• 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
If these advanced training programs don't accurately reflect what is needed to be successful in actual combat scenarios, then they should be redesigned or revamped to do so.

I don't disagree.

But at the moment, that is the standard that the US military has set, and as such any person, regardless of gender, who is able to meet that standard and is willing, should be allowed into those roles.

I disagree.

The standard, as it currently exist, is designed to accept a certain pool of people in to a training program and successfully graduate n% of those new recruits in to the force as Soldiers capable of taking on more advance training.

If you propose broadening the pool of people accepted in to training then you need to change the acceptance and training standards concurrently in order that you can reasonably expect to still arrive at the same outcome following training.

The bottom line is that the product coming out at the end of the training pipeline has to be capable of doing the job.

The combat effectiveness of the force isn't something that can be compromised in the name of fairness.

If we're going to allow women in to the Combat Arms, and particularly if we're going to allow them in to Infantry and Special Operations fields, then the standards need to be changed before the first woman sets foot on to one of our training Bases.
 
I don't disagree.



I disagree.

The standard, as it currently exist, is designed to accept a certain pool of people in to a training program and successfully graduate n% of those new recruits in to the force as Soldiers capable of taking on more advance training.

If you propose broadening the pool of people accepted in to training then you need to change the acceptance and training standards concurrently in order that you can reasonably expect to still arrive at the same outcome following training.

The bottom line is that the product coming out at the end of the training pipeline has to be capable of doing the job.

The combat effectiveness of the force isn't something that can be compromised in the name of fairness.


If we're going to allow women in to the Combat Arms, and particularly if we're going to allow them in to Infantry and Special Operations fields, then the standards need to be changed before the first woman sets foot on to one of our training Bases.

We're mostly in agreement as far these combat roles go, why there needs to be a high minimum standard and the importance of these roles. I disagree that women should be disqualified automatically. Even if none are able to successfully complete these programs they should at least be allowed to attempt them, and if an exceptional woman happens to pass and meet those high standards, there is no logical reason to keep her from these positions. It is based on the assumption that no woman will ever be able to meet those standards, which is false. No harm is done by women who would attempt to meet these standards, you are really left with no reason to keep them out. This "inherent weakness" argument is more chauvinism than chivalry.

Specifically, in regards to the bolded, you may be misunderstanding me. I'm not suggesting altering the training, expectations, or standards anywhere in order to "get women on the front lines because equality". Training, standards, etc should all reflect what is needed for the job, to make sure that people who end up in those roles have the ability to perform as needed. If they're high, it's for a good reason. Being able to meet them isn't something related to gender though, it's based on ability. If it turns out that no women can meet that standard, based on a fair and unbiased evaluation, then that's the way it is. Combat effectiveness of the force shouldn't be impacted, because women who attempt to enter into these roles shouldn't be treated any differently than the men who do. But just because most women can't, or the average woman can't, doesn't mean all women can't, or that no woman will ever be able to.
 
I believe that if a female soldier opts for a combat arms MOS they should be required to be on a long term birth control through that contract period. The military spends a lot of money on training, bonuses, and such for combat arms MOS soldiers. This goes out the window when a female soldier takes a medical chapter discharge because she is pregnant. My first command in Saudi Arabia we had six soldiers who had to be rotated back to the states for chapter discharge for pregnancy and one that was rotated to Europe, during a six month deployment. For obvious reasons a pregnant servicewoman cannot serve in a combat theater, not even in a garrison or rear position. I'm not saying these servicewomen got pregnant to avoid remaining deployed but some will look for that way out. Not to mention when you have a small field artillery detachment with 70 people, 65 men and 5 women, it presents some leadership problems for the 1SG to work out.
 
Even if none are able to successfully complete these programs they should at least be allowed to attempt them, and if an exceptional woman happens to pass and meet those high standards, there is no logical reason to keep her from these positions.

I'm not on board with what you're saying.

It costs somewhere between $60,000 and $100,000 to recruit one civilian off the street, fully test and process that individual, transport the recruit to the appropriate training base, and then fully train that recruit to a basic level (Basic Combat Training + Advanced Individual Training).

If we admit 100 women to Infantry OSUT and, as you suggest is a possibility, "none are able to successfully complete these programs", that's a waste of somewhere between $6 million and $10 million.

Those aren't huge numbers in relation to the entire U.S. budget, or even the entire defense share of the federal budget, or even the Army's share of the defense budget.

But they are huge numbers as you continue to drill down to the cost center of government that these expenses are actually being charged to.

If the Infantry School runs 80 OSUT cycles per year and each cycle trains roughly 100 recruits then we're talking about a cost of 1.25% of the Infantry School's budget just being pissed away with nothing to show for it.

There are also military units that are waiting on new Soldiers fresh out of the training command in order to keep their rosters manned to a combat effective level.

If 100 women try out for the Infantry, and 100 women fail to meet the standard then Infantry branch personnel managers who are responsible for manning unit rosters have to leave 100 positions unmanned.

If the service is called to go to war they need to go to war with 100 fewer Soldiers than they need.

Admitting women in to the Combat Arms isn't just an academic social experiment.

It has real word costs and implications both for the taxpayer and for the Services.
 
Last edited:
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.

I believe the movies that depict women as super hero's have done a real disservice to women and led a lot of people down some kind of unrealistic golden superwomen path. Movies that portray women beating up five men at a time is pure fantasy...People who think women can serve on the front line in combat are brained washed by those movies.
Can they serve in combat support roles like artillery or truck drivers...of course.
 
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.

This is so insanely wrong I don't know where to begin. Women do not compete with male athletes at the same level. Period. You honestly think a WNBA star could defend Lebron James? You must be smoking some pretty good dope.
 
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.

We are talking about the military, where something simple going wrong can cost people their lives. We should be looking for the best at all times. 15% less is a lot when your life is on the line. Someone that requires others to pull 15% of their weight is a liability. And no one wants a liability in their squad when their life is on the line.
 
I'm not on board with what you're saying.

It costs somewhere between $60,000 and $100,000 to recruit one civilian off the street, fully test and process that individual, transport the recruit to the appropriate training base, and then fully train that recruit to a basic level (Basic Combat Training + Advanced Individual Training).

If we admit 100 women to Infantry OSUT and, as you suggest is a possibility, "none are able to successfully complete these programs", that's a waste of somewhere between $6 million and $10 million.

Those aren't huge numbers in relation to the entire U.S. budget, or even the entire defense share of the federal budget, or even the Army's share of the defense budget.

But they are huge numbers as you continue to drill down to the cost center of government that these expenses are actually being charged to.

If the Infantry School runs 80 OSUT cycles per year and each cycle trains roughly 100 recruits then we're talking about a cost of 1.25% of the Infantry School's budget just being pissed away with nothing to show for it.

There are also military units that are waiting on new Soldiers fresh out of the training command in order to keep their rosters manned to a combat effective level.

If 100 women try out for the Infantry, and 100 women fail to meet the standard then Infantry branch personnel managers who are responsible for manning unit rosters have to leave 100 positions unmanned.

If the service is called to go to war they need to go to war with 100 fewer Soldiers than they need.

Admitting women in to the Combat Arms isn't just an academic social experiment.

It has real word costs and implications both for the taxpayer and for the Services.

You have a valid point, but your exaggerating it a bit. Women interested in this are already in the military and as such some of that money is being spent on them either way. But even if only a portion of that is wasted, it's still waste in an area where there's already too much waste. Still..... I would think that some sort of qualifying eval could be done so that people who don't really stand a chance of passing don't take up space and waste resources. It seems a small hurdle to overcome, and a poor reason to just exclude women.
 
This is so insanely wrong I don't know where to begin. Women do not compete with male athletes at the same level. Period. You honestly think a WNBA star could defend Lebron James? You must be smoking some pretty good dope.

95% of men in the NBA can't either. What is your point?
 
Last edited:
We are talking about the military, where something simple going wrong can cost people their lives. We should be looking for the best at all times. 15% less is a lot when your life is on the line. Someone that requires others to pull 15% of their weight is a liability. And no one wants a liability in their squad when their life is on the line.

Do you feel the same about men who exhibit the same 15% deficit? We are talking about averages after all so by definition some number of men in combat are going to approach or even exceed that deficit.
 
Still..... I would think that some sort of qualifying eval could be done so that people who don't really stand a chance of passing don't take up space and waste resources. It seems a small hurdle to overcome, and a poor reason to just exclude women.

I think that's part of the solution, and believe me, I think there IS a solution.

I just don't think that women meeting the existing men's standard is sufficient because women are going to break down if under load for extended periods a lot more quickly than men will.

We're just psychologically and psychologically different that way.

We know that if the average man meets a given standard there's a reasonably good chance that he'll be able to stand up to the rigors of service in the Infantry.

Since women are psychologically and psychologically we need to figure out what minimum standard a woman needs to meet in order to know that there's a reasonably good chance that she'll be able to stand up to the rigors of service in the Infantry.

Maybe that standard is the same, and I (and those like me) are just making too much of things.

Maybe the standard is much higher.

There's no way to know unless we test it.

So far, except in cases where standards have been lowered in order to accommodate women's passage through a particular school and ensure graduation, no woman has yet been able to meet the minimum standards required of men.

But like you suggested, none of the women entering any training program have been required to pass any kind of pre-training evaluation which had been designed specifically to determine a woman's suitability for the training.

If we get to a point where we've found some means of effectively screening women for this type of training which can reliably predict success both in training and then further down the line in active service, and women successfully complete training to the standards required of them, I have no objection to women being permitted to serve in Special Operations or in the Infantry (or in other, lesser, Combat Arms roles).

But I'm not willing to take the chance of degrading combat effectiveness in the name of social justice.

Doing so isn't fair to anyone, not the men and certainly not the women who will be going in to harm's way.

There's a saying in the military, or at least in the Army Infantry, that you "sweat in training so you won't bleed in combat".

I think that's the philosophy that should apply here.

Maybe the politicians and senior military leaders who have to make these decisions should have to sweat out the fact that some of their decisions might be unpopular, or un-PC, or even to some degree discriminatory, in order to save lives when you get down in the dirt in that last 150 meters where American foreign policy is being projected through the barrel of a gun.

I'm all for women serving, but we need to be sure that they're an asset and not a liability.

Once we're as sure as we can be that we've got the right women for the job, BZ and all that.
 
95% of men in the NBA can't either. What is your point?

You stated that women can compete with men in basketball. It simply isn't true.
 
I voted yes. I also think that they should paid about 40-50 % less, because they're much weaker and slower than men.
 
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.

rifle shooting, trap shooting, and 100 mile races are three sports where women can compete with men. Equestrian Dressage, show jumping as well. Serena williams cannot start on a top ten D-1 college tennis team. when I was in college, I was =as a freshman, on the JV squash team. The Number one woman was the collegiate #1 and ranked top five in North America, She couldn't get a game off of me because I hit the ball twice as hard, I was far far faster, and much quicker. Chris Evert, once the #1 female tennis player in the world and one of the greatest female players in history, noted that her little brother-who was a very good HS player and was a Division one varsity player but not even close to All-American (or let alone on the world tour) absolutely destroyed her when they played.

My nephew did two combat tours as a captain in the rangers in Iraq and then 18 months with the Special forces in Afghanistan. He noted that no woman could have gotten through Q school under the same standards he was subjected to. I have yet to meet a SF soldier, a SEAL or a similar operative who disagrees with him

Now are there combat roles for women? sure, in a defensive perimeter, women can make very good snipers. jobs that don't require humping 90 pounds of gear through free fire zones. Maybe Triple A operators as well.
 
rifle shooting, trap shooting, and 100 mile races are three sports where women can compete with men. Equestrian Dressage, show jumping as well. Serena williams cannot start on a top ten D-1 college tennis team. when I was in college, I was =as a freshman, on the JV squash team. The Number one woman was the collegiate #1 and ranked top five in North America, She couldn't get a game off of me because I hit the ball twice as hard, I was far far faster, and much quicker. Chris Evert, once the #1 female tennis player in the world and one of the greatest female players in history, noted that her little brother-who was a very good HS player and was a Division one varsity player but not even close to All-American (or let alone on the world tour) absolutely destroyed her when they played.

My nephew did two combat tours as a captain in the rangers in Iraq and then 18 months with the Special forces in Afghanistan. He noted that no woman could have gotten through Q school under the same standards he was subjected to. I have yet to meet a SF soldier, a SEAL or a similar operative who disagrees with him

Now are there combat roles for women? sure, in a defensive perimeter, women can make very good snipers. jobs that don't require humping 90 pounds of gear through free fire zones. Maybe Triple A operators as well.

Yeah I might have overstated that just a bit. Though as I've said if a woman can meet the same standards that a man can she should be given the opportunity.
 
Should women be allowed to serve in front-line military combat roles?

Yes, but not all women.
Young women who have innately high inner beauty (that is to say, a fine fundamental mindset, which is the cause of good character) and physical beauty should be forbidden from doing such dangerous work, because they need to be making babies instead, for the sake of the future generation, rather than risking their valuable lives.
 
Back
Top Bottom