• 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
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.

I have to admit that all of us get into it from time to time. Unfortunately GI Joe can be abusive, but so can I and others here. If you feel he is not worth it just put him on ignore or report the post as personal attacks are against the rules.

The problem is you are not responding to anyone other than to cheer-lead the one's you agree with. At the same time adding nothing to the discussion that is (in my humble opinion) relevant. Then you insult the sex and intelligence of all involved who disagree and when we respond you basically ignore it. That is your right but respect is earned, not given.

I am not trying to bait, attack or troll in any way but you have not been giving any respect or even consideration to those who disagree. Whether they are respectful or not.

Then you say...

"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." - smartaleck

I and others have asked you to respond to your blanket statements about men and anyone who disagrees. You choose not to for ambiguous reasons and expect some degree of credibility or respect? :thumbdown
 
I have to admit that all of us get into it from time to time. Unfortunately GI Joe can be abusive, but so can I and others here. If you feel he is not worth it just put him on ignore or report the post as personal attacks are against the rules.

The problem is you are not responding to anyone other than to cheer-lead the one's you agree with. At the same time adding nothing to the discussion that is (in my humble opinion) relevant. Then you insult the sex and intelligence of all involved who disagree and when we respond you basically ignore it. That is your right but respect is earned, not given.

I am not trying to bait, attack or troll in any way but you have not been giving any respect or even consideration to those who disagree. Whether they are respectful or not.

Then you say...

"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." - smartaleck

I and others have asked you to respond to your blanket statements about men and anyone who disagrees. You choose not to for ambiguous reasons and expect some degree of credibility or respect? :thumbdown

I stand by my statement. I also do not need the respect of a group of men who like to bate, attack and start useless arguments. Also I's OK if you are a man to make blanket statement about women but we may no do so in return.:rofl

Now I'm to be told by you how to conduct myself and what to say. I think not

Like I said I'm not here to do nothing but argue with a bunch of closed minded people so you who pretend you are not looking for a argument can move on and I will ignore you and anyone else I choose to..
 
I stand by my statement. I also do not need the respect of a group of men who like to bate, attack and start useless arguments.

This is again a generalization as not everyone is doing that.

Also I's OK if you are a man to make blanket statement about women but we may no do so in return.:rofl

Please point out where I have done so?

Now I'm to be told by you how to conduct myself and what to say. I think not

You are being told do unto others as you would do unto yourself.

Like I said I'm not here to do nothing but argue with a bunch of closed minded people so you who pretend you are not looking for a argument can move on and I will ignore you and anyone else I choose to..

OK so in other words you are trolling and have no argument. Noted.
 
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

Its true many females cannot carry the weight effectively. However, its also true that many of the women embedded with combat units carry their share of weight quite well. Moreover, as I said earlier, already in patrolling vehicles in the Royal Artillery they wear there share of kit and are in place to take on the enemy.
One should also note that many men cannot carry the weight effectively either.

As for gays in the military, the argument against is effectively dead. The UK now has a strict policy against discrimination in the ranks and the Coldstream Guards have an openly gay soldier who has been fully accepted in the unit;
British Army Magazine Features Openly Gay Soldier on Cover Next to Word 'Pride' | World | AlterNet

Also, that US soldier is extremely slovenly, he has not bothered to pack his kit correctly and is as likely to go down with exhaustion as fight. Leaving equipment to drag along is the height of poor personal admin in the field.
 
Its true many females cannot carry the weight effectively. However, its also true that many of the women embedded with combat units carry their share of weight quite well. Moreover, as I said earlier, already in patrolling vehicles in the Royal Artillery they wear there share of kit and are in place to take on the enemy.
One should also note that many men cannot carry the weight effectively either.

In the US Army and Marines every male can carry his load. They cannot get out of basic if they can't. So the argument that many men can't is not applicable.

Riding around in a support vehicle is not the same and is irrelevant as most combat is not done from a vehicle.

As for gays in the military, the argument against is effectively dead. The UK now has a strict policy against discrimination in the ranks and the Coldstream Guards have an openly gay soldier who has been fully accepted in the unit;
British Army Magazine Features Openly Gay Soldier on Cover Next to Word 'Pride' | World | AlterNet

This has nothing to do with this debate at all. Gays serve in the US military. This is completely irrelevant.

Also, that US soldier is extremely slovenly, he has not bothered to pack his kit correctly and is as likely to go down with exhaustion as fight. Leaving equipment to drag along is the height of poor personal admin in the field.

That is two different soldiers and the only one that has anything hitting the ground is on his knee. Does not really mean anything.
 
In the US Army and Marines every male can carry his load. They cannot get out of basic if they can't. So the argument that many men can't is not applicable.

Indeed, but basic training is not a permanent condition. Men in units degrade in fitness over time, yet still patrol with their troops despite being no fitter than a fit female.

Riding around in a support vehicle is not the same and is irrelevant as most combat is not done from a vehicle.

A snatch Land Rover is not a support vehicle, its a patrolling vehicle for dealing with trouble in cities. Though of course it is multi tasked.

Also thinking that combat is not done from a vehicle is quite wrong.




This has nothing to do with this debate at all. Gays serve in the US military. This is completely irrelevant.

Arent you guys still ejecting openly gay soldiers from the service?



That is two different soldiers and the only one that has anything hitting the ground is on his knee. Does not really mean anything.

yes, the first one is clearly wilting, and isnt going to be running anywhere fast should they come into contact.

The second, is indeed not trailing along the ground, just his knees. Lets hope he doesnt have to traverse any trenches, ditches, bush cover etc etc and constantly look behind him for kit that has been pulled from his back.
 
Indeed, but basic training is not a permanent condition. Men in units degrade in fitness over time, yet still patrol with their troops despite being no fitter than a fit female.

A fit male and a fit female are two completely different things, and again it does not apply. If it were a valid argument females would be participating in the same professional sporting events with men, but they can't.

A snatch Land Rover is not a support vehicle, its a patrolling vehicle for dealing with trouble in cities. Though of course it is multi tasked.

And my point is most combat is not done from patrolling vehicles.

Also thinking that combat is not done from a vehicle is quite wrong.

I did not say all combat is, I said most. Unless you are talking about armor or armored cav most combat is not done from a vehicle.

Arent you guys still ejecting openly gay soldiers from the service?

Yes and how does this affect females in combat arms? It has no bearing at all as I already stated.

yes, the first one is clearly wilting, and isnt going to be running anywhere fast should they come into contact.

That's why we drop the equipment after we engage. Where you ever in the military? I ask because that would be common knowledge for a veteran.

The second, is indeed not trailing along the ground, just his knees. Lets hope he doesnt have to traverse any trenches, ditches, bush cover etc etc and constantly look behind him for kit that has been pulled from his back.

He is walking along the road, don't think he is going to come across to many trenches or ditches. :doh
 
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".
Not with 100% certainty of course, but most of the times the plan pretty much survives to its end.
That's why cases when the plan did not survive to the end of the operation are seen as irregulars.

But I don't see what you're arguing about, the units that are sent to quick assaults/operations are never stuck in a mountain surviving on ants meat and grass.

What exactly is the problem with a female being a combat soldier in such a unit?
 
No. I was attached (be it briefly) to a ranger unit while in the guard, and no it would not work well.
You do not explain why it wouldn't go well(according to your own opinion), so you don't really leave me room for debating the issue.
 
It's the reason that the IDF no longer allows women to serve in combat arms units.
And there we reach the point between area B and sector S.
My friend is a female and she serves currently in a fully-combat unit.
Females are allowed to serve in the IDF as combatants, they are just not required to like the men who have a high military profile.
They volunteer.
 
Its true many females cannot carry the weight effectively. However, its also true that many of the women embedded with combat units carry their share of weight quite well. Moreover, as I said earlier, already in patrolling vehicles in the Royal Artillery they wear there share of kit and are in place to take on the enemy.
One should also note that many men cannot carry the weight effectively either.

And, the men that cannot hump all the gear aren't out there doing it, either.

Co-ed infantry units are a bad idea, history has proven it. I don't care who has friends in whatever foriegn unit, whose government's policy is is no women in infantry units, it doesn't work. It's been proven time and again to be a detriment to unit cohesion and it has nothing to do with a woman's ability to do the same job. Folks need to get past the ability issue, because it's has very little to it.
 
And there we reach the point between area B and sector S.
My friend is a female and she serves currently in a fully-combat unit.
Females are allowed to serve in the IDF as combatants, they are just not required to like the men who have a high military profile.
They volunteer.
Exactly right. Any IDF female conscript who volunteers for combat duty is assigned to a combat training course right out of basic. They graduate as combat soldiers and are assigned to combat units.
 
And, the men that cannot hump all the gear aren't out there doing it, either.

Co-ed infantry units are a bad idea, history has proven it. I don't care who has friends in whatever foriegn unit, whose government's policy is is no women in infantry units, it doesn't work. It's been proven time and again to be a detriment to unit cohesion and it has nothing to do with a woman's ability to do the same job. Folks need to get past the ability issue, because it's has very little to it.
You say it was proven over and over again, and yet, you give no proofs.
Why is that?
 
Exactly right. Any IDF female conscript who volunteers for combat duty is assigned to a combat training course right out of basic. They graduate as combat soldiers and are assigned to combat units.

You're wrong.
 
You say it was proven over and over again, and yet, you give no proofs.
Why is that?

I shouldn't have to prove that the IDF has a restriction on females in infantry units, with the exception of the Caracal Battalion, which serves in a reserve capacity. It should already be common knowledge.
 
I shouldn't have to prove that the IDF has a restriction on females in infantry units, with the exception of the Caracal Battalion, which serves in a reserve capacity. It should already be common knowledge.
...

Those three dots are as much attention as you're going to get, make the most out of it.
 
...

Those three dots are as much attention as you're going to get, make the most out of it.

So, you unable to prove your point? Thank you for aquiessence. It's fun dispelling myths that people conjur up about military life. It's always been one of my favorite parts of debate forums.
 
So, you unable to prove your point? Thank you for aquiessence. It's fun dispelling myths that people conjur up about military life. It's always been one of my favorite parts of debate forums.
Send me your MSN in a private message or something, I'm going to contact between you and the friend I was speaking about who is, indeed, a female and a combat-soldier in the Israeli defense forces.

I am not going to give any further drop of attention to a person who is bizarre enough to tell the sun that it doesn't shine, while not even bothering to give any kind of an evidence to support that claim.
 
Last edited:
Send me your MSN in a private message or something, I'm going to contact between you and the friend I was speaking about who is, indeed, a female and a combat-soldier in the Israeli defense forces.

I am not going to give any further drop of attention to a person who is bizarre enough to tell the sun that it doesn't shine, while not even bothering to give any kind of an evidence to support that claim.

My Yahoo do-hickie is right there. Fire it up, baby.
 
You do not explain why it wouldn't go well(according to your own opinion), so you don't really leave me room for debating the issue.

If I remember correctly it was something about females being in fast raiding combat units or something to that effect.

It is not open to debate as it really is only my opinion on that particular aspect. So you are correct.

Unlike females overall in combat units where evidence exist to say no, in this particular case it is just my own anecdotal experience being attached to such a unit.
 
Originally Posted by Apocalypse
You do not explain why it wouldn't go well(according to your own opinion), so you don't really leave me room for debating the issue.

In 1948, during the Arab-Israeli War, the IDF discovered that male soldiers would drop out of the attack to help a female soldier, who was beyond help, quicker than they would do the same for a male soldier. This hendered the mission, it damaged morale and unit cohesion. It's the opinion of every real army in the world that co-ed combat units are a bad idea.

Even the Soviets didn't allow co-ed units during WW2 and they had 5 year olds digging tank ditches in front of Moscow, so they obviosuly didn't care about who got killed and who didn't. They had male and female units. One of the baddest tank units in the Red Army was an all female battalion. Probably the highest scoring squadron in the Soviet air force was an all female night fighter squadron that the Germans dubbed, "The Night Witches".

So, can we please stop using the, "egotistical white men", argument? Please??
 
A few interesting links.

Women's Battalion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military]Women in the Russian and Soviet military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46th_Taman_Guards_Night_Bomber_Aviation_Regiment]Night Witches - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
In 1948, during the Arab-Israeli War, the IDF discovered that male soldiers would drop out of the attack to help a female soldier, who was beyond help, quicker than they would do the same for a male soldier. This hendered the mission, it damaged morale and unit cohesion. It's the opinion of every real army in the world that co-ed combat units are a bad idea.
If this ban has ever existed, it certainly doesn't exist anymore.
I find the idea of such a ban ridiculous, Israel has won that war against 7 different nations, so how exactly was using females in the field 'so dangerous'?
In fact, the females role in the battles was just as big as the males' role, and one could say that without the female combat soldiers, Israel might have not survived past its first day.
 
Back
Top Bottom