• 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
1069 said:
I have no idea what you're talking about, and I devoutly hope my son's life will never be at any risk at all, although I'm not an idiot and I know that's not likely.
But there's no glory in it, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Just remember that if he is going into the military, and especially if he is choosing combat arms, that it's probably not what he wants at all-- and he's probably not seeking "glory" any more than you are. Many of my friends and family are military, and even with their lives here and the comforts of home, the only thing I ever hear from anyone of them on the subject of the front lines is that they want to get back there, and they want to get back as soon as possible. They never talk about combat, or glory, or all of the stupid reasons that I'd want to go over there-- and end up getting good men and women killed-- but about their brothers and their duty and getting the job done.

If he's choosing to enter the military in the midst of two foreign wars, you can probably guarantee that what he wants is to be up to his rucksack in it.

Don't worry so much, and don't watch the news. Pay attention to the numbers, and you see that he has a better chance of coming home in one piece-- and fighting tooth and nail to go back-- than he would have in any previous war in American history.
 
smartaleck said:
The purpose of the infantry and the military in general is to keep solders away from our women. :rofl:lol::2razz: That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. I can't stop laughing.
Click to expand...

Heh. Their soldiers. I will leave the implications of trying to keep our soldiers away from our women for another thread.
 

I'm glad you put this in better words than I ever could. I just quit trying to communicatie with someone who has a colosed mind and preconceived ideas where women in genreal are concerned not just women in the infantry.

Really, after some of the things I have read here I'm amazed to know that these men have wive's, mothers, sisters, daughters and girlfriends. To know so little about the abilities of the women in your lives is sad if nothing else.
 
smartaleck said:
I'm glad you put this in better words than I ever could. I just quit trying to communicatie with someone who has a colosed mind and preconceived ideas where women in genreal are concerned not just women in the infantry.
Click to expand...

Don't forget you also did not respond to people who asked legitimate questions.

smartaleck said:
Really, after some of the things I have read here I'm amazed to know that these men have wive's, mothers, sisters, daughters and girlfriends. To know so little about the abilities of the women in your lives is sad if nothing else.
Click to expand...

Because thinking of women as the weaker of the two sexes has never been taught to young men as they grow up. :roll:
 
Because thinking of women as the weaker of the two sexes has never been taught to young men as they grow up. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm female, of course, but I didn't grow up thinking women were the weaker of the two sexes.
I don't know if this was a deliberate omission in my upbringing or not.
 
1069 said:
I'm female, of course, but I didn't grow up thinking women were the weaker of the two sexes.
I don't know if this was a deliberate omission in my upbringing or not.
Click to expand...

I am a child of the late 60's and early 70's so I remember the whole women are the weaker sex thing growing up. I mean every time you fail it's "are you a woman!" or "don't act like a woman!" macho thing going on. In the Army even the drill Sgt's called us "ladies" etc as an insult saying we are weak.

It's not the same for females as I told my daughter as she grew up she could do anything she wanted (except serve in the infantry, Just kidding!) I tell my granddaughter the same thing.

I have to admit with a boy it would start out with "don't cry, crying is for girls" and it escalates as they get older.
 
Last edited:

It is tradition you know. I went through the exact same thing. We're programmed, intentionally or otherwise.
 

Yeah, my upbringing was a sort of social experiment, though.
I don't even think I knew there was such a thing as gender until I started school.
Ah, the hippie days.
 
1069 said:
Yeah, my upbringing was a sort of social experiment, though.
I don't even think I knew there was such a thing as gender until I started school.
Ah, the hippie days.
Click to expand...

To be honest I remember asking my mom (I was about 8) why I was blacker than everyone else in our family! :lol:

So I know what you mean.
 
Lerxst said:
It is tradition you know. I went through the exact same thing. We're programmed, intentionally or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yep. True that.
 

This may have been true at one time, but is not true in the modern world. The biggest thing holding up women being allowed to serve as infantry is getting past outmoded attitudes held by out of date people who don't realize the world has moved past them.
 

I never Served with Women, while Overseas. They weren't allowed at the Front...:lol: I've NEVER raised my hands against a Woman.:roll: Have you? And I've made sure my Wife is a crack shot.

I don't believe Women belong in a ground pounding War. Unless you're in a
"Last Stand" situation,,,neither should you.
 

The basic principle it represents is timeless. It is only "outmoded" in a civilization that is in its dying throes.

The purpose of all civilization is to protect women and children.
 

Actually the biggest thing holding them back is that the majority of females are not physically up to the rigors of front line combat. Some are, but in truth the vast majority are not.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The basic principle it represents is timeless. It is only "outmoded" in a civilization that is in its dying throes.

The purpose of all civilization is to protect women and children.
Click to expand...

One purpose of all civilizations is to protect those within the civilization who need protecting. This includes groups other than women and children, and does not necessarily include women, who can, believe it or not, protect themselves. I know women who need far less protection from civilization than you do.
 

I'd say the new, amended purpose of society is to protect children, the elderly, and the disabled.
Women were once in need of protection because they were handicapped by society, by patriarchy. They were forbidden equality and the means to protect themselves.
That is no longer the case, however, and now women are as capable of protecting themselves as men are, except- arguably- during pregnancy, which could be considered a temporary physical handicap.
 
I disagree.
The purpose of present-time armies is to defend the Nation, by every definition of it.
Whether it is defending the borders, the people in the borders, or the nation's interests.

I really can't see how women alone are the sole reason for the military's existence or whatever the point that you were trying to make was.
 
1069 said:
I'd say the new, amended purpose of society is to protect children, the elderly, and the disabled.
Click to expand...

I think that is a closer definition than Korimyr's. I find it somewhat sad how far behind some people's attitudes are from the real world. I know, and appreciate, women who not need less protection than most men, but would be downright pissed at the implied insult that they need such protection. We almost always fail when we try to and put people into convenient groups.
 

Yeah, I just don't get it.
Adult females who are able-bodied and of sound mind need no more protection than men do.
And if they aren't adults, aren't able-bodied, or aren't of sound mind, then they're handicapped, and handicapped people of either gender need and deserve extra protection.
 

The problem is that the reasons for such things as not allowing women the honor of serving in infantry(or gays to serve openly) are not logical. They come from deep, ingrained programming, and as such, logical arguments are almost always doomed to fail with these people.
 

1069 said:
I'd say the new, amended purpose of society is to protect children, the elderly, and the disabled.
Click to expand...

You both seem to be under the assumption that the reason women require extra protection is because they are weak, or somehow less capable of defending themselves. The reason that women require more protection from society is not because they are weaker, but because they are more essential to our survival as a nation. A society that loses a generation of its young men is hurt, but it will muddle through; a society that loses a generation of its young women is walking dead.

Just because someone can protect themselves doesn't mean they don't need society's protection. And just because somebody can't, doesn't mean they deserve it.
 

I have no problem with homosexuals serving openly in the military, or gay men serving in combat arms roles.
 
You're taking this to the extreme.
The percent of women who will serve in combat units (or for the protocol, both men and women together) in society is so low, that even if they all were to suddenly die (something that I can't see happening), society would still not be even close to a risk of the lack of females.
 
Perhaps. Modern warfare is certainly lighter on military casualties than previous methods. But I believe the principle stands: a society that sends its young women off to die in foreign wars has broken moral priorities and is not much longer for this world.

Exceptions, such as nations facing prolonged war on the homefront, noted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…