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

[shagg]

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.

Dear lord what a piece of **** argument. If you can make it through boot camp, your plenty strong/fast/whatever to serve on the front lines.

Men possess these traits to varying degrees
Because not everyone is the average man, there are minimums
Most women pass these minimums, as do most men
You could argue a greater percentage of men pass the minimums, for the reason you listed, but that gives exactly zero reasons to not allow the women who pass the same minimums to serve in combat roles.

 

[CMPancake]

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.

And what about the women in the military that PT better than the males, why should there career options be limited to support roles? Why can the female who can do 70 push-ups/sit-ups and run a 12-13 2 mile not sign up as a rifleman while average Joe who barely passes his PT Test can go infantry?

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.

False, Canada is very much active in Afghanistan, along with Australia.

 

[Gathomas88]

And what about the women in the military that PT better than the males

Because they don't really exist, maybe? I have yet to see a woman in the military who can outperform the males.

She might outperform some males, but those aren't going to be the males going into front-line combat to begin with.

False, Canada is very much active in Afghanistan, along with Australia.

*Snicker*

Yeah, sure they were.

FYI, you're leaving out how Canada actually tabled it's "women in combat" program, after it wound up getting several of its first batch of testees killed in action.

 

[Southern Dad]

At my very first command, I had the first, and at that time female 15D (later 13N) in the US Army. She pulled the same duties as the men, no exceptions. Unfortunately, she didn't work out. Got pregnant and wound up being discharged. But I am all for women serving in combat roles as long as the duty expectations are not lowered for the female soldier. In addition, women should have to register for Selective Service and be eligible if there is a draft.

 

[Gathomas88]

Dear lord what a piece of **** argument. If you can make it through boot camp, your plenty strong/fast/whatever to serve on the front lines.

No, you most certainly are not. All kind of people make it through boot-camp, from 100 lb females, to fat 50 year olds.

That's precisely why front-line soldiers have their own, separate, boot camp, and training schools. That boot camp is far harder than what everyone else does (or, at least, it was supposed to be - not sure if they've made it easy as well, to accommodate females).

Men possess these traits to varying degrees
Because not everyone is the average man, there are minimums
Most women pass these minimums, as do most men
You could argue a greater percentage of men pass the minimums, for the reason you listed, but that gives exactly zero reasons to not allow the women who pass the same minimums to serve in combat roles.

We don't want "minimums." We want the best, because the best are what it takes to win wars. :roll:

 

[Gaius46]

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



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.

Women powerlifters are as a class not as strong as their male counterparts. The best women lifters would wind up in the middle of the pack against men. But that's not the point. The average infantryman isn't a powerlifter either and doesn't need the strength of one. You can train the average healthy women to be as strong as the typical infantryman.

What makes you so sure women couldn't compete in MLB or the NBA? What skills or attributes do baseball or basketball players have that preclude women?

 

[Howler63]

Despite what you may have been told by the Super Friends and reruns of Murphy Brown...men and women are not the same. Women make for poor warriors as a rule. If they were equal to men as warriors, let's make a few all women brigades and see how they do against ISIS.

 

[Howler63]

Women powerlifters are as a class not as strong as their male counterparts. The best women lifters would wind up in the middle of the pack against men. But that's not the point. The average infantryman isn't a powerlifter either and doesn't need the strength of one. You can train the average healthy women to be as strong as the typical infantryman.

What makes you so sure women couldn't compete in MLB or the NBA? What skills or attributes do baseball or basketball players have that preclude women?

Strength and speed comparable to a well trained male?

 

[Gaius46]

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.

I'll grant you the NFL and NHL because of the strength requirements. I'm not so sure about the NBA and MLB. And while elite women sprinters will never have the explosiveness needed to beat elite men the same is not true of distance runners.

 

[Black Dog]

After 12 years I can say I knew plenty of fine female enlisted and officers. I do however have a problem with them being in artillery, infantry and armor. They on average just don't have the upper body strength to contend. They are already lowering standards. Look at the women who are lauded as the first to pass Ranger school. What they did not tell you was they changed the physical requirements so they could pass.

Even the Russian women who did well in WWII were pulled from frontline position almost immediately after the wars end.

So no, women should not be in infantry, artillery or armor, period. All it is doing is weakening our military, nothing more.

 

[shagg]

No, you most certainly are not. All kind of people make it through boot-camp, from 100 lb females, to fat 50 year olds.

That's precisely why front-line soldiers have their own, separate, boot camp, and training schools. That boot camp is far harder than what everyone else does (or, at least, it was supposed to be - not sure if they've made it easy as well, to accommodate females).

That changes nothing, if a woman can make it through these advanced boot camps and training schools, there should be no question as to their abilities to perform when needed.

We don't want "minimums." We want the best, because the best are what it takes to win wars. :roll:

OK, the title of "best" goes to 1 soldier, by definition. You need more than 1 you say?!? Well, looks like anyone over a certain minimum ability then. Should the minimum be high? It's debatable, but I won't contest the claim, especially if we don't need all that many soldiers. Should Women have different minimums/standards? Of course not. But why bar specific individual women based on their gender average?

Not every woman is Uma Thurman out of Kill Bill. But why would you bar those that are that deadly because their gender is, on average, weaker than men? There is no logical basis for that.

 

[Gaius46]

Strength and speed comparable to a well trained male?

Why not? Women routinely squat over 300 and bench press over 200 at bodyweights of 130 pounds. Routinely meaning those are middle of the road amateur lifters not elite athletes who spend their lives training.

 

[Henrin]

Why are you guys talking about power lifters? For one thing, female power lifters are still inferior to their male counterparts, and for another, they are not best equipped for the job.

 

[Black Dog]

Why not? Women routinely squat over 300 and bench press over 200 at bodyweights of 130 pounds. Routinely meaning those are middle of the road amateur lifters not elite athletes who spend their lives training.

No it is not "routinely" done. These are women who have trained (and in most if not all cases took performance enhancing drugs) for YEARS, not the 8 to 12 week fitness of basic military inductees.

 

[Henrin]

Why not? Women routinely squat over 300 and bench press over 200 at bodyweights of 130 pounds. Routinely meaning those are middle of the road amateur lifters not elite athletes who spend their lives training.

Yeah, if you want someone that likely cheated to get there.

 

[Howler63]

Why not? Women routinely squat over 300 and bench press over 200 at bodyweights of 130 pounds. Routinely meaning those are middle of the road amateur lifters not elite athletes who spend their lives training.

Because the woman who has trained to be at her peak, is still less capable than a man who has done the same. For example, should Rhonda Rousey be permitted to fight Dominick Cruz?

 

[Henrin]

Because the woman who has trained to be at her peak, is still less capable than a man who has done the same. For example, should Rhonda Rousey be permitted to fight Dominick Cruz?

Well, she won't do it anyway. She talks big, but when a man takes her up on her talk she always backs down. The only guys she will fight is idiots that can't fight.

 

[Henrin]

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.

Really, so you think they can compete against men in the NBA? Have you even seen the WNBA? There is no possible way those women would stand a chance to those guys in the NBA.

The best player in the NBA v. the best player in the WNBA. Who do you think would win?

 

[Gaius46]

Why are you guys talking about power lifters? For one thing, female power lifters are still inferior to their male counterparts, and for another, they are not best equipped for the job.

Because I contend that a woman who is properly trained could be as strong as the typical infantryman since one of the bigger arguments against women in the infantry is that they aren't strong enough.

 

[Gaius46]

Because the woman who has trained to be at her peak, is still less capable than a man who has done the same. For example, should Rhonda Rousey be permitted to fight Dominick Cruz?

But that isn't the criteria. The criteria is can a woman be made strong enough to do the job as well as the typical man who does the job

 

[joG]

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

As long as they have the strength required to pull their comrades off the battlefield, there would be nothing to speak against it. But they don't do the 100 meter dash or box against men. Maybe there is a reason for this too?

 

[Henrin]

Because I contend that a woman who is properly trained could be as strong as the typical infantryman since one of the bigger arguments against women in the infantry is that they aren't strong enough.

If they have to train to the point of absurdity to be as strong as the average infantryman it pretty much invalidates your entire argument. Eighteen year old girls are not likely going to be at that point nor is the average woman.

 

[Black Dog]

Because I contend that a woman who is properly trained could be as strong as the typical infantryman since one of the bigger arguments against women in the infantry is that they aren't strong enough.

Your argument is not based in anything factual or scientific. It is not that easy. Why do you think female firemen had to have lowered test standards? If a female FF ever had to rescue me? I would be dead.

 

[Paleocon]

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

Yes, only a pusillanimous coward would want women to fight for him.

 

[Henrin]

Your argument is not based in anything factual or scientific. It is not that easy. Why do you think female firemen had to have lowered test standards? If a female FF ever had to rescue me? I would be dead.

Especially since many of them are trained to drag people. :/ I would like to be picked up, not dragged.