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 
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?
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.
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.
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!!
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
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.
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.
You can also add your opinion below!
