Should women be allowed in the Special Forces, the Navy Seals, and the Infantry?

  • Absolutely!

    Women should be allowed to join in our military defenses. If a woman wanted to do it she should be able to. We have a lot of young men who don't want to be in the military but were drafted. Why do we keep drafting people who don't want to be in the military when we have willing women who are just as good and put in the same effort?

  • Yes they should.

    Women know what they are getting into when they want to be in Special Forces. The women who don't won't make it. If a women is willing to put herself through hell and go through the same training with the same standards of men then there is absolutely no reason why a women shouldn't be allowed. They are proving that they actually are strong enough to fight with these men. Yes, women have the ability to be raped, yet men do to if I am not mistaken... So that point is invalid. If men, US soldiers, are going to "rape" their women comrades just because they are there, then they shouldn't be there because they have some major mental issues. Like I said the women capable of being in Special Forces aren't the ones to mess with. If anything their journey to do this is harder then a mans so in return they would actually be tougher then their men counterparts. And the whole getting pregnant thing, its call long term birth control. Not the pill, but something that lasts for years, there are such things, look them up. So that shouldn't be a problem either. If women want to join, or at least try to attempt too there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't. Men out there that are against it... Grow up and put on your big boy panties.

  • Of course they should!

    As long as they meet all training and physical requirements to enter into the Special Forces of course they should. Many will try and fail just as many men have failed. But make no mistake about it, some women will be successful.

    The military reports that 280,000 women have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. More than 180 of these women have been killed and more than 800 wounded.

    Captain Kimberly Nichole Hampton served in South Korea for 2 years as a helicopter pilot and PLATOON LEADER patrolling the No Fly Line along the Demilitarized Zone between North Korea and South Korea.

    Captain Hampton was assigned as the COMMANDER of the Delta Troop. First Squadron with the 17th Cavalry Regiment of the 82nd Aviation Brigade of the 82nd Airborne in 2002.

    Captain Hampton, piloting an OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter, was providing cover for ground troops who were conducting a raid on a weapons marketplace when she was shot down over Fallujah and killed in 2004.

    Army Specialist Lori Piestewa was a member of the 507th Maintenance Company, a support unit, when the convoy made a wrong turn in the Iraqi desert and was ambushed near Nasiriyah, Iraq. By all accounts she fought valiantly to the bitter end and she was promoted posthumously.

    Lt. Colonel Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot with 20+ years of military service and holder of several military awards, was co-piloting a Black Hawk in Iraq in 2004 when a rocket-propelled grenade went off under her side of the helicopter causing her to become a double-amputee.

    Women are fighting, suffering wounds and dying alongside the men in the military.

    They deserve the same opportunities, pay, benefits and potential future civilian employment benefits that men have always received.

  • Individuals > Statistics

    Although women are physically disadvantaged compared to men from a statistical PoV, the goal is to recruit exceptional individuals not broad statistics.

    Besides, sausage fests are an eyesore. I am pursuing Engineering as a career path and the male to female ratio is obnoxiously biased towards males despite having not seen any discriminatory actions against women. In fact, due to scholarships women likely have more advantages then men in Engineering.

    If engineering can be cited as an example, it's not as though women are going to flock into a male dominated position when it becomes available anyways.

  • There is no reason they shouldn't be.

    Basic human rights- if there are women out there who want to join they should be allowed to. The only "factual" opposition I see that would set-back women is the physical muscle strength needed but not all men who want to join have that either. In fact there are a lot of women who have more muscle strength than some men, so how is that fair? More men join these roles than women and if a woman isn't allowed to even try than there is no fair debate to say they can't. Whether your comrade is a female or male doesn't matter because in the end- it's your team mate.

  • Equality of Gender

    I understand the concern of women's vulnerability in other countries, but I also know that it's a woman's choice whether or not she wants to join. I don't think gender should be a limit wall for women who want to explore and dive in their dreams to serve their country at a deeper level. I do, however, think that there should be the appropriate tests that these women would have to pass if they want to join SF.

  • Yes they should!

    One reason I read about was that females wouldn't be able to serve in the navy seals because of their menstrual cycles. But you can stop the menstrual cycle; examples are: birth control, or surgery. So this can break the barriers that lay between the male and female. And just like men, women are mentally and physiccally capable of performing the task of the Navy seal

  • Equality is just right.

    This is just another example of separate but equal. The blacks didn't like it, why should women? Look, we all know men are like 30 percent stronger, but so what, women who are in peak condition can fair better in battle than the average man. Just because more men are stronger doesn't mean all men are, so shouldn't stronger women get in over weaker males?

  • On one condition.

    They should be allowed to if and only if they can demonstrate the same aptitude. Do not lower the standards for them or give them any kind of special treatment. The average female is going to have to work significantly harder than the average male to keep up.

    I'd wager that very few women will choose this occupation and even fewer will actually stick with it. Eventually women are going to have to accept that there are biological differences between genders, and roles based on those differences are not sexism or oppression. If you think you can be a man, prove me wrong and join the special forces.

    Posted by: Quan
  • Equality knows no bounds

    As long as the standard of training isn't lowered, definitely yes. I was a Marine for 10 years (yes a male Marine) and I can personally say that the Marine that I was most proud to serve with was a woman. Everything started as a boys club, (military in general, infantry, etc) and each time women have been allowed to participate the men said it would be impossible for that to work. Every single time, they have been wrong. Maybe it's only 1 girl a year that succeeds (which isn't bad when you compare the ratio of women to men in the military and the ratio of male to female applicants), if she's completed her training and can tow the line, it's her right as an American to do it.

  • No

    First of all, the causalities of women in fighting are higher than men. Second, women fighting with men will make the effectiveness of the army go down, because men depend on other men to get a job done. But when men have to depend on women to get a job done there is a problem because most women can not get the job done as good or as effectively as men. Also submarines and other ships have to be redesigned because with men and women sleeping in the same room leads to men raping women. Another reason is when women get captured they will be raped. After they are raped, they will be mentally unstable and will most likely reveal military secrets.

  • Men and Women are not physically and physiologically equal, they are different.

    Why don't we have strong women in the NFL, NBA, MLB, UFC, WBC competing with men for millions in endorsements and salary? Why don't we see Olympics and Collegiate Sports mixed-gender competition? Special forces are the best of the best and the strongest of the strongest in the armed services; it is the Olympics and the major league competition of the military. Why don't we experiment in integrating women in sports first where lives, unit cohesion, and the security of the country are not at stake? Aren't we jumping the guns too quickly for the sake of political expediency for 2014 and 2016 elections at the risk of losing lives, unit cohesion, and combat effectiveness?

  • No, and here's why:

    I am a SEAL. I say that to validate my statements. I was also raised by a single mother, and have a professional rock-climber for a sister, so I definitely appreciate a strong woman, but even my mother and sister think this entire argument (as they personally know many SEALs and have been close to the community for years) makes the women who argue for it, look ignorant and uneducated. Women should not be in the Teams for a multitude of reasons: 1)Physical differences: Women are not in the NFL or NBA because those are physical contests (games) in a capitalist environment and it would be bad business to waste a roster slot on a women when a qualified man would give you a much better chance at winning. WAR, specifically on the front lines, is a physical contest between WARING NATIONS, Men are much more suited f0r the task Men are not better than women, we are just different. Don't be afraid to embrace the differences. 2)Fiscal Concerns: Women who attempt the daunting task will inevitably fail, either due to injury, failure to complete a particular test, or quitting, as many men do as well. Slots in BUD/s classes are not easily earned. If this legislation passes, there will certainly be gender quotas which will need to be met. These quotas will fill the slots of men who have a much better chance, not only at passing, but at maintaining the physical longevity necessary to adequately perform this strenuous job. 3)Hygiene: In this job I have gone weeks without showering, in wet and filthy environments, not by personal choice, enough said. 4)Gradual lowering of standards: As the female pass rate hovers at 0%, big brother oversight due to "unfair, gender biased practices" will push for an "altering" of standards towards more,...I love this term, "gender neutral" standards. Gender neutral standards will give you gender neutral Special Operation Forces, not an option when lives are at risk, this is a dangerous experiment for Political Correctness's sake 5)Brotherhood: Going into hostile territory with your closest brothers to protect not only your way of life, but to a more personal nature, the women who have nurtured and protected you to adulthood, is extremely rewarding and bonding. This bond is cultivated with your brothers through training in blood and sweat.

    Concluding, it is important to be said that there are many occupations in the military which women not only are good at, but excel at, often at higher rates than men. Intelligence Officers, Doctors, JAG, to name a few. There are also women doing clandestine missions around the world, they are just not doing them in a direct action capacity. As a society lets leave some boundaries, women and men are different, we should each be treated fairly, but not equally, because the definition of equal is "the same as"; we are not the same and that is alright. That sliver of difference, that most definite "maleness", is where Special Operations live.

  • The tough job that is the special forces, demand a male soldier in order to complete.

    First off, for anyone reading this, let me make myself clear. I am not a sexist. I believe that women should be equal to men but I do believe that there is such a thing as gender specific jobs. First off, women are weaker than men. That's not sexism, its biological fact. Women have, on average, half of the upper body strength as men, as well as weaker bone structures, and reduced cardio potential. I firmly believe that there are no women on earth that could pass a special forces selection process with the same physical standards as men. And if you lower the physical standards, you have lowered the combat effectiveness of the unit. And at that point, you are compensating national security to make a few people feel better. The second reason is mentality. Being in SF will require you to kill people. And due to a lack of testosterone, women are less aggressive that men and less likely to kill someone. The combat is in close quarters, and if you hesitate, you and your team will die. You need to be tough, aggressive, and that comes from testosterone. In conclusion, these are my main reasons why i do not think women should be allowed in the special forces (although there are many more). I believe that there are lots of places that women can excel in the military, but special forces is not one of them. Men are genetically designed for combat. We have been fighting and killing for thousands of years and there is no doubt that we are better at it than women. Although in society men and women are equal, physical differences mean that there are still jobs that require a man to preform. Special forces is at the top of that list.

  • Not Special Ops

    Really? Special ops? No, I believe that this would make our elite groups not elite. Also I am tired of women saying, "we are just as tough" when really even the bible says men are more physically able than women an that there are jobs for women and men. Why can't men be mothers? Because women are better taking care of kids, men and other people but men are better at fighting. Please stop trying to prove stuff to us. Even some women in combat say they shouldn't be in special ops. Not being sexist but have you seen women in videos of combat? They seem like they are doing that just to prove things like I said before.

  • Women should not be allowed or depended on in special operations!

    Women police officers and fire fighters are able to just pass controlled tests and qualifications but not able to do much more, and always have male aid available in the field, and while males are natural female protectors it does hinder the operation and would be much more of an issue in a combat situation involving small team special forces where everyone needs to depend on each-other and carry their own weight.

    But if women feel they are individually equal, capable and even better then men (as many feminist say) at doing so and want the chance to prove themselves, let them do so in teams of all females in real-world situations and score their abilities based on their missions vs. Men teams.

    Here is a classic example (below web-link) of females trying to do a males job and it happens everyday on the police force until a male officer steps in to end the embarrassment, torture, irritation and annoyance.


  • Of course not.

    Not only do women lack the capability to build as much muscle mass, there are significant other physical differences. For example, women have lighter bone structures than men. This makes them more prone to stress fractures, and that's talking about a lot when you have to carry a 110lb ruck sack. Besides, if a women gets pregnant over seas(which does happen more then it should) the military has to pay to replace them and send them home. Men who have kids can still fight, but women have to give birth, breastfeed, etc. There are still many other opportunities in the military for women, but SO should stay closed, and for a good reason. Besides, many women talk about how it's there right, but when you join the military, you don't even have any rights. There comment on that makes me feel they know nothing about the military actually works.

  • They just aren't physically as fit.

    The cardio level of a 24 year old female who runs everyday and works out is equal to that of a 50 year old man who sits on the couch all day and eats chips. Women just aren't "there" so to say and frankly will never be able to join.


    I really like how people say "oh well if women can do it why shouldn't they be allowed to?" because it breaks up the cohesion of an all male unit?, because every woman that drops out of training is just wasted tax dollars? because in reality very few women are able to perform at the same capacity as men the same age as themselves?, because the average woman is only about 60 percent as strong as man in upper body strength? and only 80 percent as strong in lower boy strength? or how about because they are more likely to suffer ptsd t han men ( twice as much if im not mistaken ..correct me if im wrong) because they are more likely to be injured in training and every tax dollar spent on recuperating them is just wasted money that we could've used on male soldier who could perform the same task? are any of those answers good enough? i apologize if i come off as condescending... but those are just the cold and cruel facts.. not to mention the fact that men are more likely to put a mission or themselves at that matter to rescue a wounded female comrade?. but war is not something that needs... ahhh.. progression... in the end winning the war is about sending the MOST capable men in combat meaning they need to be ENTIRELY COMPETENT the notion that women should be allowed into combat because they want to is a rather... ah...romantic(? lack of a better word) notion of war there is no room for dreams or irrational sorry but the military is men businesses for the reasons listed above. i apologized if i insulted and females in the military. but the reason i list are entirely practical.. if you wish to call them sexist.. well.. i cant stop you.. but i have to say. those are practical reasons... sorry but know.....

  • women can't always fight like men

    As we all know women have more bodily functions then men do. They have a period and that can come in the way of duty. their period makes them uneasy to work with and which is risking the lives of fellow soldiers. they also can't be as strong as a fellow soldier which is a man. they have to be able to carry eighty pounds of equipment and still being able to throw a two hundred pound man over her shoulder such as in a weapon breach. when it comes to hand to hand combat a women are not very initiated unlike a man would be. if the enemy is a man he will be more ruthless with a women he will be more aggressive then he would be with a man.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
LikeDaPants says2014-06-12T17:07:28.310
After reading both sides of the argument, I would like to offer my opinion. Personally, I don't think women can be Navy Seals, and I say that as a woman who really hates inequality. This, however, is not a matter of equality. It's a matter of what's required to defend our country. It's not that women are lesser or inferior as a whole, but genetically our species has built us differently. And it's those genetics that tend to men being more capable of highly physical jobs. Therefore, the requirements for the military shouldn't decide based on whether it's a man or a woman, but whether the person can complete the job at hand. This will probably tend to there being more male soldiers, but again, it's not the gender that's important. It's capability of the soldier.

That said, I believe women could help the American military, just perhaps not in ways that would require large amounts of physical strength. Women could be scouts, psychologists, paramedics, strategists, infiltrators, etc. We can still help, just not on the front lines.