Having actually been in that world several years, it's my opinion that there's nothing arbitrarily wrong with women in uniform, but the standards and expectations should be rigid regardless of sex, or else you end up creating an inevitable weak link in an organization that can't afford them.
There's also some realities the consider that often get ignored or covered up for political reasons:
When the US Army was still using the APFT, the minimum passing standards for women on the pushup and 2-mile run event were far lower than that for men; a woman could get away with doing half as many pushups and finish the run somewhere around 2-3 minutes slower and pass. Additionally, a woman who was achieving well above average (like top 5%) scores would be mediocre at best if it was graded by the male standard, and typically well below expectations in say an infantry unit. This means a unit's fitness scores could very easily be skewed simply by having more women, and on paper should be solid and "fit to fight," but would actually underperform in direct competition even while those other lower-scoring men are getting their hides tanned for having lower scores.
Now there's plenty of criticism to go around about the formal fitness tests and how unrealistic they are towards replicating what soldiers would actually have to do on a combat deployment, but there's an exception: ruck marches. Long foot patrols in light infantry units typically involve carrying very heavy loads for hours at a time, sometimes across multiple days. The number 1 career-ending injuries for women in the service are hip injuries usually from carrying loads that are much lighter than that (35lbs is the standard for most timed marches while a combat patrol is typically 55lbs or more, sometimes exceeding 100lbs). Women generally do not have bodies that are able to take that kind of stress; it's not healthy for men, and it's even more devastating to women.
All of that being said, I'd rather have a motivated woman in my unit than a passive or belligerent man any day of the week, regardless.
Having served in the military and been on a number of Ops, yes women can and do serve and should serve.
They contribute a lot to the overall effort.
I have done a few command courses with women on the course and it’s really good how they often approach problems differently and get a good result.
also with Asymmetric warfare, what has been experienced in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places, you have women serving on the front line along with guys.
these are combat medics, bomb disposal experts, IED hunting team members, intelligence , drivers, helicopter pilots etc,
Also when guard duty comes up and someone needs to stag on to protect everyone, those women also do guard duty and protect everyone there.
They are armed and can shoot as well as guys, range time is range time and shooting is just a thing everyone does, you don’t get a weapon unless competent.
The suicide bomber does not care about the gender, age, etc of their target, so why should we worry about the gender of the person slotting them?
Men still seem conservative on this subject lol
@julielamar2 likely those that have not served or actually been on Ops since 2000
yeah maybe, in any case it's cool to have a positive man's opinion on this subject
Of course. Anyone who wants to serve their country should be given the opportunity.
A little off topic but still relevant... I took a gun shooting class a few months ago. The instructor told me that some of the best snipers are women. In general, women take just a little bit longer to line up their shot and make sure they have the right angle, whereas men tend to go in guns blazing. The instructor said he has been shooting his whole life, but when he met his now-wife 8 years ago, he started teaching her how to shoot and she was just a total natural. According to him, she's a far better shooter than him now.
I would compare it to wanting to become a firefighter. If they can keep up with the expected demands of the job. They have to pass initial screenings regardless. Just like the boys.
I know a number of proud female ex military. It usually runs in their families.
@David_Kek Do you think that’s a positive or harmful?
It's harmful. Men aren't given those requirements because patriarchy and just penis, they're given those requirements because those requirements are what is required to do the job. The requirements were lowered for women for no other reason than politics, which will get someone killed.
If I'm collapsed in a burning building, and the only person that's there to rescue me is a firelady that couldn't pass the real requirements, then i'm dead. And if she tries to lift me out, then she's likely dead too.
@David_Kek I agree. Also stand by my original opinion meaning. Woman should meet the job requirements.
Opinion
99Opinion
Women should be allowed to serve in the military, but not on the front lines. It's been proven in several studies that not only are women physically weaker, but that women mess up soldiers psychologically and that seeing women killed or hurt in combat is more traumatizing for them, than fellow men (especially since society favors women and treats us like we're disposable pawns *meant* to die in wars, anyway). But putting women on the front lines just for cheap "diversity's" sake, is stupid as f*ck. There's plenty of roles in the military where women can serve without having to be on the battlefield.
Women also need to pass the same standards as men and shouldn't be treated lightly just because they're female. Granted, only like 1% of women would pass, but that's a good thing, because the military is only supposed to be about the "Best of the Best" anyway. And I'm sure some women are machines like that and can proudly serve. Not all men are 6'2" and built like Captain America, as well. Some men, even 5'9" and smaller, end up passing, so women could possibly pass the same male criteria, as well.
I tried to join the army myself at age 20 (I was depressed and suicidal), but they told me I was 11 pounds overweight and that I couldn't join.
Note that the recruitment criteria have already started to drop slightly, to include minorities.
This question is too broad, and you need to specify. "The Military" has hundreds, if not thousands, of job options. To rephrase your question, I'll ask "Should a woman be allowed to be a Military Physician?"
I assume you meant "Should women be allowed into combat or front line military roles?"
To answer that, it depends on the woman.
I'm prior SpecOps Air Force (I don't give a shit if you don't believe me. I don't need to prove myself to you.)
Can she pass the exact same physical tests as men?
Can she fireman carry me when I'm dead weight?
Can she perform in a live firefight?
If you can answer yes to those three questions, then yea, fuck it, let's roll.
If the answer to any of those questions is no, then obviously no, she shouldn't be in a combat role.
Having been a SpecOps troop, I've seen my fair share of women attempt front line roles. 99% of them can't hack it. But there was one, SSgt Finn, who was a bad bitch. She held her own with the rest of us.
I'll put it like this: As someone who has been in firefights, I absolutely do NOT want a woman in my squad that cannot drag or carry me away from danger if I've been shot. As a fit, 205lb man, that with the added weight of my gear comes out to around 245lbs, that rules out 99% of women.
Should they be allowed into combat roles, based on morality? Yes. Women deserver to die for their country just like men. (A bit bitter when put that way, huh?)
Should they be allowed into combat roles logically? Absolutely not.
Women should serve in non-combatant roles only and a long way from the pointy end.
Anyone who advocates for females in combat is either an idiot, who has no idea of soldiering, or a traitor who wants to destroy the combat effectiveness of the military.
There is no place for parade ground suffragettes in the real world. They will die (or worse) and so will anyone who has the misfortune to be around them.
I am a former Australian Army officer and I can say with authority that there is no place for women in combat.
Female soldiers who serve in rear areas should be trained for combat, but never used for it.
Why should they be trained?
Because in war, shit happens. In a war between armies, an enemy can break through and end up in your rear areas in a matter of hours. People who are in those areas in support roles need to know what to do if that happens.
In a guerrilla war, women should not be in theatre, because there is no front line.
In the real world, a guerrilla enemy would take delight in abducting a female, then shooting video as they pack rape, torture, mutilate and then, finally, kill the female soldier.
The one exception that I would make would be females in Intelligence Corps, who can be uniquely effective when they interrogate Muslim prisoners. It is remarkable how a Muslim will give up his friends when a female soldier places a used sanitary pad on his face, or forces it into his mouth.
Ugh, people so misunderstand the military at the most basic levels. The majority of military is infrastructure. A much smaller component of the military is the actual combat soldier. Most women could do most jobs in the military. Where I don't think women should actually be is in the special forces.
And the reason purely physiological. There are some strong women. There are some women that are stronger than some men. But when you are talking elite physical condition, even most men cannot qualify for those positions, much less a women, it would be less complicated if people would get off their high horse and simply admit that men's physical limitations are vastly higher than a female's physical limitations.
I guess it doesn't really matter much anyway. America is losing it's power very quickly. We have become very adept at losing.
I still haven't gotten over afghanistan and I won't for a while. Keep in mind there are still about 450 American citizens still stuck there, if we presume them to be alive.
People are trying to run private charters to get people out and it's the U. S.'s own state department that is preventing these private entities to land planes in or near ally airports. But I digress...
since roles and gender norms have changed I no longer see a point in stopping women from doing that if they want to. the main reason it was stopped throughout history is because women were needed to produce new live and bring up more. Now that many aren't even having kids at all, or if they are they're having like one or two, or they're gay I dont really see any advantage to them sitting on the sidelines. They've become as replaceable as their male counterparts to the state and society.
It's only a great loss for women who are wanting multiple kids. Those are the ones we really can't afford to be losing to some bullsh*t war in some irrelevant third world conflict. I'm not talking from a moralistic or human standpoint. Just looking at it from a practical one. Before anyone gets all upset I think all life is precious. I have to go anon because I know some people get some emotionally sensitive when you look at it from the logistical aspect and can't separate their feelings from their brains.
No. At first it seems like there's no harm in seeing if women can meet the same standards. But then there's evidence to suggest that men in mixed squads behave differently and make different decisions. e. g They're less likely to make the strategically sound choices because they're less likely to leave a female behind, and those squads performed worse than all-male squads. Then on top of that, I hear some shit about women in the military. Basically, if a woman is in the military and if she's not on leave, then she's single, simple as that. She can be a great girl when she's at home and all, but she is not in a relationship while she is deployed. A bunch of physically fit people working and living together? She is likely fucking a bunch of those dudes. It's nasty. I really dislike such circumstances where women indulge in a majority-male environment. That's a big turn off of the military for me. I prefer to be in the reserve as a weekend warrior and keep my distance from full-time solider women.
Men and Women both bring different skill sets to the military. If you take the best of both skillsets you can make a great team. The issue comes down to direct combat and enemy to enemy fire. When someone on your unit gets shot by the enemy, the males have a natural instinct to chase whoever shot their buddy and get them down with all means. Its unusual to have women who have that instinct, they do however do great at taking care of the person that got shot, but the emotional part of seeing someone get shot reacts differently between the genders. Its a really awful thing to see someone get messed up from watching people die.
Women should absolutely have the opportunity to do their part and serve their country.
My only gripe here, has been the recent development that it's ok to order women into combat situations. Not that they should not be allowed to train and prepare for combat, but to place them purposely in combat situations. To me, the cons heavily outweigh the pros.
Maybe I stand alone in my thinking, but I feel that our women are one of our many national treasures and should be respected and protected as such.
Women were always part of warfare for thousands of years and always frowned upon. The fact of the matter is, that women on average are less effective on the battlefield. They can be good in supporting roles but in combat they can endanger their own team. Individual women can be great however. Therefore my position is that women should never be encouraged to join, but if they do and they fulfill the same strict requirements as men, they should be free to do so. What I think is a problem is when we have different standards for male and female soldiers, which is often the case. I don't care if it takes more effort for most women to reach the minimum standards in certain physical tasks. As long as you can show you are not a liability, go for it!
He probably also thought a woman’s place was in the house cooking, cleaning, and pregnant (raiding children). As a people, we’ve evolved. The glass ceiling is slowly disappearing.. women are the heads of Fortune 500 companies. A woman can definitely have a excel at a career in any form of the military. If it’s your dream, go for it!!
Raising* have and excel at*
And women should be forced just like men in the event of a war.
If you want to make your own comment on the thread to expound upon or agree with mine then, by all means, please do so. I don’t believe in the draft, period.. Forcing someone to fight or potentially die for their government is ludicrous.
I agree that we evolved, but there is still a significant physical difference. There was an experiment in the combat USA military (marines I think) that sums that women can do men's duties, but with more time. Time is crucial in war. So it depends in combat, and in special units is of course a disadvantage.
—Nothing I said had anything to do with this. There are plenty of active roles in the military that don’t have anything to do with combat or being on the front lines. There are many things SOME men can do better than SOME women and vice versa. Do you realize how archaic you sound? There are female Army Rangers and now a female Navy Seal. Can and should women be able to join the military? That’s what I answered.. and I’ll reiterate. Yes, they should!
Evolved to popping out autistic kids at 35 and sending them to daycare lmao.
Wow… what in the actual fuck?
@Mia_MadisonOF i believe in equality
Women can and should join the army, yes. But if you look at the average soldier, men have the advantage. It's not *some* it's most. If the army set the tests' scores equal to join, fine. But if the army lowers the standard for women to join those units, it's reducing it's power. Of course women in average do other things much better than men. But in combat, it's different due to physical.
For more than 100 years now, women in some armies such as the Russian one have performed their services in combat. They did it in World War I, they did it in World War II. Israel did so throughout its history. Kurdish and Yazidi women did it against Daesh.
As far as I'm concerned, women should be forcibly drafted in the same way as men and sent to fight in the same way as men. Modern warfare is not made up of physical clashes with white weapons where physical strength is one of the main determinants of possible victory, it is made with weapons for which physical strength is of little or no use.
So women who complain of not having physical strength, in that case become substitutable for men in the event of a conflict.
Equality is equality even when you have to take the bad parts that determine equality. In case being cannon fodder is one of them.
Personally I think women should be allowed. The reason women weren't allowed in the military for so long is because they would get pregnant real quick before the days of birth control and abortions. They didn't want soldiers chasing women or fucking when they should be fighting haha. Before and in the beginning of the days of guns, fighting wars was more about brute force. Nowadays a woman can pull a trigger just as easily as a man, but old ways of thinking still hang on. Plus I think most men would be traumatized more by seeing a woman he knows or is romantically involved with get killed right next to him, as opposed to a man. Less women would mean guys start fighting over them, too. So part of that was to protect the morale and fighting spirit of the soldiers. There's a lot more to it than just men usually being physically stronger or more aggressive.
@julielamar2
equal opps of course it should be allowed
i guess women may have to consider the treatment they could get if captured but then men can be tortured too
war and fighting is a nasty thing so there are always going to be chances of bad consequences.
just watch out for the controls on relationships as that could be tricky one to navigate. u would have a lot of guys to choose from and be in demand lol unless u enjoy open relationship in which case u would get very erm full filled lol
just read other post i agree that woman would have to come up to standard on fitness etc. also women might actually help as they might see things differently and have some compassion when its needed
We know compassion can be a disaster in politics and in the military.
how come your pic was of uk female?
isrial has compulsory conscription inc women russia had many women in the military during ww2
this is a photo taken at random on the internet
@julielamar2
how so?
This applies to any field that women are not normally part of. Inclufing police officers, military, and firefighters.
I support it, if, AND ONLY IF, she gets there on merits, skills, and can pass the EXACT same physical and mental qualifications as, men are required to pass.. Which in most cases they are not. In fact, in most cases, the requirements had to be lowered substantially just to get women to pass.. Because the fact of the matter is this, women simply can never be as strong or as fast as, men, no matter how hard they work at it..
When their requirements are the exact same as men I will support it.
Women have been involved in most military conflicts regardless of being in the military or not... throughout all of history.
Why not let them train in warrior skills so if they've served their country and are now home and still getting invaded the invaders are going to face prepared mothers who are going to fight more efficiently and effectively defending their children and home.
Equal rights helps make equal the fight!
Eh, women compromise the strength of modern organized fighting forces. That isn't to say women are useless in war, men just make better soldiers in a uniformed fighting force. We can look at female fighters, such as french resistance fighters and Russian female snipers from WW2 and see how effective they can be. But when there isn't a shortage of soldiers, we're better off with only men.
I know some army girls that could pummel and gut most guys I know. Females can be just as dangerous as men, despite their lesser physical strength overall.
Look at it another way.. A guy might be 2x stronger and 4x larger than a mean dog, but that dog can still fuck his day up.
Yes, women should be allowed to serve in any capacity they want.
Yes, I think women can bring a lot to the military, different view points and skill sets. Your grabdfathers views are traditional and not really the norm these days. I've know a few serving military women and they have done well for themselves. The bottom line is there really is no career that women shouldn't be involved in if they want to be.
good but should be done on merit. the problem is people can't handle being told "you aren't up for this job".
I'd divide them up and keep women off the front lines as much as possible due to risks of abuse.
I'd put women under command of women.
My sister who is a marine would disagree with you. Her mixed platoon finished first in the crucible above all other male or female platoons.
Its ludicrous to think it should only be for men , of course women should be able to serve , and they are put though severe physical tests , the forces needs gender balance and away from some horrendous cultural issues that arise in male only environments , with all due and utter respect to the OPs Grand father , this is an outdated opinion , women will serve , they do serve very well , and they play a vital role.
Its certainly should be an option for women who wish to take part.
No women in the military unless she is a nurse. Too many lawsuits from them for sexual harassment, always complaining about something or another. We still need them to be here at home being a real mom to their kids instead of flying a jet going MACH 10 over an oven on the other side of the globe. Children miss their moms!
Of course it will be total feminist thing if woman dont serve because every place woman ask equality and in this service if they want it will be totaly unfair. If woman think they are weak and they survive on man money it will be total unfair its like man are working slave and woman have to leave lavish life sit home all alone. Woman should join special forces should take part in special operations too
I mean for 4000 years women were never dragged to wars - In fact they were not allowed to do so in order to be safe - Fast forward to the late 1970s men are being blamed for keeping women at home - Cool stuff isn't it? So no I say let everyone have their own choice - It's not like the number of military personnel will ever go below 80% male
This is strictly speaking not true. Women were never "dragged" to wars. Some armies did actively exclude women, many others did not. Female warriors were of course always the minority, but were mentioned surprisingly often in the chronicles as numerous combatants on the battlefield. At least one medieval fencing manual shows a woman demonstrating top techniques of the day used both in street fights and on battlefields. This means either it was common, or it is the authors commentary on the subject.
@Shizunk Yea I guess you're right - I think it was predominantly greeks and the Chinese that didn't actively exclude women - The others it was from what I've read just a story of being the queen or the half sister of the emperor and such otherwise women weren't involved - I'll have to look into medieval times since that it seems much more strict for a woman to fight in any army during such times than before - If I look up this manual it will just pop up on google right?
Not sure about the google part, it is not even obvious at first glance it's a woman. I mean the one formerly known as I.33 though. That is to distinguish her from mentions of judicial duels, which I don't count. I saw those come up in search.
Antiquity is full of accounts of "barbarians" having a high percentage of female fighters. It makes sense with migrating tribes but apparently settled ones did have that too. Post-reform romans liked to notice this.
I am less sure about the exact prevalence in medieval times, it didn't fit the accepted narrative in many countries.
And of course we have many accounts of female squads in modern armies.
In certain non combat rules, sure.
In combat, maybe, if they pass the same physical requirements.
But generally, maybe not, since basically the whole point of war is for men to protect their wives and children. A society that has their woman do their fighting is already a failed society, either due to moral decay or desperation.
If a woman is capable of meeting the same physical requirements as a man, then I don't mind if she joins. The problem is that men and women have different physical requirementsfor joining and branch of the armed forces, and naturally the men's requirements are more difficult.
Well, as a navy pilot, I highly value my female colleagues.
The military and active combat roles should be open for women, AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE SAME REQUIREMENT AS MEN DO.
Which is the case in my squadron.
Why? Because physics and bullets don't give a fuck about your genitals.
Not everybody in the military served in combat roles. Women can serve in many other capacities that don’t require hand to hand combat.
Also radical Islamists are terrified of being killed by a woman in combat. An all female special ops team could be a very effective psychological warfare strategy at fighting terrorism.
I will just say this. I have no way to "prove" this comment. I have spoken to several now-retired FOGOs! (Flag Officers General Officers) all of the true data is being withheld! I'm not privy to this data, but I have been told things are NOT as they seem. Outside of this, I have no opinion on this topic!
Personal i think is ok, but i will put some serios psihological test to ge in for womans then to mens.
If the girl really want to do the army service i will accept just not to be a princes when she apply.
I olso think some time but i will like land forces.
I believe women belong in the military if they can handle the training. Same goes for men. I served in the Navy as a Corpsman, which means I was boots on ground with Marines more than I was on a ship. The BEST and most badass Corpsman I know (and my mentor while I was active duty) is a woman. I'm just as proud of the women I served with as the men.
Until and unless they reinstate the draft, AND a woman can meet the minimum physical requirements (no raising or lowering the bar for just women) then by all means, there is no reason not to allow woman to have the freedom to serve their nation same as a man if they so choose.
They can do jobs in the military but not front line combat because they tend to be more useless same with cops. They can do any job but fighting in the front lines just isn't one of them. Unless they really can commit to it but most often than not it'll end badly.
As someone who was a soldier I can honestly say without hesitation that women in the military are the most useless thing. The disgusting chocolate bar in the survival rations can be proven more useful if I'm hungry. The same goes with female police officers. That's one of my favourite subjects. Female police officers are just human radios that are calling for back up so that a man can come and clean up the shit they're supposed to clean. Jobs that require masculinity are for men.
Behold female police in action.
Three policewomen against one 'refugee', who fends them off as though he was being attacked by small yapping dogs.
I would have put a round through Jamal's head, then reported a suicide. . . but that is just me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EWu-9uYKlw&t=74s
@cth96190 I have seen this before. I was looking for it. But this one is probably my all time favourite.
French policewoman starts screeching once the protesters start attacking the squad car that SHE is driving. If it wasn't for the man to encourage her in the best the protesters would have beaten the ever loving shit out of her and strip her of her equipment. But the best part is in the beginning. Stop the video exactly on the first second and look at her. That's Instagram livestream. She wanted to livestream to her thirsty orbiters about what a tough girl she is and just seconds later started screeching autistically.
https://youtu.be/cfhV-46nvJ4
As I watched that video, in my head I heard the song Do You Hear The People Sing? from Les Miserables.
I support the yellow vests, but had I been one of those cops the first brick would have been replied to with lead. Bricks can kill.
As for the protesters who stood in front of the moving police vehicle, I would report their deaths as suicides.
Yes, there are plenty of women who can deal with that pressure.. There is possibly a larger fraction of men in the population that can serve, but there are certainly also men who are not cut out for it. Should look at individuals when considering this.
It totally depends on the country and the mentality of people. Speaking upon my country, it wouldn't be a good idea for women allowed to be able to serve in military, because they could not be as disciplinary as men would be, but generally speaking, it's definitely gorgeous to see female soldiers and mercenaries serving in the military. Hence the equality amongst the genders, women can perform as well as men do.
I'm sorry, but he's right. My American History teacher (Marine/Counterintelligence) told us what the enemy did to girls... He told us these things graphically, when a girl in ROTC brought it up. She decided to become a lawyer, instead. Our school district is awfully patriotic, so he was protected enough to be able to carefully tell us the truth.
According to most of my army ex coworkers everyone in the military are extremely promiscuous, so more women is a plus for them haha.
That and women should know that if they vote for someone who will drag the USA into war they will have to go die as well.
If that's what they want to do, then sure. If were going to start bringing sexism back you can absolutely count me out!
It's not a matter of want. They should be forced just like men.
Typical American.
Even worse
That’s a load of BS. I know a ton of strong female veterans, they’d tell your father otherwise 🤷🏽♀️
Same.
in an all volunteer military in a time of peace its fine. sorta.
in a time of real war when we need to actually draft people (ww3 is 10 years away tops) it becomes a big hindrance
a study by westpoint found that for every 100 men we train we get 70 soldiers out of it. for every 100 women we get...8 soldiers out of it. the mass production of soldiers is therefore limited by allowing females as our resources would be better spent no training them
Women don't make the best infantry honestly. That said they make great pilots, and support staff. But strapping 60-100 pounds of equipment onto a 110-130 pound woman and having them march 13 miles a day isn't a great idea. It's not a matter of gender its a matter of physics at that point.
I'm old school women don't belong in certain jobs in my opinion. But it's different in certain countries. In some everyone must be in it for oh so long male or female.
They can serve if they desire to defend their nation.
I just don't support women fighting on the ground. Too risky for her and other soliders.
And don't mention training. In training they aren't firing live rounds at you nor are they dealing with a severe wound to the arm or leg in which a real war something like that is going to happen.
thats a massive catch 22. in a real war numbers play a big role and not having women fighting would be counterintuitive... Its not that women shouldn't serve, its more of when do women need to serve, outnumbering is a tactic, and a spooky one at that
Well... technically the best thing about the military is it's sports. Most sports athletes and Olympians actually start in the military.
Most of Great Britain's female Olympics winners are military personnel.
for me, when it comes to national security, it is better to utilize as much human resources possible. I mean women aren't always the type that fit the old-fashioned 'gender role' path. Women are humans too and they have lots of other things and skills, especially when it comes to becoming a soldier. So i think yes women can join the army. The problem resides in how women and men get along in the military.
I think women should be able to do all the jobs that are available to men. Times were different back then, especially with women having to be dependent on men and that’s no longer the case.
That all sounds great on paper but a soldier is supposed to be able to drag a wounded 170kg (370lbs) battle buddy out when being overloaded and tired themselves.
Most men are easily trained to this level. While only a very few will ever get there and that is with added hormone and steriod use.
Also periods cause a lot of problems.
And there are many other issues, so clearly women are not fit for every job.
Women would do great in less physically demanding military or civilian jobs.
Edit "While only very few women will ever get there..."
@cookiecrusher that isn’t exactly a requirement for the military. Plus there are so many different job options in the military
I think men should go to military, it's men job to protect the women, children and elders. We're pyhsically more enough to be solders.
I think in these modern military times there are plenty of acceptable and perfect jobs for either men or women. I do not think women should purposely be put in front line combat positions.
Why is this even a question? Doesn't matter if it's a good thing or not... it's what's fair.
Women want to be equal right? Let em do what they want then lol.
Conditionally yes. There are assignments, such as Special Ops that many women are physically unsuited to. But others? Absolutely. These girls flew Ground Attack in Afghanistan in the A-10 Warthog. Women were also bombardiers in B-29's in world war 2.
In today's society they deserve to take the same shit as men. When females are completely ungrateful for everything men does they should defend their own lives. Not be defended by men.
I think best of the best should be in the military.
Regardless of gender or race.
Making physical tests easier, which is currently happening to be more welcoming to women, will only get more peope killed.
It's fine, I've served with women. One of my COs was also a woman. As far as basic training goes, I think the units are mixed in the US navy. While the units are monogender for us, they can do still battle training together, hell, even sparring.
there's lots of reasons they don't serve on the front lines. 1. they can't carry a severely wounded 180lb man several miles back to a helicopter to get treated back at base 2. they're at risk of getting kidnapped and raped 3. hand to hand combat against someone who's twice their size or three times their size and strength would put them at high risk of getting killed
I think it's ok.
And I don't see anything wrong with anyone of any gender/sex being in the military.
I am all about equality, as long as everyone is treated equally and standards are not dropped to accommodate any one sex, religion, race or creed.
But every aspect of mo isn't designed to accommodate for both genders. Ei. My sister was disqualified for MP because of her height. Which in the marines is a mandate of 5 foot 6. Her 5 foot one forced her to be a inventory clerk. Where as a 5 foot one male could be a MP.
Also i am 6 foot two and my sister after MCT can pin me 50% of the time. And i think she goes easy on me.
@Nightroads there is a hieght requirement of 65 inches for MP... there is not difference in that requirement for men or women. So this illustrates my piont... 65 inches with is 5'5. So I do think your intel on 60 inch make is correct. I don't think your sisters ability to pin you is relevant to this question or my response. Nor do I think that just because your sister can pin you that means they should waiver a requirement just because she's a women.
Yet they waived me friend who is 5 foot 4, and he is a male... i wonder. But as for my misinformation, my bad i meant to hit the five instead of the six on my phones keyboard. My thumb is 3 quarters of and inch wide and the screen allows less the a quarter of an inch between buttons. My bad i didn't catch it.
@Nightroads. I don't think height is wavierable but if they did it was for something more than him just being a man.
He along with my sister both excelled at the written test as well as the physical. She aslo achieved an acting corporal rand where he only achieved PFC out of boot. They both went to Paris. She contested the decision and was told it was a matter of him only being and inch short were as she is four inches short. But she marked higher in both physical and academic qualifications.
@Nightroads so there you go it cane back to hieght not gender.
In a mathematical sense she scored enough above him to a lot a higher amount of leeway when it came to hieght.
@Nightroads o really only have your word on it, and ots based on heresy. I don't know tge facts.
Heard, either way a bias is in play. I joined the Marines too and saw it as well. But i don't have any proof to put on the table. Lets just call it fake news for now. We can circle back when we get our ducks in a row.
@Nightroads i will always defend the Corp
Hurah!
Hmmmm. I think females soldiers can be as effective in different ways.
In times of peace, and from an individualistic standpoint, I don't see any problem, but I honestly don't know how it would turn out, if there was a war going on.
Only segregated in all woman platoons. Time has shown mixing them up creates far too many problems, which in a life of death situation such as war means people are going to die for no good reason.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
