from the women in world competitions on swimming, basketball, and everything else but on the battlefield we'll pretend the sexes are the same. Makes sense, right? :doh

You are willfully twistin my posts. I never said anything about PC'ing the battlefield. I said that who is qualified to perform each individual MOS (job for you civilians) should be decided on the basis of physical and mental ability. In plain english, that means if you can pass the tests then I dont care whether you are an innie or an outtie. And that doesn't mean that we dumb down the tests or lower the physical requirements.

Just because YOU feel the need to be coddled and protected does not mean all women should be like you. And I will proudly serve next to any woman who PROVES she can hang. And guess what, that applies to the guys as well. If you can't hang, I don't want you. male, or female.
 
Women are autonomous beings who are entitled to make the call of where they are needed the most FOR THEMSELVES.

I don't believe that's true. Then again, I don't believe it's true for men, either.

People aren't meant to be autonomous. And the vast majority of people, if they are not given explicit orders about where to go and what to do, make monumentally short-sighted and stupid decisions that not only waste and ruin their own lives, they harm everyone around them and society as a whole. Luckily, the vast majority of people also instinctually defer to anyone that appears capable of giving them direction.

Nearly all human misery can be attributed to human beings acting without firm leadership-- in most cases, people are safer, healthier, and happier under the worst kinds of tyranny than they are under any kind of anarchy.

And as much as I respect women, their intellect and their strength and their bravery, they are too valuable to be allowed to throw themselves upon grenades to protect men. Good men recognize this subconsciously, even if they support "equality" and womens' right to stand and die for their country.
 
It would be a far more believable case if the women who were serving currently in the positions the military currently allows women right now -the standards weren't already lowered for women.

I agree. And thats why I think the army needs to change how it tests aptitude and physical strenght. As I 've stated before, I was Artillery. Anyone who knows anything about artillery knows it ain't a place for weaklings and yet the army continually allows 18 year old toothpicks who wiegh maybe 100 lbs to serve in that MOS. We had one guy in unit who stood 5', wieghed 104 lbs and spent his entire tour driving a humvee because he didn't possess the strenght to lift an artillery round. I would have taken a female who could perform the job over a male who couldn't ANYDAY.
 
I agree. And thats why I think the army needs to change how it tests aptitude and physical strenght. As I 've stated before, I was Artillery. Anyone who knows anything about artillery knows it ain't a place for weaklings and yet the army continually allows 18 year old toothpicks who wiegh maybe 100 lbs to serve in that MOS. We had one guy in unit who stood 5', wieghed 104 lbs and spent his entire tour driving a humvee because he didn't possess the strenght to lift an artillery round. I would have taken a female who could perform the job over a male who couldn't ANYDAY.

We aren't talking about the artillery. We're talking about the infantry.
 
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...nsiders-lifting-combat-ban-female-troops.html

That is the discussion that has given birth to this particular poll.

I want to be clear with the question here. I am asking if you think females should be allowed to serve as infantrymen(persons?) in the military. That means, they are not a cook or aircraft mechanic who has some basic infantry skills gleaned from either boot camp, or extra infantry training like the Marines put all personnell though.

What we are asking is if you think women should be allowed to be grunts.

Sure women should be able to fight in combat. Actually there is (or was) a unit called the lionesses in Iraq. They found themselves in combat more than once.

LIONESS PROGRAM ‘PRIDE’ OF THE CORPS

‘‘Twenty years ago, seeing a female [Marine] at a checkpoint with a bunch of 03s [infantrymen] would’ve been really uncommon,” Baker said. ‘‘Now, it’s almost become a norm. It really isn’t a big deal to see women on the frontlines or at these checkpoints.”

With ‘‘lionesses” continuing to serve in Iraq, the significance of women Marines serving side-by-side with combat units has been accented by their ability to perform their duties as well as any other Marines manning the checkpoints.

‘‘I don’t think there was a Marine out there who didn’t understand the importance of having females there,” Baker said. ‘‘No one I know ever questioned their abilities or their knowledge. We didn’t look at them as females serving at a checkpoint, we just saw another Marine.”


Jezebel - Lionesses: Female Soldiers Are Seeing Combat - Military

A new PBS documentary, Lioness, sheds new light on the role of women in combat. (It's reviewed in today's Times.) While technically prohibited from direct ground combat, female soldiers in Iraq frequently find themselves occupying a "gray area" that's never existed in prior wars. As one soldier puts it, “We’ve had grenades thrown at us, shooting at us with AK-47’s. It’s a fight-or-flight thing. When someone is shooting at you, you don’t say, ‘Stop the war, I’m a girl.’”

I watched that documentary. It was very well done.
 
If you think there is that much difference you are sadly misinformed. If the artillery ain't shootin, they're infantry.

Going on the occasional combat patrol doesn't make one an infantryman.
 
somebody has to say it

Nowhere near true.

I think anyone interested in this thread could have done just fine without your off topic pro-lifer commercial.
 
Going on the occasional combat patrol doesn't make one an infantryman.

Occassional huh? Let's leave that aside for a moment. Here a bit of info for you: MP units(which ARE co-ed BTW) have seen more combat and ieds than any other type of unit in Iraq. And the majority of women in those units are performing just fine.

BTW, your complete lack of firsthand knowledge is showing.
 
Nowhere near true.

I think anyone interested in this thread could have done just fine without your off topic pro-lifer commercial.
deny all you want, it shows women are more than capable of killing
and it turns out they are doing it every day on a massive scale.
Women put men to shame when it comes to killing
 
deny all you want, it shows women are more than capable of killing
and it turns out they are doing it every day on a massive scale.
Women put men to shame when it comes to killing

We really are brutal. The wide-eyed delicateness is just an act.

Just think of us as Black widows, with better legs.

Ooops...dammit. Just gave away an important female secret.

What was I saying? Gosh, I really need new curtains.
 
Last edited:
People aren't meant to be autonomous. And the vast majority of people, if they are not given explicit orders about where to go and what to do, make monumentally short-sighted and stupid decisions that not only waste and ruin their own lives, they harm everyone around them and society as a whole. Luckily, the vast majority of people also instinctually defer to anyone that appears capable of giving them direction.

Nearly all human misery can be attributed to human beings acting without firm leadership-- in most cases, people are safer, healthier, and happier under the worst kinds of tyranny than they are under any kind of anarchy.

And as much as I respect women, their intellect and their strength and their bravery, they are too valuable to be allowed to throw themselves upon grenades to protect men. Good men recognize this subconsciously, even if they support "equality" and womens' right to stand and die for their country.

Are we allowed to throw ourselves on a grenade to protect our children? How about an idea (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)? What about our parents? Our country?

I would counter that these things are too valuable NOT to allow women the option of dying to defend them.
 
Occassional huh? Let's leave that aside for a moment. Here a bit of info for you: MP units(which ARE co-ed BTW) have seen more combat and ieds than any other type of unit in Iraq. And the majority of women in those units are performing just fine.

BTW, your complete lack of firsthand knowledge is showing.

Oh really?

Well, terestingly enough, when the stuff got heavy, I don't recall too many MP units going into say .... Fallujha?

The reality of non-linear wars like counter-insurgencies is that all units are attacked, and Jessica Lynch is a perfect example of why women and nominally rear echelon troops need combat training.

Getting hit by an IED is not the same thing as a ground assault against a dug in enemy. Do not get me wrong, the MP's have brought spectacular benefits to the battlefield, particularly is helping us teach security and policing to the locals who must do the job. I have tremendous respect for the job of policemen after discovering just how difficult it is.

It is however, not the same job as the infantry. The Military Police do not exist primarily to close with and destroy the enemy. They do not exist, and are not trained, to bring battlefield mutipliers into the fray to overwhelm and absolutely crush an enemy.

Our infantrymen have had to become much more like policemen to be successful in counter-insurgency, but it is still the combat forces that must engage in the hard fighting as necessary in places like Baqubah, Mosul, Baghdad, and the cave hopping and ambushed in the mountains of Afghanistan.

This isn't about ability, but effect on the ability of a force to do its required mission.
 
Occassional huh? Let's leave that aside for a moment. Here a bit of info for you: MP units(which ARE co-ed BTW) have seen more combat and ieds than any other type of unit in Iraq. And the majority of women in those units are performing just fine.

Citation. Also, define "combat".

BTW, your complete lack of firsthand knowledge is showing.

Dude, I was a grunt.
 
Are we allowed to throw ourselves on a grenade to protect our children? How about an idea (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)? What about our parents? Our country?

I would counter that these things are too valuable NOT to allow women the option of dying to defend them.
you just hush now breeder ;)
 
There's no proof either way, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Thank you.

Spare me the PC hogwash. I'm just being honest.
If your position is that women lack the emotional and physical aptitude for combat then it is a sexist opinion. It's not PC hogwash.

If there are any women anywhere that are suited for combat then your position is bankrupt.
 
Are we allowed to throw ourselves on a grenade to protect our children? How about an idea (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)? What about our parents? Our country?

I would counter that these things are too valuable NOT to allow women the option of dying to defend them.

How does death defend life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Those concepts are a societal, not an individual choice.

In any nation rises up and seriously intends to take those collective rights away from our society, there is nothing that YOU alone, as an individual, can do to stop them.

What is needed is a collective entity that trained, equipped, and formed to fight as efficiently as possible to attack and destroy that enemy as quickly as possible.

You individual desire can only be defended collectively. What is a question is how best to that, and allowing women in to defend a principal in peace may result in its loss in war.

Currently, the defense of that liberty is all expiditionary, should that process come home and truly involve the survival of our society as a whole it would very much become necessary for women to make that choice you speak of.

However, to send young men and women off to war aware that there are problems that may effect unit cohesion in the face of the enemy is tantamount to murder unless you you know of ways to mitigate them.

I know of know way to keep 19 year old men full of infantry machismo from acting like horny young men nor do I know how to stop equally horny young women from sleeping them. That sort of behavior, and the competition it creates, can easily result in needless deaths in combat.

As someone who has lead troops in battle, that is not a risk that I would take lightly.
 
deny all you want, it shows women are more than capable of killing

No it doesn't you propaganda peddler. Your pro-life commercial is completely off topic, as a fetus is no parallel whatsoever to an enemy soldier.
 
Back
Top Bottom