Women no longer banned from any combat role in the US military. Agree or disagree?

If they can pass the requirements, they're now officially allowed to be in any combat role.



0|0
17|51

Most Helpful Girl

  • If the requirements are the same for us as for the men, then fine. If they can do it and want to do it, they should be allowed to.

    I wonder how many women even have interest in serving in combat though - I know I don't. Even if I was strong enough for it, there's so many other careers I'd rather have, which are more cerebral and with better pay and longer life expectancy. Not to mention mental health, who wants PTSD?

    I get the whole equality thing, and that's great, but if men wanted to keep this one to themselves, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

    0|0
    0|0

Most Helpful Guy

  • I hope this gets through.

    Thank God if it ends up working out. Like one of the other posters said, they should meet the exact same standards men are supposed to meet. Nothing more. Nothing less. No compensation for the fact that men build muscle faster. A burning building is not going to magically get lighter because you are a woman.

    But this is something I have been rooting for. For true equality and respect, women should be fighting not just for the prestigious, luxurious, or powerful positions in society, but the dirty, deadly, uncomfortable ones as well.

    This is what bothers me about a lot of talk of women in STEM, or few woman CEOs. People are all up in arms about most CEOs and engineers being men, but don't blink when it is a sewer workers, a front-line soldiers, and construction workers who are also mostly men, as they seem perfectly happy with men doing most of the dirty, dangerous jobs. In fact, I regularly hear from both the left AND the right that it would be immoral to place women in dangerous jobs. Usually as either "Men should stop being p***ies and protect their women!" (The right) or "Women should not have to face harsh work conditions!" (left) or "Women should not have to fight in the complete male invention of war!" (farther left).

    Personally, I think that not only should women be allowed in combat roles, but they should also have the exact same draft requirements as men. Women technically have more voting freedoms, because they don't have to sign up for conscription to get the right to vote (Not that this applies to a lot of people). Either require women to register for the draft, or do away with the draft altogether.

    Maybe I'm odd. I just think that the law should make no mention of gender in how any of its laws are applied. We are beyond that.

    1|1
    0|2

What Girls Said 16

  • I'm fine with it as long as they don't lower the requirements. It's tough for a reason.
    Also, I don't want them to PC it up and have like a "quota" of females in combat. If they don't meet the standards, they don't meet them and they shouldn't be in just for "diversity sake".

    My brother was in infantry for the Marine Corps. And him and most of his fellow "grunts" felt that women should not be allowed in combat. In fact, many people in the military disagree with letting women in combat.

    3|6
    0|0
    • Well I guess that's why they're called grunts, not thinkers.

  • i agree if they can do it, nothing should stop them. Women for hundreds of years have served in the military but they were always in disguises. Take Roza Shanina for example. She was a Soviet sniper during World War II, credited with 54 confirmed target hits.
    www.military-quotes.com/.../...d7b2bce277e217f.jpg

    7|4
    0|0
    • Russia had entire battalions full of women defending Moscow and later in case blue during staking rad. They worked on artillery teams as loaders. It was all hands on deck then. They were even in tank crews. It was supposed to be demoralising for men though seeing women die.

    • Staking rad? Crazy Korean shitty phone. Stalingrad.

  • They better be as strong as any man they're fighting together with

    1|7
    0|0
  • Provided said requirements stay the same for both genders and no vagina quotas put in place for the sake of hurr durr equality, I see no issue with it.

    If you want to and are capable, go right ahead.

    0|5
    0|0
  • I'm fine with it, as long as they can pass the same physical requirements as their male counterparts.

    3|1
    0|0
  • That's fine. If they want to do it then why stop them?

    2|2
    0|2
  • It's a good step for women to be recognized, but the women need to be willing to fight in these previous and current men's shoes. It is true that women are less physically capable of certain tasks, but there are the few out there that can and will fight just as well as or better than any other man. These women should have the opportunity to stand and fight among these men to defend the country.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Any other man? I don't think so. Some men maybe lol. Must be women out there from super hard warrior ninja race who can beat every man

    • Gender doesn't play as much a role as what body type everyone is born with. With the proper training, I'm sure there's at least one woman out there that could out do most men.

  • If they can pass the SAME requirements I have no problems with it. The standards should not be lower for anyone.

    1|2
    0|0
  • And about time to.. If it is the woman's wish to fight for her country, why should she be restricted because of her gender.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I think it's a bad idea. A real war with lines women get gang raped half to death if they're caught. It happened a lot on the eastern front

  • Women should be given the ability to die in any way they choose to.

    3|1
    0|1
  • If they can pass the requirements, why not?
    Serious question, why would people object to that?

    0|1
    0|0
    • Because they're too emotional for wars, or because vaginas make them weaker, or some other bullshit, you know how people are.
      As long as they pass the requirements, who cares what gender, clearly if they pass them, they've shown they're capable to go to war.

  • That's awesome!! Why shouldn't they be allowed?

    0|1
    0|1
  • How wonderful

    0|0
    0|0
  • They are going stir up the guys, hope they can cope with the bullying

    0|1
    1|2
    • Just saying being in the military is the same as any job. You don't need to tolerate harassment or bullying. Yes it happens but if the American military is anything like the Canadian military there is a strict rule of conduct and bullying would not be tolerated

    • It's not the same.

  • As long as they are capable and passed the requirements needed, that's fine.

    0|0
    0|0
  • agree
    if you can do it, you can do it. no questions asked.

    0|1
    0|1

What Guys Said 50

  • ""If they can pass the requirements, they're now officially allowed to be in any combat role.""

    I think that makes perfect sense!

    8|4
    0|1
  • Only if they pass the same requirements that the men had to make. If they created lower benchmarks for them to get in then I think its dumb.

    7|3
    0|0
  • I disagree. This decision (which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs did NOT endorse btw) is all about Political Correctness and placating the Social Justice Warriors (SJWs). This is a dangerous policy. It can get people killed or have them die when they wouldn't otherwise have been killed or died. Let's say a platoon containing women is in heavy ground combat. They're an infantry unit. One of the guys goes down on the field of battle. He weighs 200 pounds. As we all know, the American military does not leave anyone behind. Who do you want going out to get that guy and bring him back so the medics can attend to him? Another 200 pound male soldier (or even a 175 pound male soldier)? Or a 135-140 pound female soldier? I know which one I'd choose. It's just common sense. Then there's the basic human nature part of things. If women are in combat units men are going to naturally be looking to protect them and make allowances for them in ways they wouldn't normally do for other guys. The whole point is that war is very serious, deadly business. It's about -- in large part -- killing people and breaking things. It's not a place to fem-nazis to score Social Justice Warrior points. Unless -- God forbid -- Hillary Clinton is our next president, maybe the next president will reverse this stupid decision.

    0|0
    0|0
  • If they meet the standard that the military sets, which will be for male and females, then there is absolutely no reason as to why they should be excluded. If they are strong enough, fit enough, mentally tough enough to pass ANY level of military training from SOF all the way to regular infantry, whose to say they don't deserve to be there? Not letting at that point would be ridiculous.

    5|0
    0|0
  • Why not? Women have shown they can be very capable fighters during times of war. During World War II women in the Soviet Union served honorably on the front lines. Tatiana Nikolaevna Baramzina, or Tanya as she was called by her friends and loved ones, was a sniper during the war. She received medical and sniper training during the course of the war, and thus did double duty fighting as well as treating wounded. In a heartbreaking incident during the course of a battle in 1944, a trench which was being used to treat Soviet wounded came under attack by Nazi forces. Tanya grabbed her sniper rifle and fought till the last round. When her cartridges ran out she was captured. Tanya was then subjected to inhuman torture at the hands of her captures in order to divulge information out of her. During the course of her torture Tanya had her eyes gouged out, but she never once gave up any information to her captures. When all attempts to get information out of her failed, the Nazis executed Tanya by shooting her at point blank-range with an 88mm anti-aircraft flak gun. Tatiana Nikolaevna Baramzina was posthumously awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union and the Order of Lenin. Ekaterina Illarionovna Mikhailova was the only woman to serve on the frontlines with the Soviet Marines. She served as a medic, and carried hundreds of wounded soldiers off the battlefield and was seriously wounded three times. During the war she not only served as a medic, but as a capable soldier. She participated in the recapture of the city of Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi in Ukraine. During the battle she single-handedly assaulted a Nazi fortified position and took 14 prisoners. Afterwards she treated 17 of her wounded comrades and helped them get to safety. In December 1944 she participated in an attack on the fortress of Ilok in Croatia she was one of 50 Marines who carried out a diversionary attack from a small island in the Danube below the fortress. During the battle Ekaterina was shot through the hand, and only 13 of her comrades survived the battle, all wounded. Some of the casualties fell out of the trees and into the freezing water but were saved by Ekaterina, who jumped in and used belts and rifle slings to tie the wounded men to the trees. Seven men were saved by her. All in all women have shown they can fight. In the US if they are allowed in combat, then I think girls aged 18-25 should have to register for the draft like their male counterparts must do.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm against it. But it it doesn't matter what I think. It should be strictly a military decision. I'm totally against anything in the military being done for political reasons or because of social pressure. If it's being done because feminists yell and scream, then I'm even more against it than I normally would be. If it's done for strictly military reasons, then I'm still against it but not as much.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Even if they actually wiould have the very same physical requirements, I would probably against it, because men simply have a much higher performance ceiling than women in terms of physical abilities. Also the psychological factor of having a woma among a troup of men is an issue, as men simply are more protective towards women and thus can make objectively wrong decisions based on that.

    That being said in the most times the requirement on women are drastically lowered in comparision to men. That's an absolute no-go.

    A few links to the topic:

    www.dailymail.co.uk/.../...-Major-Judith-Webb.html

    “The mere presence of women also has a dramatic effect on the ability of men to be combat soldiers, as has been proved in those situations around the world where female soldiers serve on the front line.
    For example, when a soldier sees a female colleague lying injured, he immediately feels his first duty must be to protect her rather than to stick to the military plan.”

    www.blackfive.net/.../...ot-all-created-equal.html

    "At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment

    [...]

    Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females."

    The different requirements here: www.military.com/.../usmc-pft-charts

    Note that the woman don't even need to do pull-ups, but just hang themselves on a pole and do nothing.

    0|0
    0|0
    • qz.com/.../?utm_source=YPL

      All-male teams and crews outperformed mixed-gender ones on 93 out of 134 tasks evaluated. All-male teams were universally faster “in each tactical movement.” On “lethality,” the report says:

      All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i. e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

      And:

      All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.

    • And last, but not least a reply in a gun-forum from a guy who was in the military. Unfortunately the forum requires registration now - when I found and read it it didn't. The dude, while being harsh, raises some valid points.

      http://pastebin.com/u7Pc9ZXz

      In the end - independent of you agreeing with the military and which operations they do - it is a life and death situation and political correctness has nothing to do in those. Doesn't matter if its military, firefighters, police, whatever. In those extreme situations even a few seconds time difference can decide over life and death and I don't care, if some special snowflakes feel offended by it. The reality is that they put their self-importance above the life of human beings.

  • www.npr.org/.../marines-most-female-recruits-dont-meet-new-pullup-standard

    So here's the problem. If we simply raise the standards for women to those of men more than half will fail.(At least in the USMC physical test) What usually happens when a male recruit fails is he goes back for some more specialized training. That's fine because usually less than 5% of a class fail so they don't have to expend extra resources for them. Retraining over 55% is completely different. That's substanially more recruits that have to go back for more training to achieve the level you're supposed to achieve in 13 weeks. If this were to happen the retraining of all of those recruits will bankrupt the USMC. And them joining the USMC they are actually hurting the USMC and their country more than they are serving it.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Neutral, it doesn't really matter, 5'8 women well toned in good shape, has good weight, can carry a gun and shoot terrorists?

    I am all for it, doesn't matter either way who's shooting the gun if it's a good person and the person getting shot is bad.

    Just matters if they do a good job in the process, and they should be able to do a good enough job where they would be a useful reserve for our military, do not waste resources when opportunities present themselves, it only limits our potential and therefore our success.

    0|0
    0|0
    • And of course, they should be able to pass the optimal requirements depending on the state of operations.

  • If they want to go to war and sign up for it ok then dont cry when your into the madness of a fire fight with a man that wants to take you down

    0|1
    0|0
  • As long as they pass an equal physical test that is not scaled down in any way, then it's totally fair.

    3|0
    0|1
  • I don't think they should be banned at all, but they shouldn't be given handicaps just because their women, its stupid, they must perform like males or better to be accepted into the ranks of either elite or regular combat MOS. Fair is fair in war.

    0|2
    0|0
  • Women have as much right to get shot at as men. EQUALITY!!!

    3|2
    0|2
  • I've studied martial arts, combat, and war for more years then I care to think. This is certainly not unprecedented women have been in combat quite a bit in history (can anyone say Boudica or Joan Of Ark?). Can women fight? Certainly. Should they? If they chose to, sure. I've seen women dominate a martial art tournament, the battle field? We'll see.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm fine with it, so long as they pass the EXACT same combat training/requirements as male soldiers AND they don't complain about EARNING less :)

    0|0
    0|1
    • If the pass the exact same requirements as the men why would they earn less?

    • Well the men could work longer hours, they could have less leave, they could be carrying out harder work? Many factors.

      To EARN money =/= to be PAID money. Remember that.

  • Agree.

    I got by the philosophy of "if you've got the goods, go for it, if you don't, then get the fuck outta the way for someone who does."

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think it's fair, everyone should be allowed to fight if they CHOOSE to do so (I hate conscription, I was a victim of it), ever heard about the shieldmaidens?

    0|0
    0|0
  • Mixed

    While I don't think women are as fit to serve in combat roles as men, I do think they should have the option to serve such roles if they choose to. However, I think they should be segregated into all-female units so as to not place an extra burden on the men who are inevitably going to feel like they have to protect the women.

    That and I think that this decision is going to create a bad image for the military in the future. Let's face it: women are going to get massacred. A disproportionate amount of soldiers KIA are going to be female because they are less fit to serve than their male counterparts.

    The same media that demonized the military for sexism by not allowing females into combat roles is going to demonize the military for allowing such a disproportionate amount of female soldiers to die. People are going to be angry when their daughters and sisters are dying in such a larger number than the men.

    0|0
    1|1
  • If they want the roll it's not for me to tell them they can't

    0|0
    0|0
  • Civilians dont get it bc they have never seen what happens during war time. Im mixed but im not going to put my full opinion here for everyone to see if you really want to argue about it then message me. All im saying is this 19 women officer cadets were sent to ranger school that is something every infantry officer has to pass. Most senior ncos have to have the ranger tab (at least in my job which is infantry) only 1 of 19 nade it and im afraid they will lower the standards

    0|0
    0|0
  • Now the only thing left to do is to mobilize women alongside men in times of war.

    For equality of course.

    0|0
    0|1
  • thats fine. feminist should fight to get an equal number of women on the front lines. they want women to be ceos but not ditch diggers.

    0|0
    0|0
  • If she can pass the requirements, I see no reason why she can't be in front lines of military combat!

    0|0
    0|0
  • Good.
    Now they just need to be forced into the draft as well, men have been for a very long time in order to earn their right to vote, perhaps it's time women pony up as well. Equal rights, equal responsibility.

    1|0
    1|1
  • of course I agree... if they pass the requirements, why shouldn't they be allowed?
    as long as they don't loosen up the requirements too much I don't see what should be wrong about it

    1|0
    0|0
  • Don't really agree with it, no. But what is funny to me about it is, if women want the right to kill like a man in combat, that's okay, but don't want to be blamed for killing anybody else in the real world, because "women by nature are not as violent as men."

    0|0
    1|0
  • If they passed THE EXACT SAME REQUIREMENTS
    Then okie but I doubt they will be a lot to pass that
    Men are stronger physically and women are stronger mentally that's the nature

    0|0
    0|0
  • As long as they can do the job, and they are willing to kill. War is an ugly business and they need to be able to handle it.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No problem as long as the basis doesn't change.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I believe we should let stupid people of both genders have the freedom to be pawns in our government's game to rape brown countries for their natural resources.

    0|0
    0|0
  • More from Guys
    20
Loading...