Amazon.com Widgets

Should women in the armed forces be allowed in combat?

  • Why only men?

    They are just being sexist. When women were arguing that they should vote we did the best we could to legalize it.....And we did, so why can't we be allowed in combat? Why don't you tell me that...HUH! Why can't we? Its like the same thing of being racist. Sexist. We should be able to go in combat. We have the strength if we put our mind to it.

  • Combat knows "equality"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

  • Equal rights means equality everywhere.

    And those equal rights should include equality on the battlefield. Come to think of it, I'd rather be on the front lines with women troops. Women are generally excellent at strategy and considering multiple possible outcomes from a single event simultaneously, something that could save your bacon when facing hostile forces.

  • Yes they should.

    The user to my left brought up some good points such as running out of nutritional supply. But look at the women holocaust survivors who had been without food for more then 4 months and were still forced to work (or the Nazis would have killed them).

    I am a WWII veteran born in Poland and I have been in combat.

  • Women in the armed forces are already in "combat"

    Women already find themselves in combat situations and are injured just the same as men are yet there is this rule that women cannot be in combat and so when they get injured, they often do not get the awards and honors which they are entitled to and also do not get the medical attention and benefits which they deserve. There continues to be a double standard which does not benefit women. Allowing women to be in combat might resolve some of these problems.

  • yes

    Women should be allowed in combat. Not every woman who enters the armed forces is there to be behind the scenes. All of them went there to serve their country, and the ones who want to be in the front lines should be given what they want. They are not weaker, and should not be treated as such. If a woman goes into the armed forces, she is going with the intent to do the job she is there for. Women deserve the same right in that sense as men, and should be allowed to serve on the combat field.

  • I believe that women should be allowed in combat; the fact that women join the armed forces shows that they are willing to face combat.

    Any woman who joins the armed forces knows what she could potentially be signing up for. If a woman is willing to be a part of any of the armed forces, and not just sit at home, it shows that she is willing to do what it takes to keep this country free and safe. Women are just as capable in combat as men.

    Posted by: AmuckAlonso49
  • They aren't physically capable.

    Females are proven to be weaker than males. When a male comrade of theirs is wounded, they couldn't lift them up and get them to safety. To be in combat, you must be able to pick up another human being, and woman just can't do that. To just let women into the armed forces, the military has to give them watered down training, which gives you watered down results. Females in combat may be God for the people sitting at desks, but it ain't so good for the soldiers fighting for their lives in Afganhistan.

  • The facts say otherwise

    The British tested it in the early 90s. Too many females sustained career ending injuries. Nowhere near enough females passed to warrant the costly overhaul.
    The British tried it again in the early 2000s with watered down testing. Same results.
    Mixed-gender Israeli units suffered casualty rates 15-25% higher when they were allowed into combat. As a result "women in front line israeli units" is a myth. Plain and simple.
    "Gender neutral" means "watered down". You can't be intellectually honest if you simultaneously claim that women can physically compete with men while plugging your ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" to ignore the fact that the Marines have already dropped their 3-pull up minimum requirement for females and the army is admitting that it is going to change longstanding fitness tests.

  • Women aren't any good at combat

    Women are better than men at some things but combat isn't one of them. Women are more suited for nurturing roles not hand to hand. This equal rights is BS when it comes to military standards and women would just get more people killed for what? To prove a point. Never going to happen if people have any sense.

  • The military is about winning wars not equality.

    Here we are in the 21st century, shouldn't this be an obvious choice of gender equality, it's not the 1940's anymore right? Wrong. The military is a warfighting unit, and operates differently than society. We have to choose to make the most effective military possible, regardless of what we think is fair. It would be unwise to allow the statistically and biologically weaker and slower gender into combat. I am not a sexist, I am stating facts. The Brits found that only 1 in 100 female personnel could actually meet the standards held for men in the infantry. There is nothing wrong with admitting these differences. We are still equals. But women are statistically more likely to contract mental illness, %20-%40 more likely. Think about the number of male soldiers returning with PTSD, and imagine that %20-%40 higher. However, another problem is pregnancy and the hygiene women must keep up, that men just don't have to. As soon as a woman is pregnant, she's gone for nearly a year, the platoon is down another soldier. That is unacceptable, and sex is inevitable in the military. 73% of women who come out of the line of duty leave because of pregnancy. We must also think of the break in cohesion of the unit, the men are going to become distracted and protective of the women most likely, and there are growing feelings of women being able to to take advantage of their gender for promotions and getting out of duty, causing divides in the service. And what is America going to think the first time one of it's daughters is brutally murdered on camera by the taliban? Think of the outrage when 20 children were killed in CT. There are many honorable and better suited roles for women in the military, including mechanics, translators, and mediators (there are cases where foreign law does not allow our men to talk to their women), but infantry is not one of them. Please consider this with an open mind, I am not sexist against women.

  • Combat knows no "equality"

    The fact that women have not served in combat throughout all of human history should speak volumes to sensible people, whether in the military or not. Though I'm an 18-year-old male, this argument makes sense to me in a similar sense. Joining the military has crossed my mind from time to time, but people constantly told me I wasn't cut out for it. I was too young to understand that they were just being honest. There is a reason I can't join up: I'm autistic.

    I say this because my condition makes me unfit for combat: I have low muscle mass, I can't do push-ups to save my life, and am constantly at the mercy of high levels of stress and anxiety. Going into military combat would completely damage me beyond repair. I couldn't do that to fellow soldiers either. They would suffer just as much from my incompetence. So know that I have rejected the philosophy of political correctness and embraced reality, I can admit that combat arms is not for me. Although some of the reasons are different, I know women just don't belong in a setting that has always been dominated by males.

    I have nothing but complete respect for women, and I believe that chivalry is a code that every man should live by, but mixing women into an ugly war setting that can deprive any man of his humanity is a dangerous gamble. The harsh truth is that we, men and women, are different. Science proves it, and no social project can counter that.

    Let's face this too. As men, it is in our nature to want to be strong and protect women in any situation. It is our duty to make sure women are treated right and be put before ourselves, because that's just how much we value them as natural beings. The problem is, these days, many women look down on this with suspicion and contempt. Now, they've become so obsessed with measuring up to men, they can't face the reality of combat settings. How would men or women feel about being in close proximity when bathing, or if a man tried to assist a woman with carrying equipment , and the woman pushed him away because she thought he was being a big-shot? Need I say anything about a potential relationship developing on a battlefield? A couple would think only about each other and not their comrades at some point. A whole company could suffer the consequences for that. Sexual harassment could run rampant too, and rape could easily end up overshadowing all other kinds of war crimes, especially in the eyes of the media. Bottom line, we want a battle of us vs. The enemy, not a battle of the sexes.

  • No, it's not about what the individual wants.

    Just because a woman wants to serve in a direct combat role does not justify their being there. The matter of the fact is that it will destroy unit cohesion and morale. An infantry unit is a tight knit group of males that have to do everything in front of each other, EVERYTHING. Some men will not feel comfortable with women in the same unit as them.
    It's also not a matter of equality, because the only equal thing that will come out of this is the number of men and women coming home in body bags, and that is unacceptable.

  • Women should not be allowed in combat MOS.

    Women should most definitely not be allowed in combat. First of all, women do not have the strength that men do. If I were to be wounded in combat I weigh roughly 250 in full gear therefore I do not believe that a female wearing the same amount of gear would be able to successfully drag me to safety without assistance. Women also have their monthly period to be worried about and how they can't sit down in a fox hole for days on end without being able to properly cleanse themselves. There is also the factor of distraction. Men and women together in the middle of the desert will have the tendency to become attracted to each other which would result in unnecessary emotion.

  • War requires physical demand which a lot of females do not have

    In the military there is a double standard in testing whether a male or female is capable of serving in the Armed Forces. For example while a male is required to a minimum of 42 push ups, females only need to do 19. I know any one is capable of pulling the trigger of a gun but when one of your comrades is wounded or your team is in need of a full-on retreat I fear that the females would not be able to keep up. Their ability to survive in combat is much lower than that of males.

  • I think it would be a major mistake to allow women into combat arms

    First of all, I need to make many things clear. If you’re a civilian, you haven’t the slightest clue as to what you’re talking about when it comes to combat.

    Most of the military don’t have the slightest clue about combat either. NOBODY has any clue what they are getting themselves into if they’ve never been in combat PERIOD. Anyone who claims “they know what they’re getting themselves into” is a complete and total moron. The one portion of society, and more importantly, of the military, that knows most intimately what is required to be successful in combat is the members of combat arms. We’re not talking about driving to combat. We’re not talking about manning a turret in an MRAP or 1151. We’re not talking about being an outer cordon or convoy security. We’re talking about grunts. Moving over extreme distances, with extreme weight, over extreme terrain, under extreme circumstances. We’re talking sustainability here. Staying power. Not even from combat, but simply from moving TO combat. Living in and out of combat outposts or patrol bases. Doing daily foot patrols over some of the most rugged terrain on earth, walking a dozen or dozens of miles a day, with a limited supply channel, zero hygiene ability outside of baby wipes or water bottles, carrying 90 pounds of gear for a 2 day patrol, up to or even more than 150lbs of gear for extended patrols, on an average of 4 hours of sleep a day, for weeks or months on end…

    I have no doubt that given time, training, discipline, and a very good work ethic, there are women who can “qualify” for combat. And if combat operations were a week or two long and that’s it, women wanting to join combat arms would have a much more compelling argument. But combat operations go on until the mission is done. Whether it’s days, weeks, months, or even years. What happens after 4 months? What happens when the nutrition that a female is used to in the states is no longer available? What happens when the strength training and supplements that she does to build her muscle mass is no longer available? Men who “qualify” for combat, train for combat, and go to combat, sometimes don’t make it in combat. Those men are sent to the rear, they are put in a position where they can’t damage the mission. Every male combat soldier after 4 months of operations will look gaunt, will have lost a good portion of his body mass, and will not be as strong physically as they were when they entered combat initially. BUT, they will be in what I call “combat shape”. They will be able to indefinitely continue these operations because they have “trimmed” the fat as it were. Can a woman make that claim? Put her in a situation where she can’t work out, can’t consume more than 2000/2500 calories a day, on almost no sleep, carrying crushing loads on her shoulders, hips, and feet, for months…and then have the energy to do the most exhausting and challenging of all things, fire and maneuver into the fire of the enemy. Can she sustain the fight? Or will she stay in the fight for a month, then as all the assets that kept her on level with an AVERAGE man are taken away, will her lack of testosterone inhibit her ability to recover from just basic patrolling to the point where she is pulled off the line? Leaving her unit with one, five, or twenty-five less people to carry the load?

    If you’re in a combat support MOS and advocating for women in combat as a woman, then you are woefully ignorant of what that entails.

    Let me make myself absolutely clear about combat. It’s not equal. It’s not rational. It’s not fair. It’s not black and white. It can’t be reasoned with. It’s a bitch. The mother of all bitches. It will find ways to kill you. If you are weak for even a second it will snatch the life right out of you and your buddies. It’s about violence. It’s about destruction. It’s about unashamedly taking advantage of the weakness of your enemy. It’s about barbarism and brutality. Anyone who thinks there should be “fair” in combat is an idiot and has never REALLY been in combat. Anyone who thinks it’s nice and clean, where soldiers die quickly and then quietly go into death is dangerously naive. It’s horrible. Soldiers scream above the sound of machine gun fire. Men cry openly over the loss of their comrades. Pieces of human beings, both friend and foe, litter the battlefield. Cordite, burning flesh, and feces stings in your nostrils. It’s not pretty. It’s not glorious. It’s not anything other than a tragedy. Grunts know this. We know what the price is. To overcome these obstacles, we have to be crystal clear on our objectives, abilities, strengths, AND weaknesses. There can no illusions of grandeur. There can be no half measures. One moment of complacency, one second of weakness, one instance of failing a hit time can have severe ramifications for those involved.

    Combat is not the place to find out if one is good enough. Combat is not the place where PC social programs need to be tested. People will be killed over this. People will die trying to realize this fantasy women think they want. It’s an insult to those of us who HAVE been in combat on the front lines to simply sweep our experience under the rug. It’s not about male chauvinism. It’s not about inferiority or superiority. It’s about lives here. It’s about being able to end the wars as quickly as humanly possible so as to prevent further loss of life both on ours and their side. But it is also about when having to do the dirty work of war, doing it in the most violent, overwhelming,and advantageous way possible.

    Is the juice worth the squeeze?

    It it worth it for the entire combat apparatus of the US military to invest in the training, recruitment, and expenditure in lives and money to allow women to serve in combat arms? In my experience of almost 12 years of service in the US Army, it is not. I’m not even talking about the unit effectiveness factor that will be diminished from the lack of unit cohesion. I’m not talking about the eventual lowering of standards that will accompany the introduction of women into an all male dominated environment. I’m not even talking about the psychological factors that studies and experiments have shown of the exceptionally demoralizing effect a woman's death has on a man. I’m not talking about the fact that Muslim extremists will now have even less of an incentive to surrender to female combatants.

    There’s a reason the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan put a much higher bounty on women soldiers then they did men. It’s not because they “hate” American women more than men. It’s because they intimately understand that we, as a society, are simply not prepared for massive loss of women life in combat. Can you imagine the media frenzy that would come from a dozen women dying in just one firefight or one IED? There would be chants of “off with his head” to anyone suspected of “allowing” this to happen. Whereas, with men, it is simply shrugged at. It’s expected. The insurgents are also familiar with the highly demoralizing effect it has on the soldiers involved. Simply put, our society values the lives of women more than it does men. One or two women in body bags is barely palpable to today's society. What would happen with a dozen or 25 or 100 at a time?

    In conclusion, if you’re anyone other someone who has been there…you’re free to give your opinion. Just realize that it will not be taken seriously. It’s hard for the uninitiated to realize that applying reason and logic to this situation of combat is useless. There is no logic involved. Logic went out the window as soon as it was decided to use combat forces. Combat is illogical. If you want to win in combat, let the professionals that have led the way for millenia handle the dirty work. At the very least, ASK the grunts what THEY think. We’re the ones who are going to pay for it the most

    For those who want to know, I have three combat tours to Iraq. 15 months in 2003-2004. 10 months in 2004-2005. 8 months in 2011. I’ve participated in numerous battles to include: invasion, battle for Bagdad, operation Phantom Fury,(look it up)and numerous operations in and around Ramadi, Fallujah, and Kirkuk...I’ve been wounded in combat and have twice been decorated for Valor. I’ve been a lower enlisted, NCO, and Officer in combat. ALL of this time...I’ve been a grunt.

  • No

    Many women already find themselves in "combat." They are just not allowed in combat arms such as : There are no "front lines" When was the last time terrorists lined up in trenches and met us head on? They are already in dangerous and hazardous duties. That is the nature of the military.

    The larger problem with females in Combat arms is the differing hygiene needs. A company of Infantry can go weeks or a month at a time with nothing more than a five gallon water can bath. Females cannot. I worked with females as part of my company the entire time I was in as an MP. Even during a normal field exercise the females could go no longer than 72 hours and we had to release them to go find a shower somewhere, gym.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.