Should women be allowed in the combat roles?

i say nay, I believe they should not be allowed. because women are not as fit as men are (women aren't even held to same physical standards as men in army.) While women may argue this point saying we are equals they lack the necessary hormones that make muscles grow faster and stronger and even disregarding this fact typically weigh much less than their male counterpart. just the fact that we separate men and women sports teams shows this fact, if we believe their should be separation for such trivial matters as athletics, how much more so when it comes to the safety of our country (there are many more reasons but it would take a long time to go through all the examples and such)

  • No
    Vote A
  • Yes
    Vote B
  • Idk wanna check poll
    Vote C
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy
Updates:
lol atta way to block me anony just so you know women fight against women in mma not women against men it wouldn't be fair
f*** it I'm done with this post women don't do the same work however you are all stating that they do, they have to do half as many pushups as their male counterparts and have extra time on the 2-mile run

0|0
815

Most Helpful Guy

  • I've known women who are much better shots at the range and in better shape than a lot of men, many can prove themselves as capable for combat as any men, their body types are in many ways more capable for survival, they can be more patient and rational, etc. They are absolutely as capable.

    That said, I am surprised the main objections raised by leadership in the military haven't been raised here, because I do think those objections are valid. First, men are more likely to be irrational with a combat casualty or capturing or something happens to a female in their squad, etc. The objective of the mission can be compromised if the male soldiers act irrationally because of some chivalrous attempt to save the female from undue duress, etc, when one casualty would otherwise not be worth sacrificing the mission. Second, a woman POW or KIA tortured and shown to the American public can too adversely affect the larger mission. This society struggles enough seeing male soldiers in those situations, and good missions (debate the value of war elsewhere) can be sacrificed more easily because of one female casualty. Women can be effective combat soldiers, the question is "should they be". I don't believe so.

    PS. "Krieg ist in der Politik die schlechteste Alternative!" -Otto Carius

    Note: some SPAM ad popped up and messed up the poll as I was trying to vote "No" so it registered a "Yes" for me. This site is quality...

    0|2
    0|0
    • i agree with second part but I've never met a woman who is stronger than a man and in a combat situation muscle endurance and strength

    • Show All
    • even then theyre the exception right? is it really fair or necessary to put a plotoon at risk just so a few can try and help? personally I think the benefits outweigh the consequences if that makes sense

    • I still think since some can have the same skills and physical ability as guys that that isn't a reason not to allow them. I still am not in favor of it because of my reasons though.

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 8

  • If they meet the physical standards that the men have to meet, then sure, if they want to join.

    As for lowering physical standards to be "equal" and increase numbers of women in the military for PC purposes? HELL NO. We may be equal intelligence-wise, but most women do not have the muscular strength of men. If there ever is a draft in the U.S., I will be royally screwed, as I cannot excel in physical tasks like push-ups, etc. Being small, weak,and physically disadvantaged (PMS/menstrual pain), it was a relief that I could never be drafted into combat.

    And now that women are officially allowed into combat, I have to worry about getting drafted and thus fearing for my safety, getting raped, and being given ridiculous tasks inappropriate for my size/muscle mass.

    1|1
    0|0
  • So, if I pass the exact same tests and the exact same training and prove myself to have the same necessary qualifications, I still shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat? Now that's something you've got to explain to me first please.

    And no, if the training is not the same as for men, then I'm against it too.

    1|1
    0|1
    • the training isn't the same, hence I stated in their the army pt standards are different

    • Well, then I think there SHOULD be a standard training which is exactly the same for both. The way it is now, no women can ever prove her true qualities in the military.

  • My boyfriend, who was a Marine, had this conversation with me. We both agreed that if a woman could pass all the exact same tests as a man, then yes, she should be able to, but since there would be very few woman who could and would want to, it would be pretty pointless to make a new platoon or whatever they are called, to hold just a handful of woman.

    0|2
    0|0
  • No

    1|1
    0|1
  • If a woman is capable of fighting and doing just as much as a man (even without being as strong) then heck yes they should be able to. That's like saying men shouldn't be allowed to be doctors because they are less compassionate. Its ridiculous

    1|3
    1|3
    • that makes no sense compassion isn't a physical attribute what it would be like saying is "no a monkey cannot be a doctor because they don't have opposable thumbs." strength is necessary in combat its not like a secondary trait which you are making it out to be

    • Show All
    • LOL really? Its an opinion? Funny is that I work in healthcare and I I worked 3 years previously at a hospital and patients would complain if a nurse or physician was non caring. They wouldn't recommend their physician to anyone else. That's YOUR opinion but the fact is that people do look for compassion in medical workers and human resources look for compassionate people to hire.

    • i didn't say it was an opinion that people want a caring doctor, I meant that whether or not somebody is caring is an opinion and either way its pretty far off from the topic at hand but whatever

  • yes, everyone should be drafted then they would stop all wars. I would love to see some rich elite's daughter fighting in war.LOL!

    0|2
    1|0
    • The rich would just get around it because they own the system. You know, like they have done in previous wars.

  • As long as the qualifications are the same, sure why not?

    0|1
    0|0
    • because theyre not the same damn I don't understand how else to word that

    • I got that. That's why I said "as long as". And since it isn't, my answer is no. The more important question should be "Why aren't women allowed to do the same training as men?"

  • Just like in policing and fire fighting roles. If she can meet the physical requirements I see absolutely no reason why she should not be able to.

    However, I see you're from Aruba, so I don't give a damn about the women over there fighting. But in America, we can all shoot and fight just as well as the men.

    4|5
    0|2
    • lol really then why don't women enter the boxing ring with men?

    • The do. It's called MMA.

    • Generally because sports have been fairly sexist/separatist for a long time.

What Guys Said 14

  • Here's my thought: they need to make a standard based on the physical and mental need of the job and whether you are male or female, if you can't cut it then deal with it. What I have a distinct problem with is bending the rules to accommodate people. I am a firefighter/paramedic and an instructor for the academy in my county. We were told by the state that men and women need to be held to a different standard of physical ability and that, to me, is bull. I have ran into hell to pull a victim out, and news flash they didn't care that I was guy; they just wanted to be saved. My problem isn't with women working these roles because the firefighter that backs me up on scene is a girl and I trust her with my life. But you can bet your ass that she is just as strong as me (if not stronger), my problem is bending the rules to accommodate specific people. If you can't do the job then just don't do it. By agencies doing this, they are putting unqualified people (and the people around them) in danger. Period. But again, let me clarify that if a woman can meet the requirements of the job then she should have EVERY right to do so.

    0|1
    0|0
    • a woman is stronger than you? I understand your argument but have trouble believing that she is stronger... I just got off a discussion about this with a former professional female power lifter and laughed when she put up her weights because I don't even work out that much anymore and am average size for my age and beat her out in all of the exercises. as your regular 18 year old male

    • Show All
    • All I'm saying bro is if she can meet the same physical requirements as you can then I see nothing wrong with it. I'm simply saying they shouldn't dumb standards down for women. And yes, she can drag a 260 pound dummy 100 yards.

    • motivating

  • As a MP in the army, were often used just as infantry and women have been allowed in this MOS for a while now. That being said my squad leader refuses to have a woman in our squad and I completley agree with him. The woman in my company are blue falcons and have no idea what there doing most of the time. I personally wouldn't feel safe with one of them watching my back. Most of them barely qualifiy with there weapons. Not to mention that would cause a bunch of distractions and you obviously can't joke around as much in front of them. So no I don't think they should be in combat roles, I'm sure there's good woman soldiers that are amazing in combat but that's more the exception then the rule.

    0|3
    1|2
    • i don't really understand why they would put loves at point to prove that were "equals" and females seem perfectly content to take the lower pft standards lol I'm at a military school and the woman passing rate for pushups is 19 whearas the males is 44

    • yep 19 pushups is the APFT standard woman 18 - 21 years old. Its not equal at all not to mention if they need to drag a wounded soldier in full battle rattle or pick somebody up they prob won't be able too. A lot of woman on deployments don't watch there sectors correctly, can't clear a room and pass out. I'm going to deploy soon and I thank my squad leader everyday that I don't have to worry about somebody not watching my back.

    • But the idea would be, that they only would be in combat roles if they're qualified enough. So what's the difference then?

  • Women are going to get offended obviously. By the way, you're wasting time arguing with *that* one because you'll never get the last word and in the meantime you'll have to deal with red herrings, ad hominems, and straw men.

    0|1
    2|1
    • Might as well say my name since you are obviously talking about me with the "that one" comment. In the meantime I won't be wasting my time with this post of yours :) Have a good day

    • Show All
    • i just pissed because she's gonna get the last comment and people are gonna be like you lost and I'm just like horse sh*t

    • For the record, I don't believe in a gender ban. There are women strong enough to take on a combat role and they shouldn't be denied because of gender discrimination. I also don't believe in lowering the bar to cater to those less capable.

  • I may sound sexist in the modern world, but I've generally been against women serving on the frontline for my entire life (I'm just old fashioned like that xD)

    0|2
    0|1
    • Well, it's OK if you're old fashioned and prefer women not to serve on the frontline. But legally forbidding them to do so, even if they have passed the necessary training is not being old fashioned, it's discriminating.

    • holy f*** if one more goddamn person says women pass the training!

  • If, through training they prove they are capable I don't see why not.

    I'm not in the military so I have no say or no legitimate opinion. Talk t soldiers. See how they feel

    1|3
    0|0
    • im in a military school and everybody hates it because women don't have to meet the same standards and are a liability

    • Show All
    • question though even if they are able to do the same physical labor they still require separate barracks and showers, this is highly inconvenient don't you think?

    • If it disrupts operations than yea. If not?

  • I don't see why not. As long as the standards stay the same then they should be allowed.

    1|2
    0|0
    • but they aren't the same because they can't pass so what to do with the current stiuation?

    • It's simple, don't pass the test then don't get in. Standards should be set up to cover the minimum skills needed and if you can't make them then you can't be expected to join. Whether you're male or female.

  • If there was a universal test that everyone had to pass then sure why not?

    1|2
    0|0
    • There used to be a rule that only taller men could be in the military back in the day.. They felt shorter men couldn't perform as well in a cohesive unit. I think that same argument is being applied for the people who don't want women in combat roles.

    • not really height is still an excluding factor in flight. but you don't hear short guys bitching and complaining about not being able to fly a plane

    • Perhaps they should be.

  • Yes, also they should be legally allowed to be drafted if it ever came to it same as men could be. Yes, people can still be drafted, it's just VERY rare and only in times of dire war or so.

    2|1
    0|0
    • why? they jeopardize the success of a squads mission and endanger lives...

    • Says what legitimate study or proof? Just cause they are women doesn't mean the men are gonna be lusting over them. If they are trained and capable soldiers, they'll do their job. If they aren't, then women or not being there, they'll screw up anyways.

    • Agree with this.

  • Yes but only if it means combatting bad odours and bacteria at home

    0|2
    4|1
    • lol I'm at a military school and one of my female classmates was telling a joke. "why did the woman cross the road" I don't know "what the f*** was that bitch doing out the kitchen!" lol sexist chick

    • Show All
    • That's not even funny.

    • yeah it is

  • If they can do it well why shouldn't they be able to?

    1|3
    0|0
  • If they can achieve THE SAME EXACT standards as men, then sure let them have a combat MOS. Since they would be exposed to the same combat conditions as men, that's why I think they need to maintain the same standards as men.

    I think you assume that every woman is some small, dainty thing. What about the women that could actually hold their own and do just what I'm saying, achieve the same standards as men?

    As for your update, sure in hand to hand combat the assumption is that men have the advantage. But what about when they have a rifle? Bullets make everyone equal. I think the debate for the longest time (besides physical aspects) is "Can women handle the stresses of combat like men? Would women getting hurt or killed affect the men any differently than seeing their fellow males getting hurt or killed?".

    0|4
    0|0
    • sure fist fighting was the only thing but they don't have to run as fast (pft) theya can't carry a wounded soldier their bone structure and hormones prevent them from acquiring the same muscle mass as men...

    • Show All
    • lol not bout this one it was most all the chicks. ya if they can attain the same. but that's not what is happening. as is the woman being allowed in are jeopardizing the success of missions, and physical safety of their comrades.

    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's deep enough in practice that they're even in combat MOS's such as light infantry yet. Hopefully politics will be realistic rather than idealistic though, as people could end up getting killed for the purpose of "equality" and "gender-less standards"

  • I'm pretty sure that there is a physical standard that everyone fighting on the front lines has to meet. As long as the standard is enforced rigorously, I don't think it would make that much of a difference.

    By that, I mean that there is a bar you have to meet to fight in the front lines. I have no problem with a woman on the front lines if they meet this bar. If they can do it... they can do it. It should be held constant for everyone though... male or female. The standards shouldn't be changed to accommodate women. If you don't fit them, you shouldn't be on the front lines, whether you're male or female.

    1|1
    0|0
    • that makes sense but they aren't held to the same standards pt test... and even extending beyond that fiscally speaking women need separate barracks showers this is all carried by the soldiers and will put more of a strain on them. picture in a combat situation where a large man is shot and there is only a woman who is able to grab him and then try and drag him off the field, we already know that this isn't likely because of paramedics. women paramedics are paired with larger men

    • Show All
    • its actually 19 push ups for females during a record APFT

    • and 44 for males... a female max is the same as a males minimum, its because of their bone structure in their upper torso they simply aren't physicaly able to get as strong as their male counterpart

  • Ofcourse they should be. What kind of sexist ignorant pig would say what you described in your question

    4|3
    0|2
    • lol who would state facts? any intelligible human being

  • Just another thing women want to be able to say they have "taken over", just like they took over Victorias Secret (it was originally a store for men). They also took over the idea of wearing heels (it was originally a mans idea) and they've also taken over the fact that women are now graduating college more than men

    Lets face it, women rule

    0|1
    3|5
Loading... ;