Is it sexist for me to think that women dont belong in combat roles?

[Chthou95]

I don't believe women belong in combat due to biological different roles. Men are stronger and can withstand more when it comes to combat/battle scenarios. This isn't me saying that women dont have any value. They do but not in this reguard. Their suited for other things. There are things men do better than women and there are things women do better than men. Its a balance. For milions of years men went to fight wars and we're biologically suited for this. Men we're also designed to protect women and keep women out of harm's way. And this is because men are physically stronger. Is there a woman out there that can hold their own and fight at the capacity that men do? Of course but this is an exception. In general most women aren't like that or built for such a thing. Gi jane is a movie, not reality. In movies women can beat up men and throw them around but reality is a different tune. And despite all that i do believe they have a place in the military, just not in combat roles.

[BCA6010]

When I was in the infantry, soldiers who weren't scoring 270+/300 on the APFT or couldn't complete a 12-mile ruck march to EIB standard were looked down on as sh*tbags, keeping in mind that standards for men particularly upper body strength and running are much higher to begin with. It was an extreme fringe minority of women who were even capable of keeping up, let alone actually wanted to do that job. Hip injuries sustained in ruck marches were also the primary injury that gets female soldiers kicked out of basic, and at the time, we were doing increasingly long marches every other week.

The bottom line is there's no way to shoehorn women into the infantry without either accepting arbitrarily weaker links as a standard, or forcing/tricking unwilling women into the job just to pad numbers for political reasons, and that never goes well. It's one thing to have a set minimum standard based on the realistic demands of the job and allow willing volunteers to sign up for it even though it would exclude about 97% of women... It's another entirely to force something through at a loss just for pushing an agenda.

I'm specifying the infantry as a personal anecdote, but it's largely the same story with the cavalry scouts, armor, artillery, and I assume combat engineers.

[Anonymous]

No you’re not. While there are exceptions to the rule a majority of women can’t endure the physical stress of it all. I was in the Marine Corps for 10 years, infantry for the first 4 years. Infantry is no joke it breaks you down over time. Bad knees, back, feet, etc. I remember once we trained w female Marines. While they are Marines their physicality wasn’t up to that of the men. Always lagging behind, some needed help carrying their equipment, etc. Fuck I hated the infantry after my first year. What person wants to be out in the field, nasty as fuck sweating like a pig, wearing the same damn underwear for days, not showering for days, raunchy feet, etc. Freezing your ass off on some mountain top in South Korea in the middle of February. Eating nasty ass MREs. I currently work at the VA hospital. So I know this but a lot of people don’t, just cause someone was in the military doesn’t mean they were on the front lines. Everyone’s experience is different. So when I get vets who come in who want to have an attitude throwing out this I’m a veteran, I say nice, so am I. Then I ask them what MOS they did, only to find out they were a POG. I was a grunt.

[Unknown29]

Of course you’re not sexist. Congratulations! You’ve just passed biology 101! Men ARE physically, and quite often emotionally, stronger than women, and the advantage is more than you think. Arnold in his prime had less of an advantage over the average man than the average man does over the average woman. And about the most pathetic thing I’ve heard of is reducing the standards of the military to allow women in combat roles. For example, a man has to do 6 pull-ups to get in the marines, while a woman has to do 1!

[NaultD]

In the USA military it takes 4 support roles to battle ready a single combat role. It's even a majority of men that can't fill these combat requirements.

Is it sexist not necessarily but to discount the support roles needed to sustain combat roles is more then a little bit.

[SaoirseS]

You're exactly right. You get it, I get it but neither asker nor anyone who complains about this is ever going to understand the realities of combat planning, service and support, and sustainment. Even addressing it anymore with askers like this one is a waste of keystrokes.

[Chthou95]

Naturally if the majority of people who join the military are men, of course more men are going to fail in the combat role

[NaultD]

Guy your missing the entire point.

What is a combot ready person without support? A fucking dead body.

To discount or discredit any military service role is disrespectful and compromises combat roles.

An ace pilot is grounded without engineers. Ground army without logistics is a sitting duck. A navy without navigation is lost.

[Chthou95]

What does that have to do with women though?

[NaultD]

The reality of the military and how no role is greater then the other. It's only together it builds a force.

So super ranbo without 4 other people men and women will be instantly killed in reality.

[Chthou95]

I did say that women have a place in the military. Just not combat. Medics, supplying, engineering are better suited for women

[Dargil]

Is it Knifeist to believe a knife is less suited to a gun fight than a gun is?

[SaoirseS]

This again. Have you ever served in the military?

[Chthou95]

I dont have to, to know there's a difference in combat between both genders

[Anonymous]

I know a woman (former cop) who said that women shouldn't be cops.

[Opinion Owner]

She doesn't think you're sexist

[Molly1997]

I can’t do anything physical I’m weak af lol