• 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 women be allowed to serve in front-line military combat roles? (1 Viewer)

Should women be allowed to serve in front-line military combat roles?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 68.3%

  • No

    Votes: 13 31.7%
  • Total voters
    41
Viking11

Viking11

Banned
Joined
May 2, 2016
Messages
174
Reaction score
60
Location
New Hampshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Absolutely. Sexism does not belong in the 21st century. Women are just as capable fighters as men.

5 myths about women in combat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...omen-in-combat/2011/05/25/AGAsavCH_story.html

women-in-militaries.jpg
 
Last edited:
Viking11 said:
Absolutely. Sexism does not belong in the 21st century. Women are just as capable fighters as men.

5 myths about women in combat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...omen-in-combat/2011/05/25/AGAsavCH_story.html

women-in-militaries.jpg
Click to expand...

No, they should not, because no, factually, they are not "just as capable fighters as men." They lag behind by a substantial margin on basically every relevant measure; strength, speed, resiliency, aggression, endurance, survivability, and etca. As such, their inclusion will only serve to drag the overall effectiveness of our forces down.

If you'll notice, all of the "red" countries on that map have one thing in common - None of them have fought a real war in decades, and they are unlikely to do so in the future as well. There is a reason for that.

I don't see any problem with female pilots, per se, or with women in other vehicle based roles that don't require a great deal of physical strength, but that's about it as far as front-line combat goes.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
No, they should not, because no, factually, they are not "just as capable fighters as men." They lag behind by a substantial margin on basically every relevant measure; strength, speed, resiliency, aggression, endurance, survivability, and etca. As such, their inclusion will only serve to drag the overall effectiveness of our forces down.

If you'll notice, all of the "red" countries on that map have one thing in common - None of them have fought a real war in decades, and they unlikely to do so in the future as well. There is a reason for that.

I don't see any problem with female pilots, per se, or with women in other vehicle based roles that don't require a great deal of physical strength, but that's about it as far as front-line combat goes.
Click to expand...

You didn't even bother to read the article in the link, did you?
 
Viking11 said:
Absolutely. Sexism does not belong in the 21st century. Women are just as capable fighters as men.
Click to expand...

Yes, they should be allowed. No, they are not just as capable in performing the line unit jobs as men, and even just basic soldiering tasks. Now, there are some areas where this may not be true, like fighter pilots. But for those of us on the ground, it's definitely not equal. What you said makes about as much sense as saying that women are just as good at sports as men. Well, they aren't. There is a reason that there isn't a single girl playing for any professional men's team and it has nothing to do with sexism. Guess who else disagrees with you? All of the armed forces. How? There are male and female PT test standards.
 
Viking11 said:
You didn't even bother to read the article in the link, did you?
Click to expand...

#1. No one is seriously claiming this. :roll:

#2. Okay... So women may or may not have a slight advantage in distance running, according to one study, from 1992.

A) So what? We're soldiers, not marathon runners. Numerous other studies have also shown that women's bodies break down much faster from prolonged stress than men's bodies (they lose bone and muscle mass a lot easier, especially when carrying heavy loads for long periods). That's far more relevant when dealing with a lengthy stay in the field than distance running.

B) What the study claims isn't even true. Look up the average times for marathon runners, or even on the military's own physical fitness tests. Men almost universally turn in faster run times than women, and they do so by a substantial margin at that.​

#3, #4, and #5. The author doesn't even really try to refute the counter-points mentioned. They just kind of evade the issues and try to "poo poo" them as not being relevant.

Bottom line: It's a weak article, trying to defend an inherently weak position. The simple fact of the matter is that women really are not valuable as front-line combatants.

Viking11 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean–Ethiopian_War
Click to expand...

Israel does not use female soldiers in front-line combat. At most, they use them as border guards. We've been doing the same for years.

As far as Ethiopia goes, there's a reason we don't model our military after those of desperate third world crapholes, which are incapable of actually winning wars.
 
Last edited:
No, they shouldn't.

Oh and yes, women do have certain physical advantages over men, but none of them really come much in play here.
 
Viking11 said:
You didn't even bother to read the article in the link, did you?
Click to expand...

What article?

Marine Corps study finds few women in combat in other nations' militaries - Washington Times

As the Obama administration pressed the military to end all sex segregation, the Marine Corps decided to see for itself how other countries employ women in direct combat — and it has amassed some surprising results over the past two years.

In Canada, where a ban was lifted in 1989, the number of women in combat arms remains low and there are no specific physical requirements for any jobs in the Canadian land forces.
Click to expand...

It goes on to address a lot of the other countries that supposedly have integrated combat roles as well and the problems they face or the lack of physical standards as was demonstrated in Canada.
 
"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Paleocon said:
Degenerate crap like that isn't worth reading.
Click to expand...

The suggestion that women should be allowed to serve in front-line combat roles is 'degenerate crap' to you?

Okaaaaaaay.

Tell me, do you unchain your wife from the stove and/or the bed on weekends?

Just curious.
 
I'm sorry I didn't poll, Viking, but there should be an "other" option because mine is yes they can be on the battlefield with a caveat.
I don't think the article delves deep enough into Points #2 which is what I've heard as the biggest argument. Long distance running is not the end all comparison to physical requirements on the battlefield. I do agree that a woman should be allowed to do anything she is capable of in the military. People thinking otherwise are stuck in the dark ages, IMNSHO. However, a proven battle approach or tactic should not have to be "tweaked" to allow any soldier who cannot carry as much (male or female).
I think the point with protecting women goes beyond the typical wounded soldier scenario. I think it is dropping everything to protect a female soldier if they are hurt at all. It is a traditional, ground in, hard wired thing for many men, soldiers especially. Its also something they need to get over.
A similar example is some of the weapon sights being built which allow a soldier to see what the rifle sees. There has been some push back because soldiers are "trained" to raise the rifle to target instead of shooting from the hip, around the corner, etc. Another example of needing to get over it. You don't stop progress in technology or in military structure because soldiers are not doing what they are supposed to be best at. Adapting.
 
Yes...women should be 'allowed' to try and do anything that men can do...ANYTHING.


To legally restrict women is not just sexism...it is misogyny, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Fishking said:
Yes, they should be allowed. No, they are not just as capable in performing the line unit jobs as men, and even just basic soldiering tasks. Now, there are some areas where this may not be true, like fighter pilots. But for those of us on the ground, it's definitely not equal. What you said makes about as much sense as saying that women are just as good at sports as men. Well, they aren't. There is a reason that there isn't a single girl playing for any professional men's team and it has nothing to do with sexism. Guess who else disagrees with you? All of the armed forces. How? There are male and female PT test standards.
Click to expand...

It depends on the sport. The only sport where women couldn't compete with men in all positions is football because that's primarily a strength sport. There's no reason that women couldn't compete with men in baseball and basketball and any other sport that's not exclusively about strength.

And even in the strength world I competed with plenty of women powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters who would shame 95% of the men out there in terms of strength. So even the strength issue can be addressed with appropriate training.
 
Last edited:
Ntharotep said:
I'm sorry I didn't poll, Viking, but there should be an "other" option because mine is yes they can be on the battlefield with a caveat.
I don't think the article delves deep enough into Points #2 which is what I've heard as the biggest argument. Long distance running is not the end all comparison to physical requirements on the battlefield. I do agree that a woman should be allowed to do anything she is capable of in the military. People thinking otherwise are stuck in the dark ages, IMNSHO. However, a proven battle approach or tactic should not have to be "tweaked" to allow any soldier who cannot carry as much (male or female).
I think the point with protecting women goes beyond the typical wounded soldier scenario. I think it is dropping everything to protect a female soldier if they are hurt at all. It is a traditional, ground in, hard wired thing for many men, soldiers especially. Its also something they need to get over.
A similar example is some of the weapon sights being built which allow a soldier to see what the rifle sees. There has been some push back because soldiers are "trained" to raise the rifle to target instead of shooting from the hip, around the corner, etc. Another example of needing to get over it. You don't stop progress in technology or in military structure because soldiers are not doing what they are supposed to be best at. Adapting.
Click to expand...

DA60 said:
Yes...women should be 'allowed' to try and do anything that men can do...ANYTHING.


To legally restrict women is not just sexism...it is misogyny, IMO.
Click to expand...


shrubnose said:

"None so deaf as those who will not hear.None so blind as those who will not see." ~ Matthew Henry
Click to expand...

Are you willing to degrade the effectiveness of our military forces, and needlessly get people killed, simply in the name of "fairness?"

That's ultimately what this comes down to, regardless of whether people like to admit it or not. Women simply aren't up to the task.

The idea of wasting valuable (and limited) time, money, and resources that could be spent finding perfectly adequate male recruits, just to either flunk females en masse, or accept a bunch of female recruits who will perform far worse than their male compatriots, is farcical at best. That's exactly why it's better to simply leave these positions closed.
 
Last edited:
Gaius46 said:
It depends on the sport. The only sport where women couldn't compete with men in all positions is football because that's primarily a strength sport. There's no reason that women couldn't compete with men in baseball and basketball and any other sport that's not exclusively about strength.

And even in the strength I competed with plenty of women powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters who would shame 95% of the men out there in terms of strength. So even the strength issue can be addressed with appropriate training.
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, there is no strength, speed, or endurance based sport where females perform on equal terms with men. Even if women involved in the sport out-perform "normal" men, men in the same sport pretty much always leave them in the dust.

A woman wouldn't make it in the NFL, NBA, NHL, or any other serious league. Even if they could physically survive, they'd simply be subpar performers, and too much of a liability to their teams to keep on as such. Much the same would be the case in the infantry.
 
Last edited:
Gaius46 said:
It depends on the sport. The only sport where women couldn't compete with men in all positions is football because that's primarily a strength sport. There's no reason that women couldn't compete with men in baseball and basketball and any other sport that's not exclusively about strength.
Click to expand...

Lol...no. Women couldn't compete with men in a single professional sport. Not a single one.

And even in the strength I competed with plenty of women powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters who would shame 95% of the men out there in terms of strength. So even the strength issue can be addressed with appropriate training.
Click to expand...

How do they stack up against the men power lifters? I mean, yeah, a female Olympic power lifter can beat a lot of guys out there that don't lift at all, or don't do power lifting. That's a very poor comparison.
 
You can believe what you want to believe but you don't run the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom