• 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
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.

Only ONE failure would be too many, right?
 
Last edited:
Pick your terms and stick with them. I'm tired of your fluctuating playing field.

Since I have not once used the term "dumbed down", you need to fix YOUR terms. I was correcting your imposition of your negative concepts onto the ideas I presented.

This is a direct contradiction of your earlier comments.

Cite an earlier post in which I stated that criminals were specifically trained in combat.

You don't know much about criminals, do you?

You don't know much about soldiering, do you?

So, in saying that they aren't obvious, you're basically capitulating to your inability to make your case about the dumbing down? Thought so.

Since I didn't make a case about "dumbing down", I can't say that I'm capitulating anything.

The case I made that you're choosing to adress via ad hominem attacks is that copping ain't sojering, and that the copping industry has a niche market that makes putting split tails on the force a sensible option for certain circumstances. There are no niches in the sojering industry, infantry, in which it makes sense to employ females.

Is this true of the average infantryman in the U.S.? Methinks you are now holding women to a standard that MEN aren't even held to at present.

That's correct. The phyical requirements for the males were watered down to make it possible to retain enough females to meet EEO quota requirements, just like they did with the cops and with the fire departments.
 
Oh, really? How many failures are male infantrymen allowed? What percentage of male infantrymen wash out?

Why the double standard, Scarecrow?

You do understand the difference between war and crime, right? In war, the job of the infantry man is to see the enemy and shoot him, if they can't finagle a way of dropping a mortar round on his head.

The job of the first responding agent to the scene of a civillian accident is to rescue the victims.

Killing.

Rescue.

Hmmmm....yeah, probably different job goals, ya think?
 
I have not seen one guy or even yet one woman assert that women in general are equal to men in size, stature, and upper body strength.

So let's get a clear response on that. Are you claiming they are or not? Or are you claiming for certain jobs the differences may not matter and may be actually beneficial? (I can agree with this for certain jobs. However infantry isn't one of them.)

Let's get down in the grit. You claimed I'm asserting women are delicate flowers - which I've never even come close to alluding to. I've just repeatedly pointed out that they're not as strong and they get pregnant.

So, point blank are women - in your mind- equal to men in strength, size, and stature?

If you admit the obvious; that they are not then how do you justify forcing men to serve in battle alongside women who are not as strong as their male peers??????

Oh and please answer without anecdotes about your job helping urban youth.

Talloulou, you are aware that not every combat job requires large physical strength? You are aware that some women are in fact quite strong physically? You are aware that some men are not all that strong? You are aware that as Catz has linked and quoted, military physical standards and PT tests are not about actual strength to do a job but about overall physical fitness?

Now, with that in mind, if strength standards where implemented and made universal for combat duty, then how exactly would you use strength as an issue against women in combat. It is pretty obvious that changes would be needed to make women in combat ideal, and I think that is one of the changes that would be needed.

As far as the pregnancy thing, I thought we took care of that last night, when you gave numbers, and it turned out that, using the numbers you supplied, only 1.8 % of female British Soldiers in Iraq ended up getting pregnant.
 
Since I have not once used the term "dumbed down", you need to fix YOUR terms. I was correcting your imposition of your negative concepts onto the ideas I presented.

Sorry, my bad, you quoted my response to Rev. Hellhound, who did use the term.

Cite an earlier post in which I stated that criminals were specifically trained in combat.

What does that have to do with anything? You stated that criminals typically flee from the police. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. In some circumstances, criminals TARGET the police.


You don't know much about soldiering, do you?

I'd say I know precisely as much as you do. ;)

The case I made that you're choosing to adress via ad hominem attacks is that copping ain't sojering, and that the copping industry has a niche market that makes putting split tails on the force a sensible option for certain circumstances. There are no niches in the sojering industry, infantry, in which it makes sense to employ females.

Of course it doesn't make sense to you, you've never served with females as equals. Others here have, and have different perceptions.

Ad hominems aside, your experiences don't speak to this issue very well.

That's correct. The phyical requirements for the males were watered down to make it possible to retain enough females to meet EEO quota requirements, just like they did with the cops and with the fire departments.


Prove that these exist. What percentage of females are police departments required to hire to meet their "quotas"? And by whom?
 
Talloulou, you are aware that not every combat job requires large physical strength?

I'm under the impression that the job changes at the drop of a hat. It's not neatly as outlined as most other jobs. Going into ground battle is wildly unpredictable. So IMO talking about the "job" and the "job requirements" is a little absurd.

You are aware that some women are in fact quite strong physically? You are aware that some men are not all that strong?

I'm aware that when men and women are in peak condition the vast majority of men are stronger than the vast majority of women which is why men and women rarely compete head to head in the Olympics.

Now, with that in mind, if strength standards where implemented and made universal for combat duty, then how exactly would you use strength as an issue against women in combat. It is pretty obvious that changes would be needed to make women in combat ideal, and I think that is one of the changes that would be needed.
In ground battle I would think optimally unless we're highly outnumbered we want the absolute strongest infantry we can find. Since men are naturally stronger than women and this is obvious when both sexes are in optimum condition the strongest infantry possible is an infantry of men.

The pregnancy issue is two fold. The first part is the distractions, the sexual relationships, the mess it inevitable creates that there is no room for IMO. The second is the actual pregnancies and being "battle ready."
 
We're talking about in combat. Sending them off on combat specific missions. Try to stay on topic. It's not about you. Your job. Women in general. etc. It's about specifically women in combat.




I don't think women are delicate little flowers. But I also don't think just cause I worked in the big 'ol city at some point that I'm battlefield ready.



So either a woman can hold her own on a battlefield or she's helpless?

Please. Admitting that most fit men are stronger than me when I'm at my fittest is not acting helpless so much as it is not being in denial about the realities dealing with biological make up in men vs women.


The average size of an American woman is 5'4" and 140 lbs.

The average size of Asian men is 5'5" and 140 lbs.

I think the asians have proved on many different battlefields that "it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog".


Not all women are suited for life in a combat unit just as not all men are. Physical and Mental ability (NOT SEXUAL PLUMBING) should determine who gets in and who doesn't.

And I am sorry if this hurts your macho image, but if you can't handle the fact that a little female just might be the better fighter, then your unit and your team is probably better off without your insecurity issues screwing up unit cohesion.
 
And I am sorry if this hurts your macho image, but if you can't handle the fact that a little female just might be the better fighter, then your unit and your team is probably better off without your insecurity issues screwing up unit cohesion.

Yer talkin to a girl champ.
 
I'm under the impression that the job changes at the drop of a hat. It's not neatly as outlined as most other jobs. Going into ground battle is wildly unpredictable. So IMO talking about the "job" and the "job requirements" is a little absurd.



I'm aware that when men and women are in peak condition the vast majority of men are stronger than the vast majority of women which is why men and women rarely compete head to head in the Olympics.

In ground battle I would think optimally unless we're highly outnumbered we want the absolute strongest infantry we can find. Since men are naturally stronger than women and this is obvious when both sexes are in optimum condition the strongest infantry possible is an infantry of men.

The pregnancy issue is two fold. The first part is the distractions, the sexual relationships, the mess it inevitable creates that there is no room for IMO. The second is the actual pregnancies and being "battle ready."

Strenhgt of arm has lost much of its importance in modern combat. Accuracy and the ability to function under stress are much more important.
And in case you are wondering, with the proper training, women outperform men in stress tests hands down.
 
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.

No, no, no....don't misunderstand me. I don't think women should be denied combat roles in the military, not at all. I think it's a bad idea to have integrated combat arms units because of the sexual angle. Many of the women that served in my MP unit would have gladly went infantry if given the opportunity. Many wished they'd never joined the MP's. The bottom line is that in my experience, which spans 16 years of service, is that it doesn't matter what role you serve in in the military. Vagina's don't dry up and penis' don't fall off. Eventually it will happen, and eventually problems will arise. Trust will damaged, jealousy, protectionism.

We can all say that we'd be professional, and I know we'd do our best. 180 days in bush would change that.

My opinion.
 
No, no, no....don't misunderstand me. I don't think women should be denied combat roles in the military, not at all. I think it's a bad idea to have integrated combat arms units because of the sexual angle. Many of the women that served in my MP unit would have gladly went infantry if given the opportunity. Many wished they'd never joined the MP's. The bottom line is that in my experience, which spans 16 years of service, is that it doesn't matter what role you serve in in the military. Vagina's don't dry up and penis' don't fall off. Eventually it will happen, and eventually problems will arise. Trust will damaged, jealousy, protectionism.

We can all say that we'd be professional, and I know we'd do our best. 180 days in bush would change that.

My opinion.

I think it's an interesting opinion. So would you have non-integrated combat units?
 
I think it's an interesting opinion. So would you have non-integrated combat units?

I would have no problem with that. A warfighter is a warfighter, regardless of the sex. A woman can kill you just as dead.
 
The average size of an American woman is 5'4" and 140 lbs.

The average size of Asian men is 5'5" and 140 lbs.

I think the asians have proved on many different battlefields that "it's not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog".


Not all women are suited for life in a combat unit just as not all men are. Physical and Mental ability (NOT SEXUAL PLUMBING) should determine who gets in and who doesn't.

And I am sorry if this hurts your macho image, but if you can't handle the fact that a little female just might be the better fighter, then your unit and your team is probably better off without your insecurity issues screwing up unit cohesion.

From beginning to end funny.
 
Then the insecurity issue is even larger than I thought, champ.

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
 
Strenhgt of arm has lost much of its importance in modern combat. Accuracy and the ability to function under stress are much more important.
And in case you are wondering, with the proper training, women outperform men in stress tests hands down.




:lol: you sure about that? lets see the evidence.
 
I would have no problem with that. A warfighter is a warfighter, regardless of the sex. A woman can kill you just as dead.

That's my thinking. I've worked with some extremely ruthless women over the years.
 
Back
Top Bottom