StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Should women be allowed in the combat arms of the military? Yes or no, and as always, why or why not?

Why not?

Just because you have a uterus doesn't mean you are incapable of killing someone.
Then again, I am opposed to all war, so I don't think anyone should fight, indescriminately.

They should be subject to the same requirements that a male is. Someone shouldn't become a soldier just because they're a woman, but if they can do the same amount of pushups as the next guy, then sure, why not?
And even if you think they shouldn't be put in combat positions, you'd have to be a retard to not think they should have to register for selective service.
Why don't women protest this? They're being withheld the full benefits of being an American citizen...in that they don't get to be drafted. I mean, they don't have to get drafted to the trenches; there are plenty of wartime desk jobs that even the most sexist citizen can agree will be adequately filled by a female.

Anyhow, yes, I think they should be allowed in the combat arms of the military, if they can pass the same physical and mental tests that the males can. (P.S. - they can)

Considering that my mom and my sister are both "Annie Oakley" types.

Sure, if they want too, no problem

Now if we can just get the other soldiers to accept them.

A lot of women in Australia leave the ADF because they are harrased (sexually or otherwise.) I thing more attention should be put on that.

This is a particular pet peeve of mine. I find it absolutely offensive that women demand (and get) equal rights but are not required to submit themselves for the defense of this country the way we are. That's pretty much having your cake and eating it too. The sexist double standard of Selective Service and our Divorce/Family Court systems are the best examples of the growing "OK to discriminate against men" attitude that the rabid militant feminists have brain-bugged into our country as being "acceptable".

I say let them into everything but Infantry (and Special Forces). In today's army, thats really the only field where there is actually a forseeable need for upper body strength. If a comrade in arms is wounded, one to two men, in fit shape, are capable of moving (to a helicoptor or a truck) all but the heaviest of men. The average woman, even one who went through basic training can't do this. That means, that someone will DIE because a woman/women can't do what a man/men can do in the same situation.

If, however, a woman proves that she is capable of doing this, then I have no problem with that specific woman going into Infantry.

I don't think it should become like everything else feminism touches--quotas of women to deal with 'affirmative action.' We should not comprimise defence for sexism, on either sides.

I say no.

First, wasn't there some article/story somewhere's where the Isreali Defense Force mixed women in with a regular infantry unit as a test? i understood that they were successfull but took higher losses as opposed to an all male unit. (something about personel taking unessesary risks with wounded personell)

If people are stupid enough to want to pick up a weapon and get shot at by the other side....hell, let 'em I say

My feeling is that a) pushing a button to launch a missile doesn't require a specific gender and b) anyone who wants to kill people who are trying to hurt me by violently inserting small pieces of metal into them is fine with me, because there's no way that I'M doing it.

On a case-by-case basis then I can see it being done, but there aren't just physical barriers to overcome, there are psychological and biological problems such as hormone imbalance (true, can happen in men but not as noticeable) and period pains. That's not even counting the whole idea of men and women fighting, because we all know how sexually active soldiers can be even when women are just being discussed, latalone fighting with them.

If they can do it and take the risks and accept equality and not special requirements then they can go in by all means.

I have no problems with anyone being a soldier, so long as they meet the same requirements as everyone else.

Vympel wrote:Should women be allowed in the combat arms of the military? Yes or no, and as always, why or why not?

Absolutely. I think a woman should be able to join and serve in the military as long as she is capable of performing the duties. There is no reason to deny a woman the right to serve her country to the best of her abilities. However, there should be no lower of the standards for woman.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:I say let them into everything but Infantry (and Special Forces). In today's army, thats really the only field where there is actually a forseeable need for upper body strength. If a comrade in arms is wounded, one to two men, in fit shape, are capable of moving (to a helicoptor or a truck) all but the heaviest of men. The average woman, even one who went through basic training can't do this. That means, that someone will DIE because a woman/women can't do what a man/men can do in the same situation.

If, however, a woman proves that she is capable of doing this, then I have no problem with that specific woman going into Infantry.

Thats just the point. Hold women to equal standards as men, and if they can make it into the Infatry or even Special Forces, then let them in.

Vympel wrote:Should women be allowed in the combat arms of the military? Yes or no, and as always, why or why not?

First, women already serve in combat zones as soldiers in CS and CSS units, in support of combat units. They all go through Basic Training, which includes BRM, bayonet training, self-defense (now being replaced by "Combatives"). That being said, I don't think they should serve in combat line units (IN & AR). Women are different than men, both physically and emotionally (yes, it's really true). A job assignment should play to the collective strengths of a person in regards to their sex, not make exceptions for a select few who may be different in order to satisfy the social desires of civilians. I daresay that the vast majority of you who want women in combat-arms units have never served in a combat-arms unit, else your opinion would be more in line with my own (and yes, service does count, as does the lack of it). Read: THE US MILITARY IS NOT A SOCIAL EXPERIMENT -- IT IS A TOOL WITH WHICH TO FIGHT AND WIN WARS!!!

OK, I don't think women should be in the infantry for pretty much the same reason Ming gave us - it's not so much that some women couldn't fight, it's that the presence of a woman would affect the effectiveness of the men in the troop - by spending too much effort protecting her. How many of you guys irrationally defend your fave females - friends, girlfriends, sisters etc? Now imagine one of your female frineds is about to be killed...

innerbrat wrote:OK, I don't think women should be in the infantry for pretty much the same reason Ming gave us - it's not so much that some women couldn't fight, it's that the presence of a woman would affect the effectiveness of the men in the troop - by spending too much effort protecting her. How many of you guys irrationally defend your fave females - friends, girlfriends, sisters etc? Now imagine one of your female frineds is about to be killed...

And with the Military in mind, lust interest...

There will be some women who could handle it. They would be exceptions and could form an all womens unit. Overall though, I still say no. Too much BS to have to account for in a ground pounder unit, and women would end up being nothing but a distraction.

Pilots, that is another matter...

There is no reason to bar someone on the basis of sex from doing a job that he or she is capable of doing.

If a woman can live in a country, she can sure as hell die for it.

I agree with Jegs2 partly. I dont see any reason to not to let women serve in combat roles as pilots or aboard ship. But he 3 traditional combat roles of Infantry, Armor, and Artillery should be reserved for men. Unless said women can pass all the physical requirements for the job required of men. Then and only then should it be permitted.

One thing that never gets mentioned is faith in your fellow solider. If you know that women is not strong enough to drag you to safety or fireman's carry you, are you gonna want her in your unit? Same goes for a weak guy.

Winning in combat is not about feeling good, equal rights, or anything like that. Its about bringing home the most of our folks possible.

Okay, I know its just a book, but Harold Coyle wrote a few novels in which women are introduced into the combat arms of the Army. I does bring up some of the problems of such an issue.

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:I say let them into everything but Infantry (and Special Forces). In today's army, thats really the only field where there is actually a forseeable need for upper body strength. If a comrade in arms is wounded, one to two men, in fit shape, are capable of moving (to a helicoptor or a truck) all but the heaviest of men. The average woman, even one who went through basic training can't do this. That means, that someone will DIE because a woman/women can't do what a man/men can do in the same situation.

If, however, a woman proves that she is capable of doing this, then I have no problem with that specific woman going into Infantry.

I'm inclined to agree. dropping the standards so women can enter a certain feild is ludicris in my opinion.

Or, to shamelessly use a quote

"It makes the kind of sense that is...not"

innerbrat wrote:OK, I don't think women should be in the infantry for pretty much the same reason Ming gave us - it's not so much that some women couldn't fight, it's that the presence of a woman would affect the effectiveness of the men in the troop - by spending too much effort protecting her. How many of you guys irrationally defend your fave females - friends, girlfriends, sisters etc? Now imagine one of your female frineds is about to be killed...

They used the exact same argument against allowing Blacks to serve in the military, or to serve in certain combat units. It would Hurt morale so we shouldn't do it. The military will adapt as it always does. Right NOW women might cause problems, but that problem would solve itself because people would be forced to adress the issue and fix the problems.

Majin Gojira wrote:

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:I say let them into everything but Infantry (and Special Forces). In today's army, thats really the only field where there is actually a forseeable need for upper body strength. If a comrade in arms is wounded, one to two men, in fit shape, are capable of moving (to a helicoptor or a truck) all but the heaviest of men. The average woman, even one who went through basic training can't do this. That means, that someone will DIE because a woman/women can't do what a man/men can do in the same situation.

If, however, a woman proves that she is capable of doing this, then I have no problem with that specific woman going into Infantry.

I'm inclined to agree. dropping the standards so women can enter a certain feild is ludicris in my opinion.

Or, to shamelessly use a quote

"It makes the kind of sense that is...not"

Yet at the same time dropping certain standards across the board for certain fields is a GOOD idea. A woman with less upper body muscles can work in other fields, can fly a helicopter, drive a tank, or do other duties. That said, men with bad upper body strength can do the same thing.

There is a difference between preventing women from joining special forces and simply holding the standards HIGH but allowing capable women in special forces or infantry.

closet sci-fi fan wrote:jegs2 is correct.

Jegs is correct? Highly unlikely. He is making the blanket statement that NO WOMEN should be in certain fields. That in itself is very WRONG. People make good points about women in GENERAL, but not about all women. Not all people have the same capabilities, advantages, and disadvantages. There are some women out there capable of serving in the "restricted" fields. Don't deny them the chance.