Question:
What do you think about females in combat roles?
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
What do you think about females in combat roles?
60 answers:
The Solution
2013-01-23 17:13:55 UTC
I'm a FIRM believer in Equal Opportunity and Fairness for all.



That being said, every American has the Choice, the Right to join the Military or not.



The Military should have its rules and regulations based on 'How to get the job done.'



If, as you say the Rule is you pee down a PVC pipe, the ALL members of the service should have to live and abide by the Same Exact Rules.



If, you have to do a 10 mile hike with a 70lb pack in less that 3 hours, the EVERY member of that force MUST accomplish this task or they are not allowed to join that service, irregardless of height, weight, age, sex, race, or religion.



I am for ANY American defending their Country if that is their Free Choice.



I am against having 2 sets of rules, 2 set of criteria based on ANYTHING.



One set of rules for One force. Either you meet the minimum standard to accomplish the Mission, or you don't.
?
2013-01-23 17:26:47 UTC
All combat troops need to be competent and qualified. If that designation fits a woman, fine with me.
capitalgentleman
2013-01-23 17:40:14 UTC
Women have been in all trades in the Canadian military, including combat roles, and it works just fine.
Jessica
2013-01-24 03:40:33 UTC
The reality is that women have already been participating in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan because they've been forced to do so due to the nature of warfare in those wars. I'm sure you know that in those wars, the "front line" is often brought to you, not something you are placed on, and women in those positions have had no choice but to fight. It is only the "official" U.S. military position that says that women do not participate in combat roles.



Anyone, male or female, who is physically and mentally qualified - by the same standards across the board - should be able to do the job. Simple as that. Just because you, as a male, may be inconvenienced in certain situations by having females around doesn't make it grounds to ban women from combat roles. Why should it be all women who suffer simply because you feel you may be inconvenienced? Why should your needs and desires as a male automatically be placed over the needs and desires of women? I understand that it may be a logistical nightmare, which is why the military would have time to come up with ways they plan to implement the new rules, but 1) the problems you mentioned are far from being unsolvable and 2) wrong is wrong, unfair is unfair; no excuses should be made to maintain that.



As for the thought that allowing women in combat roles will cause "sexual tension" and "distractions" (I know you never said this yourself, but I wanted to mention it anyway), that is utterly ridiculous. Anyone, male or female, who is susceptible to succumbing to "sexual tension" and becoming so distracted by the opposite sex that they cannot do their jobs has no business in the U.S. military in the first place. People like that show a dangerous lack of discipline and a weakness of character.



TC, women serve in combat roles in many other countries and it has not made their militaries any weaker. Any military that would become weaker simply because women are allowed in combat roles is not a decent or strong military in the first place. Also, there are plenty of men who are not physically capable of serving in combat roles, yet ALL men are obviously not banned from combat roles. The men who are not physically capable are simply weeded out. Why should the rules be any different for women? There are plenty of women who would be qualified, but for those who aren't, they would be weeded out just like unqualified men are. And regarding your point about hygiene....do men not have hygiene issues themselves? That is a human issue, not male or female, and it's wrong to marginalize people because of it.
fleigen1
2013-01-23 17:08:15 UTC
I've often wondered about many of these same things. I don't know. Maybe people will just adapt. I suppose a woman will just have to make do with the same things the men have. Peeing where ever will just have to be part of the process. I have no idea how these concerns will be addressed. Lets hope all the wars stop and then no one will have to figure it out.
?
2013-01-24 08:30:43 UTC
You raise a lot of valid points but here's the facts- there are tons of strong, competent militaries who allow women to have combat roles. They deal with it, and the american military would learn to deal with it too.



Women are adults, they can make decisions on whether or not they want to fight in the military.



And on the biological topic- yes, most men are stronger than most women. The solution isn't to ban all women, but to weed out the ones who are not fit. Military training is very rigorous and difficult, and if a woman makes it through it than I can conclude that she is strong, fit, tough and as capable as any of her male peers. Sure, it would be hard to qualify as a woman. But the option should be open for her to try and prove she can do as good a job as men.



I am a canadian female btw, and my country allows women to fight in combat. Its not a problem here for us, and I don't see why the american government thinks that bnanning half of your population from fighting helps anything.



Just allow the women who WANT to join prove themselves.
Dax
2013-01-24 18:36:11 UTC
Anyone should be able to get involved in a combat role, considering they are mentally capable.
MJH
2013-01-24 08:57:33 UTC
I think you have a valid point, however, it is a woman's choice. You can't say "no, you can't do this" to that person - you can only have him or her do the exact same thing as the other people are doing. It is their choice and if you make their workload equal, they can't complain about racism or discrimination or anything like that.
friendofchip
2013-01-25 03:58:03 UTC
Oh get over yourself sweetie. The average man couldn't handle one day of a period and that's a fact.

Girls can take a lot more than most men, they're not afraid of a few bits of flesh. Guys get trned on by a skirt, women need a lot more stroking. You're really in love with being a guy, huh? Maybe the ladies will take the pill so they have periods 4x a year, and lots of exercise means loads of ladies don't even get periods.

You're so backwards. Sweet but true.
Eclectic Heretic
2013-01-24 10:04:57 UTC
Women already serve in combat roles in most of the NATO armies, have served in combat in the Israeli army since Day One, and have served in the Russian armies in both World Wars, in fact women were some of the best of the Russian snipers. Women have served in armed forces openly or clandestinely (disguised as men). In pre-biblical times in the Middle East, there were some notable warrior queens and also in pre-Christian Ireland.

And in Iraq and Afghanistan where there is no "fixed" front line, women are frequently in combat roles because of their duties, they just don't get credit for it even though they ARE getting shot at, shooting back, and taking casualties.

Blessings on your Journey!
Lauren
2013-01-24 15:57:30 UTC
This is, to me, such a ridiculous argument.



If you're at war, the last thing you should be worrying about is showering or going to the bathroom in front of the opposite sex. It's like female nurses in the hospital. You don't ask for a male nurse... because you're in the hospital and you understand that it's apart from normal situations. You're not thinking of the nurse sexually and she's not thinking of you sexually.



I can understand how it might take some getting used to but really, women had to 'adjust' to being 2nd class citizens from birth since the beginning of history... to survive, we adapted. Can we now, not ask a man, a soldier, to pull up his boot straps, gather his courage and watch us take a crap or shower? What more should women have to sacrifice for the comfort of men? I really think in dire circumstances (like being involved in a natural disaster) modesty goes out the window. I'm sure it wouldn't bother women to see a man naked, why can't a man just deal with it?



Again, really really not feeling this argument. Seems to me, that since women have proven they can be soldiers, we now have to come up with this 'undue burden' idea. Get over it. You can go to war and get over the 'undue burden' of putting your very life on the line, seeing blood and death, losing friends but naked boobs and/or female genitalia is so terrifying? Makes no sense unless you're a 12 year old boy inside a man's body. Again, I can understand initial discomfort but it's something that can easily be gotten over.



Personally, I'd be more concerned about the number of rapes that take place in the military (with men getting raped at a higher percentage than women)



And I should add, not one iota of special treatment should be given to women in qualifying or in living arrangements. If she has her period, change that tampon right there. Menstruation is part of how all of us come into existence. Why does it frighten men so much? If a woman can't handle it she won't join up... but that a man can't handle it is ridiculous. It's a period. No big deal. Not to be snide but PMS would be more of an issue to worry about than seeing a woman change her tampon. PMS can cause serious emotional shifts in SOME women. That, for me, would be something to look at, if, as a woman, we're being honest. PMS can throw a woman off her game for a few days, not the period itself. The hormone imbalance before it starts. It would be up to the woman to be honest with herself as to how much her PMS or period heaviness effects her life. I doubt a woman with period issues would be trying to join up in the first place.
Dear A...
2013-01-25 09:08:51 UTC
Personally, I don't understand it. I had a conversation with a close male friend about it (I'm female), and he made the point that if they meet the physical and mental requirements, then 'let'em go!" I think it could be a problem in several ways, including fellow soldiers not feeling as confident or safe as they would with a male back-up, that could affect how they behave and react on the front line. This is a reality, whether you agree with it or not. I've never been in that situation so I don't know what it might be like. I agree about the concern with them being captured also, but they would know the risks going in, so that isn't a valid argument against it.



This might sound sexist (and possibly it is), but as much as I think that women are equal to men with most things (and sometimes better), there are some things that women are not 'designed' for, combat being one of them. Men are designed that way, they a physically built for it, and I think to a certain extent, mentally built for it. Women, by nature, usually are more nurturing (usually), that is their design. Call me sexist, but men are men and women are women.
RRR
2013-01-25 16:59:02 UTC
The trade offs for SUPPOSED equality is just not worth it for women nor society in general. It pays to be a strong, independent, yet loving woman, however to take on the particularly ugly responsibilities generally reserved for men helps to rob a female and society of the spiritual, psychological and physical beauty needed for the cycle of human life.



It's not that women are not capable of most things that men do, it's just that (in my observation) the affects of women performing currently male dominated actions appears too adverse to their physical, mental, and spiritual welfare. I suppose if men would treat women like ladies across the board and esteem them highly and if women could respect men (yep I know we've made that a little tough throughout history) then the combat role would not be such an issue.



Come to think of it, it is probably not a huge issue at all, but just another way for the press to ruffle the feathers of those who do not know that this question has already been wrangled with many years ago and solutions have already been implemented. We have many younger people who do not realize that this matter has already been carefully considered and that they (as well as a few that have forgotten) have fallen prey to media manipulation.



Women, ladies, girls, please consider what I and the person before me (MN) has written as there is NO spin but just plain talk and truth given to you from 2 individuals who do not know each other.
Kyle
2013-01-25 19:36:56 UTC
Any man or woman who can fight should be able to fight. When and if a woman signs up for the Army, Marines, or Navy, they should know in advance what they're going to go through. Perhaps eventually the millions and billions of dollars sent for the war will be spent on making gender-specific bathhouses, or having comfy beds for every tired head.



That's in the future... as of now, a woman should not have any privacy problems if they signed up for the USMC, and should share the showers with the men, or go at a designated time before or after the men do. A female does not require more luxury than a male, regardless of what society has embedded in the minds of many. In the USMC, society's rules no longer apply. Women should be treated as men, except they have different body parts. I do not see a problem with a female Marine... just the discrimination she's bound to get by her squad mates... and possibly rape.
2013-01-25 06:35:28 UTC
The Russians used women in combat in WW11 , ok I admit they were hard to distinguish from men, and women worked in the mines , steel works there for years. The problem I see is when a woman is captured, how the loonies will be able to extract the maximum propaganda from the videos, etc etc, how do we react when we see a bloodied face of a captured soldier, imagine the scenes of children back home in the western world viewing mummy with a broken nose and wearing a Hajib ? Any one can carry a gun and kill others, even children can walk into a school and shoot others. The question we should be asking not not how are who can kill others, how we can help others to live, a more difficult battle.
?
2013-01-25 12:17:44 UTC
I agree with you MN and served 34 years in the military (1972-2006) and deployed and was embedded with the Army and Marine Corps a several times. While there were sometimes women there also they were not assigned combat roles and I think and believe that it will put a lot of stress on those males serving in a combat role as well as put them at greater risk. If they can not meet the same physical requirements then they should not be serving in those roles like what this change is going to allow.



The Marine Corps has already had to implement a lower physical female standard for how many pounds a women can lift, how fast they can run and far, etc that they now employ for combat related roles that causes some problems in the field at times. Allowing women to now serve directly in a combat role really puts everyone else at greater risk from a mission standpoint. Besides this there are also the behavioral, mental, and psychological aspects of this and how it affects the rest in that combat team and it greatly complicates that and compounds many problems that all will have to deal and live with while in the field as well as when back home.



Lastly it is a double standard if they are not first going to require them to register for the draft and be eligible for that just like their male counterparts already are required to by law. To me it is insane on the one hand not to want to draft them or they be draft eligible but yet willing to put them in combat roles. To anyone who supports this idea I would ask two questions:



1. Would you want your daughter, grand-daughter, niece, or sister to be draft eligible and drafted and can you accept that?



2. Would you want them serving directly in a combat role putting their own lives at greater risk in addition to everyone else in a combat unit or team?



If the answer to either of those questions is no then people better head this off now or they will find not just their sons, brothers, and fathers at greater risk but also their daughters, sisters, and wives.
The Devil
2013-01-24 19:12:31 UTC
People have to learn this the hard way. In industries that were required to give women fair employment, a lot of women couldn't cut it- some tough ones made it. You can adjust people but some problems do not adjust- they get worse. Women who can qualify should take the tough positions, but isn't it all about the bottom line? Combat pay is a strong incentive, but if you could get in a time machine and go back to 1942 and 1954 and 1968 and stand side by side with men on the firing line in Germany, North Korea, Vietnam, women wouldn't see it the same way. We have lots of machinery and equipment that makes it look easier to be a soldier, but getting blown to bits is the same damned thing today as it always was. It doesn't matter what badge you pin on.



I didn't burn my draft card in the 1960's when all the hippie girls were calling you a hero for that and a baby killer if you didn't.None of them had to worry about being jailed for evading the draft either.



Look at how effed up a lot of returning soldiers are and how little compassion and support they get from the gov't. Women want that like a menstrual cramp forever. There is A voice shouting, "give me the right to go into combat". It is loud and may it get what it's asking for. Look at your sister and ask her what she wants.



Daddy has a wooden leg. He won it in the war- Pink Floyd.
Jessie
2013-01-26 01:26:41 UTC
1. Joey Crawford, do you have sexist issues?



2. People should only sign themselves up for the military if they know what they are signing themselves up for.



3. It's nice that you seem to care about the females in these conditions, but if a female is going to throw a tantrum about the conditions, there's no need to worry about them, as they will very likely get shot. In my mind, people who don't want to be shot or can't put up with the conditions are usually much easier to shoot. [From my experience in M9 Laser Skirmish, though that is just a game]



4. The toughest part of being in the military is being away from those you love, worrying you might not make it back, and losing all comforts and privileges.



5. The only way it could work for a female is:

She can grit her teeth and be tough.

Or the 'pamper deprived' female gets shot. [That might seem harsh to say that, but yeah....]



6. This is sort of not revelant to my answer, but WHY CAN'T THE MILITARY AT LEAST GIVE PEOPLE A PRIVATE BUSH TO DO THEIR BUSINESS. I believe all people should have the right to have some privacy. It's gross the paparazzi take photos of naked celebs, even in their own homes, some paparazzi even capture the photo from a mile away. Celebs should get their privacy, but that privalege is unfairly stripped off by the paparazzi because the paparazzi want more money. That's why I'm never becoming a celeb. ALL PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THEIR PRIVACY, ESPECIALLY THOSE FIGHTING FOR THEIR COUNTRY!
jaleel142
2013-01-24 20:40:17 UTC
Im in the Army and I've only been in for about a year. Women in combat dosnt sound like a good idea. Basic combat training is easy non and days and maybe more then half the females joining the army for just other MOS training never made it and maybe the rest just scale by. For them to actually attempt infantry basic training would be a waste of tax dollars and the governments time. Women are emotional and during combat situations where you cant wash for several days would be really nasty for a females stand point when it comes to hygiene
perfectlybaked
2013-01-25 17:49:10 UTC
I'm no masochist, but the day they let women into the Citadel should've meant fully "equal" things.



I would've assumed women were already involved in combat roles, but if it is only now just starting then there should be more.



Equal is equal.



You can't take what you want and leave the rest on the shelf and argue over what you don't have that you want under the concept of equality.



It's different argument if they want more.



Wholly different argument if they want it all.



Well, combat roles are part of the "all," and it ain't glamorous.



IDK I just find it easy to poke holes in arguments.
FilmChick
2013-01-24 14:55:33 UTC
I'm posting this before I read into any other opinions and answers, because I want my full and honest opinion out there before I can possibly be swayed by anyone else.



I'm graduating high school in 2014 and going to college under the NROTC program. For the last few months (ever since I decided that I wanted to be in the military), I was constantly doubting myself because I wasn't sure there would be a role in the military that I was fully willing to do. Now that Congress is opening up combat roles to women, my doubt is entirely gone.



I plan on joining the USMC as an officer when I graduate college in 2018, and attempting combat training. Like some news reports have mentioned, it is unknown if ALL combat roles will be open, or if there will still be limitations, exceptions, etc. In my personal opinion, I don't think they should start out with a coed unit, rather have an female infantry team. However if all goes well, I could see mixed units in the near future.



When a female marine attempts to "go infantry" or "go combat", there NEED to be certain platforms. Not just any woman could join infantry, and honestly, not every woman should. Standards need to be the SAME as their male counterparts. No enemy is going to look at us and think "Oh, those are women, let's go easy on them." Anyone who thinks that is an idiot. Women need to be able to carry a certain amount of weight, endure long hours of walking with a lot of weight, be able to support themselves and not totally rely on others for their survival. The military is all about taking care of one another, but if you can't take care of yourself, you're worthless to the rest of them.



Also, when a women signs up for infantry, she needs to understand that her privacy will most likely be going with it. Women cannot worry about their period and having to use the bathroom, they need to suck it up: turn round, go behind a bush, or in the trees, and get over it. You don't see me rushing off to the bathroom 2 miles up the road while I'm camping.



If anything pisses me off more, it's a woman complaining about "sexism" and how she needs all this certain treatment just because she's a woman. Infantry and combat are for those who can handle it, not for those who are only trying to prove something.



I hope this makes sense. Only the best should be allowed in combat, and not on lowered requirements. Combat is not gender specific, and it's needs to be taken very seriously. I hope one day I will be able to pass the test on the MALE standards and become an infantry officer.



Everyone in the military is important, but those who are literally on the front line (or hypothetical front line when it comes to the middle east) run the highest risk of the ultimate sacrifice, and are, in my eyes, so much more than a "Marine" or "Soldier".
2013-01-26 13:13:19 UTC
Piss on it! And piss when/where you need to0! We are not anything Special,hell china I hear has unisex bathrooms, both go in the same building! If this is a Major concern, I think we all need to rethink who we really are, as well as who should be in the armed forces.....the human animals w/too much dam ego and overly sensitive! Are you saying we have grown *** men who are still acting/thinking as if they are 12 years old? Yes, we do.

Perhaps the military should have tougher standards on the PSYCHE huh? Anyone can so calisthenics...I bet ya all cry & whine over this post too... we have wear a diaper damit! Oh' have some baby wipes in a lil diaper pocket! I think I just solved ur problems...again.

I never heard such a thing out of any other solider in my life.

Women were along side then in all wars, some right w/their man, they never had any issues such as this. Is it that we have a nation of well' you fill in the blanks.

Over sensitized whiners,even had some psychiatrist (enemy) in our defense Force who murdered our own warriors! What the hell is wrong w/you people? Get sensible logic will you!?pissing and pissing contest are the least of ur worries. When ya gotta go, you just go!
No One Special
2013-01-25 10:57:23 UTC
I am a woman myself, and I have mixed emotions. Men are physically stronger than women, that's just a fact of science. In hand to hand combat, who is going to win? Also what about the barracks? It's not like they can separate genders.
your mom
2013-01-27 13:58:12 UTC
Another lady here, I think it depends on the woman. If they can do their job competently then they should be allowed to join, but there is the issue of privacy. It would be fine if she were able to adapt to the lack of privacy, and if she had a massive stockpile of feminine products and to have some protection (if that would be necessary)... But even more than the problems of physical strength/privacy, if she were to distract the other men from duty in.. certain ways, it really wouldn't be worth having her in there at all. She'd be lessening their ability to do their job, when she was probably only as competent as some of the lesser men.
2013-01-25 19:02:14 UTC
Only a far & btw are not that guy most of u are. You all listen to the same dam poet & don’t know it! Piss poor philosophy always.. Also***

I have seen some small azz boyz in the military where they couldn't even fine 'men' siZES' for em! So, rid the small males too? I wouldn't want bias boys who haven't grown up to be on my team for sure! I want a solid mind to lead my squad & know who has their back & who may be a problem. Views & judgments like yours has been seen to make real bad decisions & many mistakes, I have see this time & again. We all have "READ ALL ABOUT IT" on every dam news sites available! We can come up w/1000’s rhymes & reasons why & why not, it’s simple what u got & how one uses it! I’d rather have a large women then a small man to cover me & mine…see? It’s all balanced out & even, hope ur never on my jury box in or out of me

The scales of justice are equal & we are all exactly the same inside where the spirit runs the body you see different. It combines as one…u do best w/both in unison to make that light/energy force one powerful magnificent machine! what is up is down & what is down is around, this simple doesn’t exist! You allowed your delusions become ur illusions your are not your friend, it’s imaginary, your very own societal intrinsic garbage you haven’t yet evaded.



Man are men but then again they might be wo-men who’…maybe men too!



A lil chemical change & va’ la’ ur a girlman/womenboy…tee hee hee

Yo manbitch you!
2013-01-25 08:00:09 UTC
War is hell huh? 1st it was gays you all worried about now its women...the older males may not have ur backs as quick so get rid of them as well? Feminine products is a worry? Use toilet paper if need be & makeshift privacy,use what ya got! Don't blame women for wanting the comforts of a overly commercialized country,they were born (males to) having it shoved into their minds! They will find out they can live w/out it when situations call for it. We as beings in human property's will fugue out whats needed in time of need. Wish we didn't need war in a perfect people we wouldn't...the world was perfect but low life's feel the need to Control all as if their important when its their rotten ignorance & plain ego harming this Planet & each other!

We must protect ourselves & our freedom from creatures such as these kinds. The more soldiers the better,lets not make this about pettiness of who's pissing where & how! If you all were not egotistical & all about me me me,know that all who have all their extremity's is all that is required to make up a perfect unit. That guy may not like you & cry friendly fire,the chances of a female (life givers) well' ya got a better Chance of this not happening. You all fear what you haven't experienced or know. May whatever you believe to be higher then yourselves walk along your paths w/you all. That's all you need really to have your back,that & trust of your unit.
canard651
2013-01-26 11:04:06 UTC
Yes, MN.

Combat soldiers must have their privacy!



Give us a break, and what happens if you were to see a mouse. All those "Eeek!s" would be deafening too!



Grow up. Any woman who has changed diapers knows the **** will hit the fan when the going gets tough. AGAIN, I say, GROW UP!
Robin
2013-01-24 14:05:41 UTC
I agree with all who have said that if women are going to be in combat they need to meet the same standards. If they can reliably meet them, then okay.



I have a friend who's a firefighter, and this issue comes up in his career, too. His question is, "If I were in a fire myself, and I were weakened or virtually unconscious, which would I prefer to see coming to carry me down three flights of stairs along with 70 lbs. of equipment? A 120-lb. lady who's fit? Or a 190-lb. man who's fit? I'd want the man."



So if she can RELIABLY keep the standards, and all her comrades KNOW she can and can place the SAME level of confidence in her in a pinch that they can in their male friends, great. But not only does she need to be able to run and carry packs, she needs to do so to the point where the other men in her unit are CONFIDENT of her ability to do so. This is a team.
Kindred
2013-01-24 08:16:09 UTC
As a female I can say that equal opportunity should be there, but in all fairness I think it could cause danger as well. I mean no matter how feminists try to make it equal, there is just a biological difference between men and woman granted there are women who are very strong bu that is very few. Most females are not able to physically restrain a male on her own. It is a risk that really shouldn't be ignored because it can be the cause of the lives of many people just because some girl feels she has something to prove. I agree with another poster if they really want to be equal then all the standards across the board regarding body fat and pt standards should be the same. Either way you look at it there is injustice and inequality, is it fair for woman to not have to meet the same physical requirements as men but at the same time want to do the same physically demanding job?
Edward N
2013-01-25 07:07:15 UTC
Our military is not a democratic organization. It has one single function which is to kill the enemy of our country. We train our troops to be the most effective and efficient killers with the most lethal tools and weapons. There are many reasons why women should not be considered "warrior" material and those reasons would be obvious to anyone with their head on straight. A field commander doesnt give a damned if you are a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, black or white. He just wants a team with one homogenous objective to find and kill the enemy with mechanical precision unhampered by feminine complication or need. Why do you think it was considered BAD LUCK to have a female aboard ship for hundreds of years? Many other countries have attempted to incorporate women into their armies and have backed off to a more appropriate degree. Americans seems to think we should do it anyway paying no attention to the experiences around the world.



Short answer: A pregnant soldier is ineffective.
nickidewbear
2013-01-25 23:24:59 UTC
I agree with you, and it's dangerous for the women as well. As a woman myself, I just don't think that--for example--putting women who are--for instance--dealing with menstrual cycles in combat is a good idea. This includes being able to get pregnant if, G-d forbid, they get--as someone pointed out--raped by their captors.
2013-01-24 09:44:39 UTC
I love how completely uninformed most of the people commenting are. If you bothered to crack open a book or two, you would know that women who are declared fit to engage in combat have to go through the same training as men, so their skills should not be in doubt merely because they are women.

Several nations have already integrated women into their armed forces with no negative repercussions not already associated with men. Of course some women will suffer PTSD, and other traumas both mental and physical, but don't men also?

The fact is women have already been engaging in direct combat and this just made it official. The battle lines as not as neatly drawn as most of you clearly think. More often than not, soldiers are surprised and all hands have to be on deck. Including female hands.

Another big deal is apparently the draft, women were originally excluded from the draft to prevent orphaning children, now that we have gay couples and the like however, it seems only logical to include women in the draft with the exception of nursing and pregnant women. If a couple gets called upon they have to make the hard choice of choosing who should leave, so do gay couples, so it's only fair. So yes, as a woman I say, include us in the draft, please.



Addendum: I would like to state however that men and women are different and will suffer different issues, but that shouldn't make us try to unequalise opportunities, I'm not going out and saying all women should join the army but the part of it that irked me was that women could not, even if they wanted to.

Also people here are under the misconception that women have not been stationed on bases or been engaged in combat situations before this, they have and they will deal with personal difficulties the same way they have been before. The same way the Canadians and Britons do.



Addendum: Also, women who are in combat have to meet the same physical requirements as men. No one's saying we are just gonna let women in, that would be a danger to their lives as well as ours.
2013-01-25 22:12:45 UTC
I don't see a problem with women in combat roles. The more the merrier right? To solve the privacy issue, the women and men and just have separate platoons. And as for peeing and showering in public, most women would not have a problem with it.
Ursus Particularies
2013-01-27 11:31:32 UTC
The bear does not like this for Army or Marines. Navy and Air Force okay, as long as TAD to Marines and Army is limited to secure areas.



Everyone should have better training for where they are assigned, not merely NEC or MOS specialties.



Weapons training should be far more thorough for any and all regardless of gender.



Prospects for female prisoners in many situations too grim. We ought not provide fun and games for the uncivilized.
chcghwkhw
2013-01-24 11:33:45 UTC
I support women in combat roles as long as women have to meet the same standards that men have to meet. If a woman can meet the standards and knows what she is getting into, then by all means, she should be allowed to take up a combat role.
lenpol7
2013-01-25 13:48:49 UTC
The 'fellas' just like to have their 'punch up' on their own , without the women getting in the way and distracting them.



Leave the lads to do the fighting, and keep the women out of it.

It is sexual equality gone mad.

When will these people realise , there is no such thing as sexual equality. The fellas do their thing, and the women do their thing, and ne'er the twain shall meet.



Men and woman are biologically programmed to be different, and no amount of 'equality' will remove that biological difference.

The French have the right phrase.- 'Vive la difference'.
?
2013-01-24 19:10:56 UTC
I think women should be able to serve in whatever role they want. If there's no privacy, well eh, there's no privacy. My cousin is in the army and she had to c**p in a hole in the dirt, too. She didn't care, and I'm sure many other women don't, either. If men can't handle themselves around women, then there's a problem (and not with the women!). Women on the front lines aren't going to affect your quality of living.
Ever
2013-01-23 17:18:01 UTC
I see your point. Not many women would ever want to be in those circumstances just because we females need all those stuff you listed. However, I don't see it as impossible. But i'd want to meet any female who's considering joining the infantry. So is my dad wrong in saying that females can't be a part of the infantry because females just aren't strong enough as men? I don't believe that but then again I don't know what men in infantry go through pertaining to the amount of strength they need to have. I'm 17 and I decided that i'm going to join the marines as soon as i'm done with senior year. So this question intrigued me.
2013-01-25 14:26:38 UTC
This shouldnt even be an issue. If you cant meet all the physical requirements and pass the tests, you shouldnt be able to serve. I mean even if your a male and cant make it through bootcamp they dont let you serve. So, if a female can meet those requirements, then why not? A male isnt any better if a female is putting up the same bootcamp stats.



Can you guys kindly check out my question i recently posted? thanks guys!





https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20130125131524AASXl2v
2013-01-26 19:16:48 UTC
Sorry, I believ in inclusion. Undue burden? You could use that excuse to exclude anyone who have different needs than the dominant population.



Having said that, I have no idea why anyone would want to fight; I have no interest in dying for my country.
Dylan OHara
2013-01-26 11:30:33 UTC
I don't really think it's to much of a good idea either. I don't think there really fit to be in the front lines. But they have the right to do what they want. I don't want to sound like a jerk but, thats honestly what I think.



P.S. Some women might be able to handle it.
Unstable Lies
2013-01-25 05:35:44 UTC
A woman who can't handle that won't be in the marines, chances are there won't be many who can.



But why stop those who can, and are willing to for our country? I don't see why my personal pity overwhelms their decision.
Kate
2013-01-24 18:18:41 UTC
The Viet Cong had plenty of front line women soldiers and they kicked the Americans out of Vietnam quite fine. What's wrong with men and women washing etc together? Too prudish by far.
?
2013-01-25 16:43:46 UTC
they will be subject to harassment and rape by their "fellow" soldiers. this is the biggest issue at hand. Send a few young women into an extremely horrific combat situation with a bunch of dumb f***ck american testosterone loaded soldiers and lets see what happens next....
Jamie
2017-01-27 11:18:34 UTC
1
?
2013-01-25 17:30:33 UTC
I don't like it either. There's no way a 120lb woman is going to be able to cover a 200lb man's back or be able to pull him to safety.
?
2013-01-26 00:09:41 UTC
If a woman wants to fight for her country, let her. She knows what she's getting into. Of course, women shouldn't be coerced to fight, but there's nothing wrong with letting them volunteer to fight.
Falstaff
2013-01-24 04:16:50 UTC
I am looking around this action for underlying motive.



The motive in this case, I think, is the government looking to broaden their base for conscription. These last two wars, they came up short of soldiers. What better thing to do than start drafting women too.



Many people will be the unwitting pawn of this agenda because they will see it as a stride forward for women, when in fact, it is a cold-blooded calculation of a government which always wants to keep the option open to flip on the imperialist switch as desired.
2013-01-23 17:02:10 UTC
Well you didn't mention that this only applies to the Females in the U.S. because in the UK and many other countries you can join up in anything - regardless of gender. Females are capable of learning the exact same and if not more then the male at the specific time however I do believe that the male brain may be able to learn more then the female.



A woman I know used to be part of the S.A.S and she put me to my knee's, back, and stomach and believe me it was painful! So woman are not any less capable of being violent.
?
2013-01-27 08:10:52 UTC
females will be a burden on males, males have to take care of the enemy and the females beside them.
♥honey♥
2013-01-24 17:24:07 UTC
You bring up some serious concerns. Every month I'm overdosing on Motrins tryin to handle menstrual cramps. I don't know what women in combat are supposed to do..ask the terrorists to give them time to take a warm soak in the tub so they can relax a little.



Why aren't women's rights activists opposed to this. What happens if there's a draft. Today they are ALLOWING women in combat, tomorrow they'll REQUIRE women to be in combat.
?
2013-01-25 13:57:59 UTC
It is a matter of personal choice
Inner Drive
2013-01-23 17:47:45 UTC
If women are allowed to be in any combat MOS then:



Make ALL women sign up for Selective Service (the draft) just like all men have to.



Make all the PT standards the same.



Make all the height/weight/body fat percentage the same.



Make everything the same.



If I was a woman, I wouldn't join the military because I am entering into a career where my expectations are so visibly less than that of a man. It's like winning the special olympics: at the end of the day, you are still retarded.
That Person
2013-01-23 17:03:24 UTC
I see where your getting at here and I understand completely in my opinion I think only men should be able to be foot soldiers because there probably woman out there that can handle it but then there's a large majority that can't also dying for this country is pretty cliche....make the other asshole die for his country lol
TC
2013-01-23 22:54:19 UTC
I'm a female and I agree that what you witnessed in Iraq should be raising serious concerns. And what about if a woman has her period, and runs out of pads/tampons, and then leaks massive amounts of blood on her uniform? The odor is strong and maybe can be detected by the enemy in a covert ground operation, never mind the inherent unsanitary conditions such a situation would produce for her and those armed service people serving beside her.



AND more importantly, how will the U.S. military be seen, and respected, by strong military forces of other countries consisting only of strong, tough males? Weak? Less capable? Easily beatable?



I'm sure there are plenty of very tough women who could easily handle combat roles, and they should join, on a voluntary basis - but then stay on the sidelines, helping male soldiers in other capacities.



My biggest concern is if this whole woman-in-combat stuff changes policy, making it the law that women must now register for the draft and be drafted (if the draft comes back), there are a lot of very petite women out there, around five feet tall on average, small boned, fragile, sensitive, who could never successfully carry equipment, never mind another wounded soldier...is there going to be a height and weight cut off in that case, to filter these many, many women out? And then is that fair to other bigger women? I don't know, this whole social experiment reeks of unforeseen consequences, if you ask me.
Armed with Inkstick
2013-01-23 17:03:36 UTC
I think I'll just paste the link to the last time this was written.

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20130123163246AAWsRpZ
Sherrel Z
2013-01-23 21:22:36 UTC
I am a female and I have to agree with you totally. I firmly believe that woman have no business in combat. The whole privacy issue besides, what happens if a man goes down? Is a female going to be able to lift her male counter part onto her shoulders and carry him out of harms way? I don't think so. And what happens if she's captured by militants that already hate our guts? Look what happened to Lara Logan. And she wasn't even in combat. Just in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are other ways to serve our country within the realm of the armed forces.
?
2013-01-23 17:14:53 UTC
You are absolutely right. While I believe that if a woman wants to serve her country by serving in the military, that is fine, but putting women into combat is simply absurd. A woman would find it very difficult to carry 60+ pounds of gear around alk day in a dangerous situation besides. That is about half the weight of many women. Women's lower bone density makes for more fractures, and they are more at risk for PTSD. The sexual distraction can only cause bad things at best, and deaths at worst in a combat situation. The females who get pregnant somehow will have to be shipped out, and someone else (maybe a male, hopefully?) will have to replace them. How will a 120 pound female get her 210 pound buddy out of a firefight? Or a 115 pound female? I know that many women are bigger than that, but they simply lack the upper body strength needed for a task of that size (weight.) Furthermore, the men by nature will want to protect the women. It is natural, and no "extra training" will be able to rid males of that. In combat, the men focusing on anything other than the battle at hand can easily cause the death(s) of another buddy. Please accept my humble thanks to you for protecting me and the other people in this great country.
Justin
2013-01-26 23:50:18 UTC
dont really like the idea
?
2013-01-23 19:44:26 UTC
I think it's bullshit.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...