• 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?

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
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

If they qualify, they qualify.
 
Especially since many of them are trained to drag people. :/

Exactly. That was the problem... The female recruit flunked carrying a 100 or 150lb dummy and sued successfully. Now we have firemen who are physically to weak to perform some of the required missions.

“They’re going to allow the first person to graduate without passing because this administration has lowered the standard,” said the insider, who is familiar with the training. - Woman to become NY firefighter despite failing crucial fitness test | New York Post

It is just one in a long case of PC nonsense.
 
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.

And they will still have issues with many things simply due to their smaller stature. It isn't just about raw power but body weight ratios and fast twitch muscles. Again, I support opening up all jobs to women. However, I think all physical standards should be the same, regardless of sex. Just know that it will cost a lot more due to higher fail out rates and increased rates of injury.

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?

Because they'd be playing if there was a chance. Why would anyone make less money if they didn't have to?
 
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.

I competed as a powerlifter in drug tested meets and leagues, both locally and at the national level, for a couple of decades. Most of the competitors - male and female - had day jobs and trained at night and on weekends. Certainly harder than your average gym rat but not the full time dedication of elite level athletes. The typical woman competing would be able to hold her own strength wise against the typical fit male non powerlifter.

Gonna get there in 8-12 weeks? Nope. Probably a couple of years.
 
So in the gray areas there are no women in the military?

yes there are women in the military of those countries (at least in Turkey ,his maps just lacks the reality
 
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.



There's no mojo in fighting a woman. If you win, you beat a woman. if you lose a woman beat you. Lose/Lose.
 
I competed as a powerlifter in drug tested meets and leagues, both locally and at the national level, for a couple of decades. Most of the competitors - male and female - had day jobs and trained at night and on weekends. Certainly harder than your average gym rat but not the full time dedication of elite level athletes. The typical woman competing would be able to hold her own strength wise against the typical fit male non powerlifter.

Gonna get there in 8-12 weeks? Nope. Probably a couple of years.

Exactly. The Army and Marines don't have a "couple of years" to train a limited supply of unnecessary recruits for combat arms jobs.
 
Exactly. That was the problem... The female recruit flunked carrying a 100 or 150lb dummy and sued successfully. Now we have firemen who are physically to weak to perform some of the required missions.

“They’re going to allow the first person to graduate without passing because this administration has lowered the standard,” said the insider, who is familiar with the training. - Woman to become NY firefighter despite failing crucial fitness test | New York Post

It is just one in a long case of PC nonsense.

Hey man, if they can drag people through fire than they are just as good as people that carry people ABOVE the fire. :lamo
 
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.

And your argument is? My argument is based on personal observation of typical - as opposed to genetic freaks - women who've trained hard, though not to the point of ridiculousness.

I don't argue for lowered standards, assuming the standards are correctly set to begin with.
 
There's no mojo in fighting a woman. If you win, you beat a woman. if you lose a woman beat you. Lose/Lose.

True, but it has happened and she refused to take them up on it. I just find it funny because this happened after she said she could beat up any man in the world. Apparently she knows better than to try to prove it.
 
And your argument is? My argument is based on personal observation of typical - as opposed to genetic freaks - women who've trained hard, though not to the point of ridiculousness.

I don't argue for lowered standards, assuming the standards are correctly set to begin with.

Your argument only makes sense if they can reach those ends after training to an equal amount as the man. If their training time is massively different your argument is silly.
 
And they will still have issues with many things simply due to their smaller stature. It isn't just about raw power but body weight ratios and fast twitch muscles. Again, I support opening up all jobs to women. However, I think all physical standards should be the same, regardless of sex. Just know that it will cost a lot more due to higher fail out rates and increased rates of injury.



Because they'd be playing if there was a chance. Why would anyone make less money if they didn't have to?

No argument from me. I wouldn't argue for lowered standards.

Dunno about that. Does the NBA allow women?
 
Exactly. The Army and Marines don't have a "couple of years" to train a limited supply of unnecessary recruits for combat arms jobs.

What about a woman who's been training for 2-3 years before signing up?
 
What about a woman who's been training for 2-3 years before signing up?

So she was training since she was 15-16 years old? Can she stand up to a men that has been training since they were 15-16 years old? I bet not.
 
No argument from me. I wouldn't argue for lowered standards.

Dunno about that. Does the NBA allow women?

It would be quite silly of them since they would be taking players away from their other league. You are aware they own the WNBA, right? Taking the best females and putting them in the NBA would only serve to weaken the WNBA.
 
Your argument only makes sense if they can reach those ends after training to an equal amount as the man. If their training time is massively different your argument is silly.

Why? I'm honestly not following your argument. If a woman spent 12 hours a week in the gym to become strong enough to do the job what does it matter? She may not have that time while in boot camp or in the field but strength doesn't dissipate that quickly. As a data point I tore my meniscus training for a meet in 1998. When I went back to training 4 months later I was probably around 80% of what I had been before the injury.
 
It would be quite silly of them since they would be taking players away from their other league. You are aware they own the WNBA, right? Taking the best females and putting them in the NBA would only serve to weaken the WNBA.

So maybe then that's why we don't see women in the NBA?
 
Why? I'm honestly not following your argument. If a woman spent 12 hours a week in the gym to become strong enough to do the job what does it matter? She may not have that time while in boot camp or in the field but strength doesn't dissipate that quickly. As a data point I tore my meniscus training for a meet in 1998. When I went back to training 4 months later I was probably around 80% of what I had been before the injury.

Because it clearly shows she was never equal in the first place. You're essentially arguing they can reach men if they have no lives whatsoever, so therefore they are equal to men that probably spent not even a quarter of the time reaching the same level.

Oh and btw, how much time exactly do you think 15-18 year olds have to work out? Hint: They can't spend twelve hours at the gym.
 
Last edited:
So maybe then that's why we don't see women in the NBA?

What would be the point of it? The best woman in the world can dominate in the WNBA, but not even be one of the best players in the NBA. It would be pointless and undermine the WNBA considerably.
 
So she was training since she was 15-16 years old? Can she stand up to a men that has been training since they were 15-16 years old? I bet not.

Fairly common. Most, if not all, state weightlifting leagues have a high school division.

Again she's probably not going to be as strong. But is that the criteria? Or is it - can this person carry this 50 pound weight for 10 miles or can they carry a 150 pound body for 200 yards.
 
What would be the point of it? The best woman in the world can dominate in the WNBA, but not even be one of the best players in the NBA. It would be pointless and undermine the WNBA considerably.

Because the fellow I was discussing the NBA with made a statement that if women were good enough to be in the NBA they'd be there already. I'm looking for reasons other than ability for why they aren't and your point about the WNBA would be one possible reason why.
 
Back
Top Bottom