• 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
Seriously, if that last woman isn't on something I will eat my shoe. That woman is quite clearly cheating her ass off.

Have you ever seen people who juice? That woman's in good shape and certainly has low bodyfat, that's the only way to get a 6 pack, but she is really not overly bulked the way a female bodybuilder on juice would be. Google "female bodybuilder" and you'll see plenty examples of what women who actually take steroids look like.
 
Have you ever seen people who juice? That woman's in good shape and certainly has low bodyfat, that's the only way to get a 6 pack, but she is really not overly bulked the way a female bodybuilder on juice would be. Google "female bodybuilder" and you'll see plenty examples of what women who actually take steroids look like.

I'm not saying she is talking steroids because that claim is crap, but the idea she is not on something is also crap.

Anyway, athletes just cheat as a general rule. They will take performance boosters that aren't picked up on the tests all the time. Just look at Maria Sharapova and how she got caught when they changed the rules. It's not only something that happens, but something that is to be expected.
 
I'm not saying she is talking steroids because that claim is crap, but the idea she is not on something is also crap.

Anyway, athletes just cheat as a general rule. They will take performance boosters that aren't picked up on the tests all the time. Just look at Maria Sharapova and how she got caught when they changed the rules. It's not only something that happens, but something that is to be expected.

No argument. Especially when lots of money and prestige is on the line but that's a discussion for another thread..........
 
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.

And mine is based on 12 years in the military and more as a cop. Mine is also based on simple biological science.

You don't seem to know as much as you think.
 
I'm curious if you ever attended Infantry OSUT and then experienced the absolute shock of going from a training environment to an active Infantry line Company.

Everything gets harder and faster immediately.

To graduate OSUT you carry a ~20 lb. ruck and an ~8 lb. M16/M4 a couple of maybe 12 miles and then essentially camp out in pup tents in the Georgia woods for a weekend.

I did that and successfully graduated and a few weeks later found myself in the field with a line Company in Germany in January.

A few weeks later I spent a week in the field carrying a ~50 lb. ruck and a ~20 lb. M249 up and down the German hills in about 2 1/2 feet of snow. Rather than building a nice neat little camp out of shelter half tents we used picks and shovels to chip flimsy fighting positions out of the frozen ground and then spent the night laying in the bottom of a frozen hole trying, and failing miserably, to get a few hours sleep before we picked up and started walking up and down hills again.

I wasn't anything special when I was in the Army, not a Ranger or Delta Force or anything like that, just your average run-of-the-mill Infantryman, I didn't even serve in what might be considered a "prestigious" Division.

And I can tell you that "these advanced boot camps and training schools" you're talking about do not, in any way, prepare you at anything more than the most basic level for what you'll encounter in the real Infantry.

And also understand that I served in the peacetime Army in Germany.

There was a time not so long ago that guys were going from a training environment, to a couple couple months in the type of garrison environment I was discussing above, to a 15 month deployment in the mountains of Afghanistan where even the stuff I was doing in Germany would have been considered a walk in the park.

Please don't confuse successful completion of Basic and Advanced Individual Training with an ability to perform at an acceptable, to say nothing of a fully-contributing, level in an Infantry line Company.

I have met very, very few women in my life, either D1 collegiate athletes, women at my Crossfit gym, or in any other capacity, would would have been able to stand up to the daily grind of a couple of weeks in the field as an Infantryman.

It isn't something that being able to squat 300 lbs. in a sterile gym environment, or even through hike the Appalachian Trail at a leisurely backpacker's pace can really be compared to.

It's a cold, hard, dirty, hungry, wet, miserable grind that breaks you down day, after day, after day.

20 years later, as a 40 year old man, I've got arthritis in my knees, a chronically painful back, and am losing my hearing more and more each year to the point where I'll soon need hearing aids. I still suffer hypersensitivity to the cold because a couple of those nights in Germany I had frost forming inside my boots.

Understand, I believe that there are a small, small number of women who could probably do it, but I think that finding women who are capable of serving as basic Infantrymen is probably comparable to finding men who are capable of serving as Navy SEALs.

If you start with 100 men in an Infantry OSUT class, and I mean just run-of-the-mill, average recruits, you'll probably lose maybe 10% of them in training and then another 10% after training once they get to their line Company, and that last 10% will become the HMMWV and 5 Ton truck drivers, the orderly room clerks, or get sent to Headquarters Company to serve in some comparable REMFish role.

If you start with 100 un-of-the-mill, average female recruits I doubt you'd get even 10% through basic training and of those you'd only get 10% more more capable of serving effectively in any Infantry Company.

I don't know that it's really cost effective to train 100 women when there's a good chance that at the end of the day only one, or two, or five of them are going to show any return on that investment.

I have no problem with women being allowed to serve in Armor or Artillery units because, lets face it, that's women's work anyhow.

But I don't really see any place for women in the infantry even though there are almost certainly some of them would could do it.

I was in Armor and artillery and I would like to see a basic female trainee handle a 120mm smooth bore round, hell even a 105mm to 155mm. Now let's add combat stress and multipul shots.

Next time talk about what you know, and not what you obviously know little of.
 
And mine is based on 12 years in the military and more as a cop. Mine is also based on simple biological science.

You don't seem to know as much as you think.

You wouldn't be the first to accuse me of that. Probably not the last either. Though I did compete for 20 or so years, some of that as a nationally ranked weightlifter. As well I coached weightlifters of both genders, and have probably read thousands of pages worth of books and articles on subject of strength training and physiology so I'm guessing I do know a thing or two about the subject.

So being in the military certainly gives you insight into what the job requires, though probably not much exposure to very fit women, though I could be wrong about that. Not sure being a cop gives you special insight into the subject, most of the cops I know (more than a few friends and family who've done that job) range from very fit to just better than average.
 
Last edited:
You wouldn't be the first to accuse me of that. Probably not the last either. Though I did compete for 20 or so years, some of that as a nationally ranked weightlifter. As well I coached weightlifters of both genders, and have probably read thousands of pages worth of books and articles on subject so I'm guessing I do know a thing or two about the subject.

None of which has anything at all to do with life or duty in the military. Apples and oranges.

So being in the military certainly gives you insight into what the job requires, assuming you were in the infantry, though probably not much exposure to very fit women, though I could be wrong about that. Not sure being a cop gives you special insight into the subject, most of the cops I know (more than a few friends and family who've done that job) range from very fit to just better than average.

What does being in the infantry have to do with anything? I was in armor and Air Defence Artillery and women would struggle to do most of those jobs as well. You know who does the basic maintenance on a tank? We do. This is an M60a3 the tank I was in...

full


Now imagine changing just one link of worn track. We don't need someone who needs to train for 2 years to be able to do it.

One of the shells weighs around 43lbs, the new 120mm smooth bores in the Abraham's weigh MORE. We don't use autoloaders like some other countries.

So again no. I reject your limited knowledge or anecdotal evidence base on amature weightlifting.
 
If she could pass the minimum that the males pass... sure. But it has not actually happen without the lowering of team effectiveness as reported by the US Marines...

Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Performed Better Than Mixed Units - Marine Corps Study: All-Male Combat Units Performed Better Than Mixed Units : The Two-Way : NPR

Interesting reading thanks. Have the Marines lowered standards to get women to pass or did the women in the study pass the same physical tests that the men did? I noted the physiological differences and wonder how important they are in reality. Staying with what I know - strength training - the study notes the women were on average 15% less powerful (given the size disparity that sounds about right btw). I wonder how much that 15% actually matters. 15% matters alot among competitive athletes but I'm not sure how much difference it makes doing tasks that may not necessarily require maximum output. Actually now that I think about it I wonder how important power generation is. Power is work over time which means maximal power generation is achieved in brief bursts - doing a clean and jerk for example. It doesn't much bearing on the ability to carry something for an extended period of time.

Why would women not shoot as straight as men? That's puzzling. Recoil? .223 or whatever the military calls it doesn't kick all that much.
 
Interesting reading thanks. Have the Marines lowered standards to get women to pass or did the women in the study pass the same physical tests that the men did? I noted the physiological differences and wonder how important they are in reality. Staying with what I know - strength training - the study notes the women were on average 15% less powerful (given the size disparity that sounds about right btw). I wonder how much that 15% actually matters. 15% matters alot among competitive athletes but I'm not sure how much difference it makes doing tasks that may not necessarily require maximum output. Actually now that I think about it I wonder how important power generation is. Power is work over time which means maximal power generation is achieved in brief bursts - doing a clean and jerk for example. It doesn't much bearing on the ability to carry something for an extended period of time.

Why would women not shoot as straight as men? That's puzzling. Recoil? .223 or whatever the military calls it doesn't kick all that much.

No they have not... yet. But like all the rest they are being pressured to do so. This is why I am against it. If they were not lowering the minimum standards... Shure If a woman can pass hell, let her do it. That is not what's happening though. The politicians and feminists are finally seeing men and women are NOT the same. So instead of dealing with that, just like fire and police departments lowering standards... Even though they lied and said "oh we will not ask them to lesson the standards" this is exactly what they are doing.
 
Interesting reading thanks. Have the Marines lowered standards to get women to pass or did the women in the study pass the same physical tests that the men did? I noted the physiological differences and wonder how important they are in reality. Staying with what I know - strength training - the study notes the women were on average 15% less powerful (given the size disparity that sounds about right btw). I wonder how much that 15% actually matters. 15% matters alot among competitive athletes but I'm not sure how much difference it makes doing tasks that may not necessarily require maximum output. Actually now that I think about it I wonder how important power generation is. Power is work over time which means maximal power generation is achieved in brief bursts - doing a clean and jerk for example. It doesn't much bearing on the ability to carry something for an extended period of time.

Why would women not shoot as straight as men? That's puzzling. Recoil? .223 or whatever the military calls it doesn't kick all that much.

You have no idea. :doh

What are you again basing this on??? 15% may be the difference between life and death if you are counting on 15% less to get your job done. We are not talking about competitive athletes... We are talking about average men and women... you know the majoeity who join the military?
 
None of which has anything at all to do with life or duty in the military. Apples and oranges.



What does being in the infantry have to do with anything? I was in armor and Air Defence Artillery and women would struggle to do most of those jobs as well. You know who does the basic maintenance on a tank? We do. This is an M60a3 the tank I was in...

full


Now imagine changing just one link of worn track. We don't need someone who needs to train for 2 years to be able to do it.

One of the shells weighs around 43lbs, the new 120mm smooth bores in the Abraham's weigh MORE. We don't use autoloaders like some other countries.

So again no. I reject your limited knowledge or anecdotal evidence base on amature weightlifting.

I edited out the infantry comment as you were answering. You're right it has nothing to do with it.

Life in the military isn't the question. The military teaches it's people about life in the military. I am simply saying that the average healthy woman with the proper preparation and training should be able to handle the same tasks that the average male recruit can. Nothing more. Whether there are other things about military life that make women as a class unsuitable for combat roles I don't know.
 
I edited out the infantry comment as you were answering. You're right it has nothing to do with it.

Life in the military isn't the question. The military teaches it's people about life in the military. I am simply saying that the average healthy woman with the proper preparation and training should be able to handle the same tasks that the average male recruit can. Nothing more.

This is absolutely true, but that is not what you have been saying. You have been saying things like...

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

Whether there are other things about military life that make women as a class unsuitable for combat roles I don't know.

I think you misunderstand. I don't think military life would be any problem for the average woman at all. They do it all day every day right now just like the guys.

The problem as I see it is for women to effectively lead or operate in a infantry, artillery or an armor unit without the lowering of quality in our combat units overall..
 
You have no idea. :doh

What are you again basing this on??? 15% may be the difference between life and death if you are counting on 15% less to get your job done. We are not talking about competitive athletes... We are talking about average men and women... you know the majoeity who join the military?

It may be difference between life and death but you accept that 15% less some number of men don't you? Maybe as much as 1/4 of men if I read the stats correctly. Again I'd ask are women meeting the same physical standard that men are? If so then what you're really saying is that the standard for both genders is too low. If not then I'll just again say that the standard should be the same for everyone.
 
It may be difference between life and death but you accept that 15% less some number of men don't you? Maybe as much as 1/4 of men if I read the stats correctly.

No. Men who can't meet the minimum are drummed out, period. So why should the military all branches settle for less now?

Again I'd ask are women meeting the same physical standard that men are? If so then what you're really saying is that the standard for both genders is too low. If not then I'll just again say that the standard should be the same for everyone.

Does this answer your question...

Pressure grows on Marines to consider lowering combat standards for women - Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course - Washington Times
 
This is absolutely true, but that is not what you have been saying. You have been saying things like...





I think you misunderstand. I don't think military life would be any problem for the average woman at all. They do it all day every day right now just like the guys.

The problem as I see it is for women to effectively lead or operate in a infantry, artillery or an armor unit without the lowering of quality in our combat units overall..

In that case my apologies for being unclear. And I think we're more or less in agreement. I am not in any way saying women should be cut a break. If a woman can't cut it she should be gone, same as a man. I just don't feel that we should simply say "no woman's ever gonna make it so we're not opening this job to them."
 
In that case my apologies for being unclear. And I think we're more or less in agreement. I am not in any way saying women should be cut a break. If a woman can't cut it she should be gone, same as a man. I just don't feel that we should simply say "no woman's ever gonna make it so we're not opening this job to them."

Agreed. If they can make the same standards as they sit now, unchanged... I have no issue at all.
 
No. Men who can't meet the minimum are drummed out, period. So why should the military all branches settle for less now?



Does this answer your question...

Pressure grows on Marines to consider lowering combat standards for women - Marine Corps weighs lower standards for women after none pass Infantry Officer Course - Washington Times

Assuming the standard accurately tests for what the person is going to do, I'd strongly oppose lowering it. That's just wrong.........
 
Assuming the standard accurately tests for what the person is going to do, I'd strongly oppose lowering it. That's just wrong.........

It's inevitable. The physical differences are great. Why after 6th grade boys and girls are seperated for almost all sports. Certain jobs even in these modern times require greater upper body strength and endurance than the average female has. The PC crowd and feminists feel that to be empowered or empowering for women that they must somehow prove they can do everything men can... Only problem is they can't. There are things women are just better at than men as well.

Welcome to biology 101.
 
Here is a great example...

Myself and a female friend were working for the same temp agency, sent to the same company. She was placed at a table putting little electronic things in a box. They then brought her a fan because it was very hot. Summer in Chicagoland. I was put out in the yard strapping Bobkat front ends to pallets and strapping them down. We made exactly the same money.
 
I was a combat soldier and I'll share some things.

I took 3 cold showers in 6 months, the rest of the bathing was done in a bucket. After you washed your self in the bucket, you washed clothes in it too, with the Same water. In between the biweekly bucket baths were baby wipes and zero privacy. Shave your head because you can't wash your hair. No curtains for privacy When you had to take a dump, you dig a hole and do it in front of everybody.

Then comes combat. It's scary beyond description. We you face combat, you face your own death and you come to grips with that reality. But once accept your own death, you never come back to the same person you were before.

Women in combat? I think they could, but don't think they should.
Women shouldn't see what men do to each other in war.
 
When the day comes that women fight on the front lines is the day I refuse to hear about leaving the seat up.

"We have women fighting on the front lines and you are freaking about skid marks in my underwear? Really? What's wrong with you?"
 
After that female 15D (later 13N) joined our detachment, we deployed on a bivouac. While she was a pretty good soldier she made the mistake of telling her platoon sergeant that since there were not going to be any latrine facilities where we were going he would have to leave her in garrison. That SFC went off! He spent five minutes ripping her a new tail end, in front of the whole detachment. Just when I thought I was going to have to step in, he abruptly turned away walked over to me and the platoon leader (a 1LT), he was grinning ear to ear. He wasn't mad. It was all for effect. She never once after that asked for special accommodations because she was female. Even better, from that point on the detachment treated her just like the guys. No one offered to carry her ruck sack, and no one made or allowed the excuse of her being female.
 
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.

The difference between men and women in the NBA and WNBA is men play above the rim and women play below the rim. No contest...not even close.
 
Back
Top Bottom