• 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

  • Yes, and they should be integrated with the males

    Votes: 44 46.3%

  • Yes, but keep their units seperate from male units

    Votes: 11 11.6%

  • No, but women should be given some basic infantry skills beyond basic training

    Votes: 25 26.3%

  • No, women should never serve in a role where they may encounter combat

    Votes: 6 6.3%

  • Other....

    Votes: 9 9.5%
  • Total voters
    95
Apocalypse said:
You're trying to present this as if Iraqis are very tolerant towards American male soldiers patrolling their areas and searching their houses, and the only problem they have is with female soldiers doing this.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is zero tolerance for females, as opposed to just some tolerance for males. That's a big difference, trust me.

Obviously, they don't like it when anyone busts into their homes but the manner in which male Marines are able to interact with the head of the household permits them the latitude to win over hearts and minds, not so with women. An old Iraqi sheik would die before he obeyed a woman's order.

And of course I'm aware of the female status in the Muslim society, I'm from the ME buddy. :2razz:
Click to expand...

I know buddy, I know. I'm just trying to tell you how it was for us in Iraq. Iraqi men (for the most part) do not see women as equals. It's just a fact of life.
 
1069 said:
American Women soldiers didn't have much of a civilizing influence in Abu Ghraib, either, unfortunately.
I think the trick is that the women have to have power equal to that of the men, and in order for that to happen, there must be sufficient numbers of women, and they must be of a certain caliber.
When there's one woman in a group for every twenty or thirty men, and when the women are of the caliber of Megan Ambuhl and Lindee England (young, uneducated, and of the lowest conceivable military rank), and when their immediate supervisors are male, you get a situation where these females cannot possibly exert a positive influence. They are too powerless. At best, they are subservient to the men, catering to them in hopes of being safe and fitting in.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't feel all that "Civil" toward Suicidal Idiots trying to kill me over a "god". Also,,,we're NOT in the business of trying to change a 1000 year old Islamic primitive mental state. Only stop them from killing us...:roll:

They'll have to get their own House in Order.
 
Realist1 said:
Personally, I don't feel all that "Civil" toward Suicidal Idiots trying to kill me over a "god". Also,,,we're NOT in the business of trying to change a 1000 year old Islamic primitive mental state. Only stop them from killing us...:roll:

They'll have to get their own House in Order.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying you have to do anything, except refrain from raping and torturing civilians.
You can do that, can't you?
 
1069 said:
Nobody is saying you have to do anything, except refrain from raping and torturing civilians.
You can do that, can't you?
Click to expand...

Do we have tooooo?
 
Ethereal said:
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is zero tolerance for females, as opposed to just some tolerance for males. That's a big difference, trust me.

Obviously, they don't like it when anyone busts into their homes but the manner in which male Marines are able to interact with the head of the household permits them the latitude to win over hearts and minds, not so with women. An old Iraqi sheik would die before he obeyed a woman's order.
Click to expand...

Does a whole squad bust in the door, or only one person? If only one person, why does it have to be the woman? Having a male do the speaking in those situations is not wrong.
 
1069 said:
Nobody is saying you have to do anything, except refrain from raping and torturing civilians.
You can do that, can't you?
Click to expand...

Since I never have,,,chances are, I won't feel deprived if I don't start.:roll: You might want to tell the Islamic Terrorists the same thing. See how far you get with that Trash.:lol:
 
Redress said:
Does a whole squad bust in the door, or only one person? If only one person, why does it have to be the woman? Having a male do the speaking in those situations is not wrong.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about women even being in an infantry platoon with men? You really think that would work?
 
Ethereal said:
Who said anything about women even being in an infantry platoon with men? You really think that would work?
Click to expand...

I think it would, yes.
 
Redress said:
How so?

~10 characters~
Click to expand...

For instance, if Tashah had been in my platoon in Iraq every last one of us would have tried to **** her on a regular basis.

Moreover, the sexual harrassment policy in the military is very ambigious. When I was a team leader I would often refer to one of my Marines as a "bitch" or a "*****"...not sure how well that would go over with a lady. The waters have been muddied already.
 
Ethereal said:
For instance, if Tashah had been in my platoon in Iraq every last one of us would have tried to **** her on a regular basis.

Moreover, the sexual harrassment policy in the military is very ambigious. When I was a team leader I would often refer to one of my Marines as a "bitch" or a "*****"...not sure how well that would go over with a lady. The waters have been muddied already.
Click to expand...

I don't perceive this (men's inability to control themselves/ behave appropriately) as a good reason to penalize females by forbidding them certain jobs. If what Tashah says is even half true, the US army would've benefited immeasurably from her service.
Why should females be forbidden jobs they're qualified for and good at, why should these jobs go to men instead (who might not even be as qualified), simply because men lack the ability to behave appropriately?
It sounds like a problem the men need to work on, if you ask me.
Forbidding women jobs because of it is not only unfair to women, but it really doesn't solve the problem of men not being able to control themselves. If they can't control themselves in that context, how can they be expected to behave properly in any context? Should women be forced to wear burqas and forbidden to leave their homes unescorted, because of men's lack of self-control?

Can you imagine if society tried to deny men the opportunity to work in certain fields- especially fields that were considered heroic and honorable- because women worked there, and the women might not be able to act properly with men around?
Please.
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
For instance, if Tashah had been in my platoon in Iraq every last one of us would have tried to **** her on a regular basis.

Moreover, the sexual harrassment policy in the military is very ambigious. When I was a team leader I would often refer to one of my Marines as a "bitch" or a "*****"...not sure how well that would go over with a lady. The waters have been muddied already.
Click to expand...

And none of you would have been able to respect her firm "no"?

Based on my experience, things like that are a two way street. Men have to pay a little attention to what they say, and women have to be a little tolerant. Troublemakers are a problem without women, and will be with women.

By the way, I remember a time when a guy in squadron without thinking used a term of measurement based on female pubic hair in front of two women. He was embarrassed and scared, but they just laughed.
 
1069 said:
I don't perceive this (men's inability to control themselves/ behave appropriately) as a good reason to penalize females by forbidding them certain jobs. If even what Tashah says is even half true, the US army would've benefited immeasurably from her service.
Why should females be forbidden jobs they're qualified for and good at, why should these jobs go to men instead (who might not even be as qualified), simply because men lack the ability to behave appropriately?
It sounds like a problem the men need to work on, if you ask me.
Forbidding women jobs because of it is not only unfair to women, but it really doesn't solve the problem of men not being able to control themselves. If they can't control themselves in that context, how can they be expected to behave properly in any context? Should women be forced to wear burqas and forbidden to leave their homes unescorted, because of men's lack of self-control?

Can you imagine if society tried to deny men the opportunity to work in certain fields- especially fields that were considered heroic and honorable- because women worked there, and the women might not be able to act properly with men around?
Please.
Click to expand...

Redress said:
And none of you would have been able to respect her firm "no"?

Based on my experience, things like that are a two way street. Men have to pay a little attention to what they say, and women have to be a little tolerant. Troublemakers are a problem without women, and will be with women.

By the way, I remember a time when a guy in squadron without thinking used a term of measurement based on female pubic hair in front of two women. He was embarrassed and scared, but they just laughed.
Click to expand...

Sometimes men don't behave nicely in war zones.
 
Ethereal said:
Sometimes men don't behave nicely in war zones.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, rather than penalize women by forbidding them jobs they're qualified for and want to do, men could be held to a certain standard of behavior, and made accountable for gross violations of said standard.
After all, there are plenty of women in war zones.
If men's behavior is too "un-nice" to allow female soldiers to share the battlefield with them, then is it really appropriate to allow them around female civilians and their children and elderly?
 
Ethereal said:
Sometimes men don't behave nicely in war zones.
Click to expand...

The same is true of women. People in high stress jobs have to learn to function as a team, and this would still be true.
 
1069 said:
I don't perceive this (men's inability to control themselves/ behave appropriately) as a good reason to penalize females by forbidding them certain jobs. If what Tashah says is even half true, the US army would've benefited immeasurably from her service.
Why should females be forbidden jobs they're qualified for and good at, why should these jobs go to men instead (who might not even be as qualified), simply because men lack the ability to behave appropriately?
It sounds like a problem the men need to work on, if you ask me.
Forbidding women jobs because of it is not only unfair to women, but it really doesn't solve the problem of men not being able to control themselves. If they can't control themselves in that context, how can they be expected to behave properly in any context? Should women be forced to wear burqas and forbidden to leave their homes unescorted, because of men's lack of self-control?

Can you imagine if society tried to deny men the opportunity to work in certain fields- especially fields that were considered heroic and honorable- because women worked there, and the women might not be able to act properly with men around?
Please.
Click to expand...

I NEVER thought of getting shot at,,,as a Job. Hummm. :lol:
 
Redress said:
The same is true of women. People in high stress jobs have to learn to function as a team, and this would still be true.
Click to expand...

Yeah,,,an R.P.G. headed toward you IS stressful.
That's true enough.

Take care.
 
Realist1 said:
I NEVER thought of getting shot at,,,as a Job. Hummm. :lol:
Click to expand...

If that's all our infantry troops did, we could use inflatable troops, and spare our sons for more important things.
 
Redress said:
Your point is?
Click to expand...

I agreed with you. Being a Grunt IS "stressful" at times. :lol: You'd think Women would be beating down the doors at the Recruitment Office,,,wouldn't you?

Take care.
 
Realist1 said:
I agreed with you. Being a Grunt IS "stressful" at times. :lol: You'd think Women would be beating down the doors at the Recruitment Office,,,wouldn't you?

Take care.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why any one would want to be infantry, but am thankful some do. The flight deck was stressful enough for me.
 
Realist1 said:
I agreed with you. Being a Grunt IS "stressful" at times. :lol: You'd think Women would be beating down the doors at the Recruitment Office,,,wouldn't you?

Take care.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of women in the armed forces.
One of nine soldiers is a woman.
Your point is that women should be forbidden to serve in combat because not that many of them want to?
Well, in that case, not that many men want to be teachers. I think the government should pass a law forbidding men to be teachers. They're unsuited for it, being intellectually inferior to females, and besides that, women teachers might not be able to control themselves and might behave improperly if males were around.

How'd you like them apples?
Does that sound pretty sensible to you?
Based on my arguments, do you think the government will go ahead and pass such a law?

Well, guess what? The only reason they listen to these same lame excuses coming from you, and pass laws forbidding qualified females the opportunity to serve in infantry, is because there is precedent for it.
Not because your reasons make sense, but because there is a lot of precedent for forbidding females to do what they want to do... for forbidding them opportunities that men have.
That precedent is based on patriarchy and sexism and gender discrimination, and it is wrong.
 
Last edited:
1069 said:
There are plenty of women in the armed forces.
One of nine soldiers is a woman.
Your point is that women should be forbidden to serve in combat because not that many of them want to?
Well, in that case, not that many men want to be teachers. I think the government should pass a law forbidding men to be teachers. They're unsuited for it, being intellectually inferior to females, and besides that, women teachers might not be able to control themselves and might behave improperly if males were around.

How'd you like them apples?
Does that sound pretty sensible to you?
Based on my arguments, do you think the government will go ahead and pass such a law?

Well, guess what? The only reason they listen to these same lame excuses coming from you, and pass laws forbidding qualified females the opportunity to serve in infantry, is because there is precedent for it.
Not because your reasons make sense, but because there is a lot of precedent for forbidding females to do what they want to do... for forbidding them opportunities that men have.
That precedent is based on patriarchy and sexism and gender discrimination, and it is wrong.
Click to expand...

Look,,,I think Women do an outstanding job as Pilots. I'm reasonably certain that they aready Serve in Combat right now. I've no qualms with that. I'm not sure just what their role is limited to in the Army. Possibly,,,they'd make great Tankers. What I don't want is the women being utilized in Infantry.

That's due to my personal feelings on what would happen to them in Hand to Hand Combat. And Men like me would pay more attention to them (worried over their Safety) more than myself.

I'm pretty sure most the Men would feel the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom