• 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 along this whole line of "let's integrate females into male only units", how do the supporters of this feel about integrating males and females in the barracks, whether it be a squad bay situation like in boot camp, or a situation where they would share a barracks room with someone of the opposite sex?

I don't know about that. Personally, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, thought I wouldn't particularly care to share a bathroom. However, integrated training units in the military already out-perform male only units. Says the GAO.

Interesting historical sidenote:

The first American woman soldier was Deborah Sampson of Massachusetts. She enlisted as a Continental Army soldier under the name of "Robert Shurtliff". She served for three years in the Revolutionary War and was wounded twice; she cut a musket ball out of her own thigh so no doctor would find out she was a woman. Finally, at the end of the hostilities her secret was discovered—even so, George Washington gave her an honorable discharge. She later lectured on her experiences and became a champion of women's rights.
Women in the military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Well you know that is the crux of the matter really, at least as far as I'm concerned. The one thing that cannot be turned off or compensated for in integrated units is the sex drive. Nothing like putting a half dozen, well toned, in shape females in a platoon of alpha males and then turning them loose in a high stress situation that could last for months on end.

I saw enough drama in my MP unit (it was male/female).
 
Well you know that is the crux of the matter really, at least as far as I'm concerned. The one thing that cannot be turned off or compensated for in integrated units is the sex drive. Nothing like putting a half dozen, well toned, in shape females in a platoon of alpha males and then turning them loose in a high stress situation that could last for months on end.

I saw enough drama in my MP unit (it was male/female).




Men are dogs, we would want to "hit that" :mrgreen: Some of us would have less self control than others. ;)



+1 on your post.
 
:lol: how about a post number, I just reviewed all your posts and am no less confused as to where you are coming from.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...lize-infantry-military-15.html#post1058044466

You are in a car crash, and a police officer happens upon you as the car bursts into flames, Would you prefer someone who can't lift 150lbs out of a car or would you prefer one who met the standards that are applied to males.

I would prefer that both males AND females met physical ability requirements. I have no problem with equal standards, though I think you are overestimating the number of times in a career that someone might be called upon to do this....male or female.

Male female, who can't pass the same standards test, or in my case, when I applied to the NYPD and scored 98% back when dinkins was mayor, was told that because I was a white male, I was not qualified, women, minorities only had to score 68%. That was the day I decided the last place i wanted to be was on the NYPD... :lol: So excuse my "dumbing down" comment to personal experience.

NOt a huge fan of Dinkins, and I think you'll find this is less of an issue these days.

Yes. have you?

I've been fired on more than once, yes.

Extended TDY is not the same as being in combat. Going to the panhandle of FL, to do some training, is not the same as marching to bagdhad.... :lol:

And marching to baghdad and staying in the green zone isn't precisely the same as serving high hazard warrants all day in South Central LA. The differences are less profound than you'd imagine.
 
Well you know that is the crux of the matter really, at least as far as I'm concerned. The one thing that cannot be turned off or compensated for in integrated units is the sex drive. Nothing like putting a half dozen, well toned, in shape females in a platoon of alpha males and then turning them loose in a high stress situation that could last for months on end.

I saw enough drama in my MP unit (it was male/female).

In my experience, the types of women that would be drawn to combat roles are different from the average MP. Just like the standard police officer doesn't want to serve on a SWAT unit in their PD. It takes a special type of person, male or female, to want to work in these roles, and the women who want to do it aren't usually the standard piece of ass that gets chased around the base.
 
For the record, I like doing a dangerous job, but I have no particular desire to enlist and serve in combat. However, for those women who do desire to, and who can meet the physical demands, I think that opportunities should be provided.

I know what it's like to have people think that you shouldn't do a job because you have a uterus. I've dealt with that for most of my career. So, they definitely have my sympathies.

When I started working with gangs, probably less than 1% of people in the field were female. That was 19 years ago. Now, things are much more integrated, but I still remember what it was like to have to prove myself daily.
 


Ahh thanks. So if I am correct, you were a social worker who worked with the police in an inner city? Am I correct?


I would prefer that both males AND females met physical ability requirements. I have no problem with equal standards, though I think you are overestimating the number of times in a career that someone might be called upon to do this....male or female.


It's just the one time that you need it that counts. And this is not something that is an impossible standard but something many of us should strive for in our lives. I have a set of personal standards that I maintain religiously. I do so, so that I am prepared.


I think if one wants to be a police officer, there are minimums such as being able to drag the weight of the average person away from danger.


Lets say in one of your instances, a scrawny male cop who could not drag 150lbs watched his partner get shot. He weighs 180lbs. He is in the crossfire.

The former, is a liability.



NOt a huge fan of Dinkins, and I think you'll find this is less of an issue these days.


I agree. it is better.


I've been fired on more than once, yes.


But not in combat? There is a difference.


And marching to baghdad and staying in the green zone isn't precisely the same as serving high hazard warrants all day in South Central LA. The differences are less profound than you'd imagine.



in 2008 only 38 of the 800,000+ police officers in this country had died from a gunshot.


in 2008 314 of the 135,000 troops in iraq had been killed that sae year.



I submit the differences are far more profound than you suggest.
 
For the record, I like doing a dangerous job, but I have no particular desire to enlist and serve in combat. However, for those women who do desire to, and who can meet the physical demands, I think that opportunities should be provided.

I know what it's like to have people think that you shouldn't do a job because you have a uterus. I've dealt with that for most of my career. So, they definitely have my sympathies.

When I started working with gangs, probably less than 1% of people in the field were female. That was 19 years ago. Now, things are much more integrated, but I still remember what it was like to have to prove myself daily.






I can see that being a woman in this role is actually a benefit. Given the perception of women being les intimidating and threatening, than a man to many in gang culture.
 
Ahh thanks. So if I am correct, you were a social worker who worked with the police in an inner city? Am I correct?

I specifically stated what I did. I did street gang intervention with gang members. This entailed working with young people who were heavily involved in gangs in their homes and neighborhoods. It involved me transporting young people with violent histories in my vehicle, ALONE. It involved me working a night shift in dangerous neighborhoods where the cops worked in teams of two.

Please stop with the attempts to diminish my work. I've never disrespected your job. Almost all of my clients had histories of violent crimes: aggravated assault, aggravated robberies, and homicides.


It's just the one time that you need it that counts. And this is not something that is an impossible standard but something many of us should strive for in our lives. I have a set of personal standards that I maintain religiously. I do so, so that I am prepared.

That's great, and it appears that most members of the military would prefer that the physical standards be equal, and based upon the specific responsibilities of the job. IS that currently the case? If not, it has nothing to do with the women in the armed forces.

Lets say in one of your instances, a scrawny male cop who could not drag 150lbs watched his partner get shot. He weighs 180lbs. He is in the crossfire.

The former, is a liability.

There are multiple responses to a situation like the one you described. At a minimum, he can return the fire.

But not in combat? There is a difference.

Women aren't allowed in combat, remember? I've been shot at while performing my duties. How many Americans do you think that applies to? That puts both of us in a rather exclusive club out of the 300 million, doesn't it?

in 2008 only 38 of the 800,000+ police officers in this country had died from a gunshot.

AS DISCUSSED, the vast majority of police officers work in small towns and rural counties where they are less likely to be fired upon. I specifically stated that I was discussing high impact urban crime areas, so I'm talking about a small percentage of total police officers, where the conditions are much more similar to urban combat.

I submit the differences are far more profound than you suggest.

And I submit that you don't know much about serving high hazard warrants.
 
Last edited:
I can see that being a woman in this role is actually a benefit. Given the perception of women being les intimidating and threatening, than a man to many in gang culture.

There's a profound lack of understanding between you and I. In urban street gang culture, respect is based upon fear. Thus, being less intimidating and/or threatening actually puts you at more risk of personal harm because you become perceived as prey by predators. The population I served were predatory by nature, and being prey could be fatal.

I wasn't physically intimidating, so I had to compensate for that with a strong personality and good interpersonal skills. That's something I've seen with quite a few good police officers (male and female) over the years, too. They find other strengths, and find ways to resolve situations without use of force, and without loss of face. The more experienced an officer is, the less likely he or she is to resort to use of force, and the more tools he/she has to deal with situations.
 
Last edited:
I specifically stated what I did. I did street gang intervention with gang members. This entailed working with young people who were heavily involved in gangs in their homes and neighborhoods. It involved me transporting young people with violent histories in my vehicle, ALONE. It involved me working a night shift in dangerous neighborhoods where the cops worked in teams of two.

Please stop with the attempts to diminish my work. I've never disrespected your job. Almost all of my clients had histories of violent crimes: aggravated assault, aggravated robberies, and homicides.


hey, I am not dimminishing your work. I am simply trying to figure it out. What qualificatios does one need to do what you do.

For example, I have a friend who does yout services in detroit. Sounds very similar to what you do.

His background is in psychology, and is technically a social worker. This is why I asked.


That's great, and it appears that most members of the military would prefer that the physical standards be equal, and based upon the specific responsibilities of the job. IS that currently the case? If not, it has nothing to do with the women in the armed forces.



Yes, because if the standards are not equal, the person who has the lower standards is a liability who may just get you killed.


There are multiple responses to a situation like the one you described. At a minimum, he can return the fire.



yes, because leaving your partner in the middle of crossfire, is the most sound solution. ;)




Women aren't allowed in combat, remember? I've been shot at while performing my duties. How many Americans do you think that applies to? That puts both of us in a rather exclusive club out of the 300 million, doesn't it?


Nah, you are much more exclusive. You went into a gun fight unarmed. :doh


AS DISCUSSED, the vast majority of police officers work in small towns and rural counties where they are less likely to be fired upon. I specifically stated that I was discussing high impact urban crime areas.


45,000 nyc police officers in 2008. Total killed in 2008 5.


Lets triple that number and average it out.


That would be 135,000 (roughly the same number serving in Iraq). average the deaths by 3, thats 15.


15 deaths compared to 314 in iraq that year.


Not even in the same ballpark.



And I submit that you don't know much about serving high hazard warrants.


nope, but I assist in instructing CQB courses and shoot houses to maintain a skill set with a very notable individual in the business ;)
 
Last edited:
There's a profound lack of understanding between you and I. In urban street gang culture, respect is based upon fear. Thus, being less intimidating and/or threatening actually puts you at more risk of personal harm because you become perceived as prey by predators. The population I served were predatory by nature, and being prey could be fatal.


No I understand that. You missed my point which is that thier guard was not as high given that you were not as "physically intimidating"...


That's called an opening.


I wasn't physically intimidating, so I had to compensate for that with a strong personality and good interpersonal skills. That's something I've seen with quite a few good police officers (male and female) over the years, too. They find other strengths, and find ways to resolve situations without use of force, and without loss of face. The more experienced an officer is, the less likely he or she is to resort to use of force, and the more tools he/she has to deal with situations.



Kinda my point. peraps you misunderstood me.
 
Sex, gender identity or sexual preference for that matter are irrelevant and inconsequential in regards to a person's ability to be an efficient killer and carry their own load.

I choose the 1st option.
I disagree, generally a women is not well suited to be an "efficient" killing machine.
There are exceptions of course, and many men would fail in this mission.
And we cannot have this "sexual preference" business in the military.. Only "real" men....
The infantry is no place for social/sexual experimenting...nor are the prisons.
 
hey, I am not dimminishing your work. I am simply trying to figure it out. What qualificatios does one need to do what you do.

That's a good question. Usually, they have a background in working with high risk populations. I'm not a social worker, and in general, view the term as an insult. That's not anything to do with you, just one of my biases.

Yes, because if the standards are not equal, the person who has the lower standards is a liability who may just get you killed.

They aren't currently equal between males and males. For instance, if you're over 30, your qualification standards are reduced. Let's fix that, first. ;) But, that might mean that the only people qualified to serve in combat are 24 year old males. Do you see any disadvantages to that? Aside from the fact that they tend to act first and think later?

yes, because leaving your partner in the middle of crossfire, is the most sound solution. ;)

There are multiple variables to all situations.

Nah, you are much more exclusive. You went into a gun fight unarmed. :doh
Yes, I failed to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Lets triple that number and average it out. That would be 135,000 (roughly the same number serving in Iraq). average the deaths by 3, thats 15. 15 deaths compared to 314 in iraq that year.

But many of those killed weren't even in combat.

Not even in the same ballpark.

True, but there are similarities.

nope, but I assist in instructing CQB courses and shoot houses to maintain a skill set with a very notable individual in the business ;)

In the cop business? We should compare notes. We probably know some of the same people.
 
Last edited:
That's a good question. Usually, they have a background in working with high risk populations. I'm not a social worker, and in general, view the term as an insult. That's not anything to do with you, just one of my biases.


No worries, it was not meant to be an insult.


They aren't currently equal between males and males. Let's fix that, first. ;)


Standards should be even period.



There are multiple variables to all situations.


Of course thier are. but trading volleys of fire while your partner is down between you and the beligerant, is not something that usually makes much sense.


Yes, I failed to bring a knife to a gun fight.

Point is, you are braver than me. :lol:


I'd wan't my blaster and carbine for the ride. ;)



But many of those killed weren't even in combat.

I did all the heavy lifting, your turn to parse them out if you want.


True, but there are similarities.


Like?



In the cop business? We should compare notes. We probably know some of the same people.


Cops, military, PMC's, civillians, whoever pays the money and has the credentials gets to play. ;)


I keep the details close to the vest on these here forums. But perhaps you are right, ever train in Michigan? ;)
 
No I understand that. You missed my point which is that thier guard was not as high given that you were not as "physically intimidating"...That's called an opening.

Possibly. I'm also a mom, so I was able to bring a different skills set to the table than the average young guy. I was used to managing the behavior of oppositional children (*I had a toddler at the time).

I've noticed that, my bf is a 14-year Naval officer, his skill set is far greater than the average Ensign's. He might be older and slightly slower, but he's also got a wealth of experience to draw upon when problem-solving.

You see that with the average GYSGT, too.
 
Standards should be even period.

I agree. On the other hand, having differential standards based upon age recognizes the fact that older individuals may bring different tools to the job versus the average young buck.

Of course thier are. but trading volleys of fire while your partner is down between you and the beligerant, is not something that usually makes much sense.

Not my strong suit, as I don't ever return fire.

Point is, you are braver than me. :lol:

Braver, or more stupid? It's arguable.

Swat work and urban combat areas. I wouldn't consider all of NYC to be an urban combat zone, fwiw. I'd say that's primarily sections of the Bronx. All of Camden, NJ, for instance. South Central and East LA. Houston's SW quadrant. Oppalocka, FL, and a few other sections of Dade county.

And, I'm thinking primarily about tactical units like SWAT that are just beginning to accept their first female officers in the past five years, and women seem capable of hanging with the big dogs. But they are few in numbers and highly motivated. Most women aren't going to want to do that work (hell, most men don't, either).

Cops, military, PMC's, civillians, whoever pays the money and has the credentials gets to play. ;)

I keep the details close to the vest on these here forums. But perhaps you are right, ever train in Michigan? ;)

Not yet, but am supposed to do some work in Detroit this year, parts of Puerto Rico, Camden, NJ, Oakland, CA. Have done work previously in Miami, Houston, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, but only in small, gang-intensive areas.

I tend to spend my time in the non-touristy parts of the U.S. ;) My preference.
 
Last edited:
Swat work and urban combat areas. I wouldn't consider all of NYC to be an urban combat zone, fwiw. I'd say that's primarily sections of the Bronx. All of Camden, NJ, for instance. South Central and East LA. Houston's SW quadrant. Oppalocka, FL, and a few other sections of Dade county.

When I lived in Ft Green Brooklyn it was pretty nasty. The sound of police helicopters and automatic gunfire become my lullaby music. One night someone blew up a car right in front of my brownstone.
 
When I lived in Ft Green Brooklyn it was pretty nasty. The sound of police helicopters and automatic gunfire become my lullaby music. One night someone blew up a car right in front of my brownstone.




My bad.... I was trying to hide a cigarette from the GF at the time. :mrgreen:
 
MOS (job) assignment in the military should be decided on the basis of physical and mental ability, not sexual equipment. As a former artillerymen, I quickly grew tired of picking up the slack for guys who were not physically capable of performing the job. And during my time in, I had the pleasure of knowing quite a few female MPs who could most definitely handle any job thrown at them.

Having said that, the biggest obstacle to women serving equally with men, is other women. For every one woman who performs and behaves as a soldier should, there are five who are ****ing around, getting pregnant in order to miss deployments, and making false sexual harassment claims because their male supervisor came down on them when they ****ed up.

The largest concern with women serving in combat units is the privacy issue. In many cases, especially while engaged against an enemy force, privacy is just not an option. Both the men and the women in the military need to taught how to behave professionally even while naked in front of the opposite sex. This however, will never happen in America, where the sight of a naked breast sends whole swaths of the population into religious outrage.
 
If women choose to serve in the military they should be allowed in any capacity that they are capable. That is the way it should always be.

A man should not be leld back because he is male. A women should not have her gender held against her either.
 
Having said that, the biggest obstacle to women serving equally with men, is other women. For every one woman who performs and behaves as a soldier should, there are five who are ****ing around, getting pregnant in order to miss deployments, and making false sexual harassment claims because their male supervisor came down on them when they ****ed up.

True dat. One of the more annoying aspects of life to me these days is young feminists, most of whom have no idea how to EARN equality with men. You do it by sucking it up and doing what needs to be done. If you want equality, there is a price to pay. It doesn't just get handed to you on a silver platter. You do it by learning to fit into the prevailing culture instead of expecting it to accomodate you. You definitely don't want to stand out as the one who doesn't have the cojones to hang.

And, if you have a problem, you sack up and deal with it, face to face, instead of being some passive aggressive little pansy. A lot of women have no idea how to deal with conflict, for one thing. If you want to work in a male dominated field, you have to learn to work with men, on their terms. And you damn well better grow a thick skin and work on your sense of humor.

YOu also have to be scrupulously careful about doing things that will cause you to lose people's respect, because fair or not, women who are ground breakers end up being watched closely. It's a fact of life, and best not whine or cry about it, or you aren't suited for it.

I will say that the biggest handicap to women these days is women. I think equality is truly possible, but we have to earn it.

Sorry. /rant mode.

The largest concern with women serving in combat units is the privacy issue. In many cases, especially while engaged against an enemy force, privacy is just not an option. Both the men and the women in the military need to taught how to behave professionally even while naked in front of the opposite sex. This however, will never happen in America, where the sight of a naked breast sends whole swaths of the population into religious outrage.

God, I love our puritan roots. They're so healthy. :doh
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom