{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/9/2013 11:35:58 AM
36
Women in Combat Roles
What is your opinion on women and their role in combat? Do you believe they should be allowed such roles? Please explain in detail your position on the subject. Right now this is one of those turning points for the U.S. Military that may open doors to new possibilities....
P.S. This is for a class. I'm trying to write a bloody paper on the subject.
English
#Offtopic
-
Women have just as much right to be molested by their fellow Soldiers and thrown away by an uncaring government as Men do.
-
If they want to fight, let them.
-
1 ReplyThe IDF has had front-line women for decades and I don't think that it has harmed or reduced the nation's capabilities in the least. The biggest difference (besides being surrounded by a constant existential threat) is that conscription is nearly 100% mandatory for the IDF and the US Armed Forces are 100% volunteer. Which means that each has a different pool of soldiers and roles to fill, and different ways of looking at how those roles are filled.
-
-
Edited by HurtfulTurkey: 7/9/2013 11:19:02 PMThey should be allowed to be in the same role as men if they can meet the same standards. The Marines tried this last year; they opened up OCS to women, and only two stepped up. Both failed on the o-course. The fact is that women are generally not capable of the physical strength and endurance men are.
-
As long as women can go through the same training as men and are mentally prepared for it, then I say let them join the military. I have no problem with women in the military, they just need to be able to do the same thing as men.
-
Umm, if they meet all the requirements, but tbh I think that the very top, elite spec ops forces, such as Navy Seals, Delta Force, SAS etc, should remain men only
-
As long as they can do their job, I don't mind. However they need to make the entrance standards for women the same as men. They shouldn't scale it down to compensate for physiology. That being said, not many women will get in if they increase the standards, but this is the military. It's life or death, and there shouldn't be compromises.
-
I think they should be able to as should everyone who wants them to be able to do what they want, but at the same time i disagree because i don't think women would be as suited to pure combat roles, and would be better in the areas of Support and such. Simply because their bodies are different than a man's, they aren't as built anatomically to match what a man can do.
-
1 ReplyAs long as they can meet the same requirements men are expected to meet, then there should be no problem.
-
9 RepliesI laugh when I see a bunch of dudes trying to decide what women should and shouldn't be allowed to do.
-
4 RepliesTo keep it short. lolno
-
Of course, unless their second name is Palmer.
-
I admire a woman who fights as long as she believes she is fighting for something good.
-
1 ReplyYes, but they should have to pass whatever tests are in place for men. If a woman can do everything a man can do, why should we not let them into combat roles?
-
If they can do their job with no issue, I dont see why not.
-
Of course. They want to be treated with egalitarianism, then this is an another step forward for equality.
-
They fight all the same as men, right?
-
If women want equality and we are striving to give it to them, they should be allowed such roles. If anyone wants to lay down their life for our country and freedoms, I'm not going to bar them from it. I'll salute them all!
-
You would think that a well-maintained military would place capability before all other considerations. There shouldn't be discrimination or favourable quotas toward either gender.
-
6 RepliesI personally feel that women should be allowed in any and all military roles, combat included. I never understood why it is such an issue. I would normally give the whole "not wanting anything to change" excuse but I must see all sides of the issue so that I know why people believe it to be wrong.
-
1 ReplyYes, they should be allowed.. They want equality.. they are getting it.. Although we should also require that women of 18 and older sign up for selective service.
-
13 RepliesMy social conservatism wants me to say it's wrong... But equality is always good.
-
I think they should be in combat if they can handle it. The requirements should have to be exactly the same for men and women, and anyone who meets the requirements should be allowed into combat.
-
Only if they meet the EXACT same physical standards as the men, no exceptions. They should be required to run just as fast, jump just a high, lift just as much, and all for just as long, as the men are required. As it currently stands women's standards are lower than men's standards which is fine if women are not required in direct infantry roles, but if they are going to be put on the front line with the men, they need to be just as capable.
-
Women already serve in combat roles in several countries' militaries. They have done so bravely, and valiantly. Now, the USA has been slow to bring them in, based largely on outdated myths about female strength, hygiene and the fear of sexual assaults, but recent conflicts have forced their hands. In both Iraq and Afghanistan MP's, a "Non-Combat" MOS that allows females in its ranks, have found themselves acting as mounted infantry, clearing buildings, and holding ground. Like in other countries, the women have performed as well as them men.
