• 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
Tashah, if you are suggesting that modern combat operations do not require a substantial amount of physical and mental endurance then you are totally mistaken. My first five days in Ramadi I probably slept a total of 12-15 hours. It was nonstop patrolling, building, and standing post. I was having mild hallucinations by the last night.
The US military is not suited for occupation. No modern military is. The cost in blood, treasure, and equipment in Iraq is staggering. Occupation is what any modern military does least best. If you wish to reprise this experience again and again down the road, be my guest. But the extant results will be fairly consistent.

What I am suggesting, and what has been proven true in other parts of the world, is that females can indeed contribute significantly on the modern battlefield. No, females generally can't hump thirty miles lugging a SAW. But if your military finds it necessary for any Infantry soldiers to do this, then your military is in some deep **** from the get-go. Such exacting excercises are best left to elite personel such as Special Forces.

Intelligence, speed, mobility, and combined-arms capability are the keys to successful ground operations. Getting bogged down kills. I suppose some muscle-bound tattooed grunt has to lug a friggin SAW around. But me? I'll take the female soldier who can obliterate anything two clicks away using a lightweight headset, laser designator, and laptop. You see Ethereal, one need not be the strongest and baddest dude on the block to be extremely proficcient and successful at killing the enemy. This ability can come in any size, or gender.
 
If she advocates putting women in infantry units, she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. Period.
Well lookit you Mr. G.I. Joe. If you ain't the biggest baddest dude on the DP block! Even got yerself a username and crappy avatar to puff your bad stuff. My oh my. But it's been my experience that those who need to publicly flex usually know the least.
 
Unfortunately, I think quite a few look at this through a soda straw. You see what you want to see and ignore the bigger picture. Same old same old.
 
The US military is not suited for occupation. No modern military is. The cost in blood, treasure, and equipment in Iraq is staggering. Occupation is what any modern military does least best. If you wish to reprise this experience again and again down the road, be my guest. But the extant results will be fairly consistent.

What I am suggesting, and what has been proven true in other parts of the world, is that females can indeed contribute significantly on the modern battlefield. No, females generally can't hump thirty miles lugging a SAW. But if your military finds it necessary for any Infantry soldiers to do this, then your military is in some deep **** from the get-go. Such exacting excercises are best left to elite personel such as Special Forces.

Intelligence, speed, mobility, and combined-arms capability are the keys to successful ground operations. Getting bogged down kills. I suppose some muscle-bound tattooed grunt has to lug a friggin SAW around. But me? I'll take the female soldier who can obliterate anything two clicks away using a lightweight headset, laser designator, and laptop. You see Ethereal, one need not be the strongest and baddest dude on the block to be extremely proficcient and successful at killing the enemy. This ability can come in any size, or gender.


Great post.

The UK for example has female soldiers regularly riding top cover on patrol in their area.
 
Well lookit you Mr. G.I. Joe. If you ain't the biggest baddest dude on the DP block! Even got yerself a username and crappy avatar to puff your bad stuff. My oh my. But it's been my experience that those who need to publicly flex usually know the least.
:lamo :lamo

somebody just got spanked
 
mispost.............
 
Last edited:
Well lookit you Mr. G.I. Joe. If you ain't the biggest baddest dude on the DP block! Even got yerself a username and crappy avatar to puff your bad stuff. My oh my. But it's been my experience that those who need to publicly flex usually know the least.
Wow, great post with no substance. You present the "guys who drive hummers have small cocks" argument.

BTW, the vast majority of the military disagrees with your stance on women in combat. Maybe you should focus on that for a bit.
 
Most men here (and most have never served) seem to imagine modern Combat as Vic Morrow leading his platoon of merry men through Europe circa 1944 with bayonets attached to their single-fire carbines. Most of you don't have a clue how a modern, integrated, and well trained military engages the enemy.

Soldier circa 1944 weren't using single shot carbines. American infantry soldiers then were armed with some of the finest and most reliable light and heavy infantry weapons in the history of the world: M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, Browning light and heavy machine guns, flamethrowers, 1903 Springfield sniper rifles, Thompson Submachine guns. Some of those weapons, such as the M2 BMG are still in use.

SURVSATS. ELINT. Saturation shelling. Strafing. Drones with real-time video and more sensors than an F-16. GPS keypad gridding. 3-D structure layouts. Laser designators. Wireless laptops. Satellite up/down comm links. Special Forces inserts. Sniper team inserts. Recon team inserts. Spotter aircraft. Thunder runs. Armored spearheads. Chopper support. Close-Air-Support officers. All this before the Infantry even get out of their transports.

Hand-to-hand combat? wtf? :rofl

And, all that high-tech crap will never replace that infantry soldier and his rifle using speed, tactics, terrain and firepower to close with the enemy destroy him in close quarter combat. All the things you listed are combat multipliers and aren't neccessarily deployed/employed prior to deployment of an element's main body. The nature of the battlefield will never change no matter how much technology you through into it. Technology breaks, gets wet and stops working, gets dirty and malfunctions. IMO, the worst thing that happened to infantry platoon leaders was to give them GPS's. Before I ETS'ed in 2000, I ran across 1LT's and Captains that couldn't use a map and a compass because they'd become too accustomed to using their GPS. They had forgotten the most basic land navigation skills.

As to the topic, though. I'm all for females serving in an military unit they choose. However, I believe that there shouldn't be any co-ed combat units. Infantry, armor, combat engineer and artillery units should be all male, or all female. In fact, I'm a proponent of that policy across the board.
 
Doesnt matter where you are. The doctrine is the same. Intelligence, speed, mobility, and power projection. This notion of manly endurance and hiking through the countryside is total bs. Virtually all modern Infantry are mounted. Humvees and trucks or chopper ferries. You're gonna get your ass chewed up in anyone's back yard moving and fighting in slo-mo.

Those vehicles are only used to get the infantry soldiers close to the battlefield. It would suicide to haul troops onto the battlefield in a thin skinned vehicle; goes against all modern battle doctrine. The same thing goes for Bradleys and Strykers. Those are lightly armored vehicles and aren't intended to be used as main battle tanks. Another problem with dismounting infantry soldiers actually on the battlefield, is that they will be exposed directly to enemy fires immediately upon dismounting the vehicle. The enemy will literally shoot them as they exit the troop ramp. Your idea of how heavy mechinized infantry units operate is mistaken.
 
What about fully-combat units that only engage in quick assaults/operations?
It seems to me that you only have a problem with sending females to the units that are required to stay in the battlefield and survive through harsh conditions.

No. I was attached (be it briefly) to a ranger unit while in the guard, and no it would not work well.
 
What about fully-combat units that only engage in quick assaults/operations?
It seems to me that you only have a problem with sending females to the units that are required to stay in the battlefield and survive through harsh conditions.

There's no way that an assaulting unit will, with 100% certainty, be able to immediately break contact once they engaged.

There's an old saying in the miltiary, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy".
 
Unfortunately, I think quite a few look at this through a soda straw. You see what you want to see and ignore the bigger picture. Same old same old.

In my opinion it is you ignoring the big picture.

In every war in US history females have contributed without being in combat arms. The problem is the amount of females that could actually do the job is so minuscule in the end, it would be pointless to make such sweeping changes for so few. The money and moral would be harshly effected. It is as I said just not worth it.

I know it stinks, but not everything in life is fair, get used to it.
 
The US military is not suited for occupation. No modern military is. The cost in blood, treasure, and equipment in Iraq is staggering. Occupation is what any modern military does least best. If you wish to reprise this experience again and again down the road, be my guest. But the extant results will be fairly consistent.

The Iraq War is nearly complete, and with relatively small amounts of KIA's. America does occupation very well, the best in the world. Not that I want to make a habit of such things but it's not like we can make a policy of avoiding occupation altogether.

What I am suggesting, and what has been proven true in other parts of the world, is that females can indeed contribute significantly on the modern battlefield. No, females generally can't hump thirty miles lugging a SAW. But if your military finds it necessary for any Infantry soldiers to do this, then your military is in some deep **** from the get-go. Such exacting excercises are best left to elite personel such as Special Forces.

Nobody's lugging a SAW thirty miles, I can assure you, but they are lugging it, along with their combat load (typically 60-75 lbs), sometimes up to eight miles, in 140 degree weather, after having very little sleep. This is kind of thing is an eventuality, not a mere possibility.

Aggressive and sustained patrolling / ambushes are the best medicine for counter-insurgency operations. It's my personal opinion that woman lack the physical stamina necessary to conduct prolonged combat operations of this sort. Sure, there may be a few women who are capable of such, but we do not radically change military policy based upon the exceptions.

Intelligence, speed, mobility, and combined-arms capability are the keys to successful ground operations. Getting bogged down kills. I suppose some muscle-bound tattooed grunt has to lug a friggin SAW around. But me? I'll take the female soldier who can obliterate anything two clicks away using a lightweight headset, laser designator, and laptop.

Do the terrorists slip the coordinates to their location in Uncle Sam's mailbox? What happens when this bad mamma can't locate any targets? What happens when the target is in the middle of the city?

You see Ethereal, one need not be the strongest and baddest dude on the block to be extremely proficcient and successful at killing the enemy. This ability can come in any size, or gender.

I don't doubt this but for certain jobs one needs certain tools. Bases don't build themselves, posts don't stand themselves, LP/OP's don't collect intel by themselves, doors don't get kicked in by themselves, etc.

I know I probably sound like a dick but it's just the opinion I have after my experience in the Marines. I was a wrestler and a distance runner before I was in the Marines and I still had a hell of time over there, physically speaking.

I don't doubt that women could fill roles as combat specialists of some sort, but as generalized infantry I just can't see it. At least, that’s my two cents.
 
While my opposition to females serving in combat units, especially infantry units isn't about ability, it is a fact that a 115 pound woman isn't going to be able to perform some tasks. If females are ever allowed to serve in infantry units, they should have to perform all tasks to the same standards as male soldiers; no gener norming.

capt-d847589af52344f095a7d1b61663353b-addition_afghanistan_xdg103_thumb.jpg


004-1012214933-soldier-overloaded.jpg
 
Wow, great post with no substance. You present the "guys who drive hummers have small cocks" argument.

BTW, the vast majority of the military disagrees with your stance on women in combat. Maybe you should focus on that for a bit.
Tashah is a seasoned military person, and as such brings a point of view that maybe old white dudes of an antiquated mindset do not get
did you know gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military?
do you really think those same people would come to a better conclusion when it comes to women?
maybe you should focus on that for a bit
 
While my opposition to females serving in combat units, especially infantry units isn't about ability, it is a fact that a 115 pound woman isn't going to be able to perform some tasks. If females are ever allowed to serve in infantry units, they should have to perform all tasks to the same standards as male soldiers; no gener norming.
what makes you think a 115 lb woman who can not carry the necessary gear would be approved for and placed in a position to fail, jeopardizing her unit? :screwy
and just who has claimed we need to loosent the standards to allow women to serve?

I believe what you just posted would fall under Red Herring
 
Tashah is a seasoned military person, and as such brings a point of view that maybe old white dudes of an antiquated mindset do not get
did you know gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military?
do you really think those same people would come to a better conclusion when it comes to women?
maybe you should focus on that for a bit

Or maybe you should take the advice of a male seasoned veteran who was actually in the United States armed forces and realize the rules are in place for the most important part of being a solider or in the military; unit cohesion. Without that the whole network breaks down, period. The next step is people dying, and that is no exaggeration.

I agree with her in that it is unfair, that does not mean it is correct.
 
Tashah is a seasoned military person, and as such brings a point of view that maybe old white dudes of an antiquated mindset do not get
did you know gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military?
do you really think those same people would come to a better conclusion when it comes to women?
maybe you should focus on that for a bit
Why are you making this racial?
 
what makes you think a 115 lb woman who can not carry the necessary gear would be approved for and placed in a position to fail, jeopardizing her unit? :screwy
and just who has claimed we need to loosent the standards to allow women to serve?

I believe what you just posted would fall under Red Herring

A woman who can't carry her own gear won't be approved to serve in a position to fail; hence the reason for a ban on females in combat arms units.

No one said that the standards should be lowered for women to serve in infantry units. Female PT standard already are lower than male standards.
 
Last edited:
Or maybe you should take the advice of a male seasoned veteran who was actually in the United States armed forces and realize the rules are in place for the most important part of being a solider or in the military; unit cohesion. Without that the whole network breaks down, period. The next step is people dying, and that is no exaggeration.

I agree with her in that it is unfair, that does not mean it is correct.

That's right. There's a huge difference between being embedded with a combat unit and being an actual combat soldier.
 
Tashah is a seasoned military person, and as such brings a point of view that maybe old white dudes of an antiquated mindset do not get
did you know gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military?
do you really think those same people would come to a better conclusion when it comes to women?
maybe you should focus on that for a bit

Another point well made . Especially about the old white dudes. I got a good chuckle out of that because I'm married to one. Iam lucky that my husband has always supported me and thinks women can do anything they set out to do. Are some men now day's so insecure and feel so threatened by women that they refuse to acknowledge what women are capable of? Are they so desperate that they need to bring up the only advantage they have over women? Size and muscle power.

Your bring up another valid point. If gay's can do the job assinged them in the military why not let them. If women can keep up with men in the infantry why not let them. Why have a preconcieved idea of what they can do? Let them prove themselves or not . How can we sit around a speculate what a woman can or can't do when they aren't able to prove otherwise because no one will give them a chance. So what if only 3% of women are physically able to do the job or 10% or whatever. Don't give them a chance because the majority of women can't do the job. Let women prove themselves or not.

I think we would be lucky if even 65% of the male population were able to be in shape to do what is required to be in the infantry. Let's concentrate on that and go on and on about what a lot of men are not physically capable of doing.
 
Last edited:
Another point well made . Especially about the old white dudes. I got a good chuckle out of that because I'm married to one. Iam lucky that my husband has always supported me and thinks women can do anything they set out to do. Are some men now day's so insecure and feel so threatened by women that they refuse to acknowledge what women are capable of? Are they so desperate that they need to bring up the only advantage they have over women? Size and muscle power.

Your bring up another valid point. If gay's can do the job assinged them in the military why not let them. If women can keep up with men in the infantry why not let them. Why have a preconcieved idea of what they can do? Let them prove themselves or not . How can we sit around a speculate what a woman can or can't do when they aren't able to prove otherwise because no one will give them a chance. So what if only 3% of women are physically able to do the job or 10% or whatever. Don't give them a chance because the majority of women can't do the job. Let women prove themselves or not.

I think we would be lucky if even 65% of the male population were able to be in shape to do what is required to be in the infantry. Let's concentrate on that and go on and on about what a lot of men are not physically capable of doing.
Thank you for your well-informed opinion on whether or not women belong in combat MOS's.

Oh wait, nevermind, that's right.........You're have no idea what you're talking about. Life isn't a G.I. Jane movie. Out in the real world women have a hard time carrying full ruck sacks and M240 SAW's for miles at the time.
 
Another point well made . Especially about the old white dudes. I got a good chuckle out of that because I'm married to one. Iam lucky that my husband has always supported me and thinks women can do anything they set out to do. Are some men now day's so insecure and feel so threatened by women that they refuse to acknowledge what women are capable of? Are they so desperate that they need to bring up the only advantage they have over women? Size and muscle power.

I notice you ignored my other post to you, and now you make more unfounded generalizations.

The fact is it does make a difference in combat. To deny most females do not have the upper body strength of most men is a reality. To ignore this would be dishonest.

Your blanket statements are as I said before are false.

Your bring up another valid point. If gay's can do the job assinged them in the military why not let them.

Gays can and do serve in the military in all functions. They are not allowed to talk openly about their sexuality. It has nothing to do with their ability to do the job.

If women can keep up with men in the infantry why not let them. Why have a preconcieved idea of what they can do? Let them prove themselves or not . How can we sit around a speculate what a woman can or can't do when they aren't able to prove otherwise because no one will give them a chance. So what if only 3% of women are physically able to do the job or 10% or whatever. Don't give them a chance because the majority of women can't do the job. Let women prove themselves or not.

This is not about preconceived notions. It is about the fact that combat units should be one sex in the field. Not enough females can pass the physical requirements to serve in all female combat units, period. It is not worth the cost or effort to this country.

Have you bothered to read the evidence put forth by myself and others?

I think we would be lucky if even 65% of the male population were able to be in shape to do what is required to be in the infantry. Let's concentrate on that and go on and on about what a lot of men are not physically capable of doing.

:doh
 
Last edited:
Another point well made . Especially about the old white dudes. I got a good chuckle out of that because I'm married to one. Iam lucky that my husband has always supported me and thinks women can do anything they set out to do. Are some men now day's so insecure and feel so threatened by women that they refuse to acknowledge what women are capable of? Are they so desperate that they need to bring up the only advantage they have over women? Size and muscle power.

Your bring up another valid point. If gay's can do the job assinged them in the military why not let them. If women can keep up with men in the infantry why not let them. Why have a preconcieved idea of what they can do? Let them prove themselves or not . How can we sit around a speculate what a woman can or can't do when they aren't able to prove otherwise because no one will give them a chance. So what if only 3% of women are physically able to do the job or 10% or whatever. Don't give them a chance because the majority of women can't do the job. Let women prove themselves or not.

I think we would be lucky if even 65% of the male population were able to be in shape to do what is required to be in the infantry. Let's concentrate on that and go on and on about what a lot of men are not physically capable of doing.

Mixed combat units will cause a breakdown in discipline. A breakdown in discipline will get people killed. It's the reason that the IDF no longer allows women to serve in combat arms units.

Sorry to tell you it has nothing to do with white men's egos. It might be nice in your world to sacrifice lives for the sake of political correctness, but out here in the real world, those of us who have, do and will have be one of the ones putting our lives on the lines, it's a whole different ball game.
 
Thank you for your well-informed opinion on whether or not women belong in combat MOS's.

Oh wait, nevermind, that's right.........You're have no idea what you're talking about. Life isn't a G.I. Jane movie. Out in the real world women have a hard time carrying full ruck sacks and M240 SAW's for miles at the time.

Please do not address me any more. I do not appreciate it that you are not capable of reading a statement I made and comprehending what I said and then misrepresent what I have posted.

First of all I never tried to represent women as GI Janes and I resent you sugessting that I did.

Second of all it is getting boring and pathetic to hear about a woman carring ruck sack over and over. If you don't have anyting more intelligent to offer then why waste everyones time? Really it's just sounding like a broken record.

Third I do not like being miss represented by you. I only said that if a woman do the same job as a guy in the infantry then let her prove it or not. When someone doesn't agree with you, then you put words in their mouth and try to ridicule them. Excuse me you remind me of a arrogant bully and not someone who wants to carry on a intelligent debate and I never try to have a discussin with people wanting to only prove they are right and you are wrong and refuse to have a open mind on the subject being discussed.
 
Back
Top Bottom