Personally, I believe a woman should never be put into a combat situation. However, I will not prevent a woman from doing so if she believes that she wants to do so. I believe they shouldn't be put into a combat situation, not because they can't do it as well as a man, or because they are somehow inferior. But because they are supposed to be above that. Women are the people who bring life into society. It isn't something they can do very well on a battlefield, and the very hand that brings innocent life into this world, should never be stained with the blood of the lives she has taken. They are supposed to be elevated to a place of respect, not put in place to muddy it out with the guys. Now, that is simply my personal opinion of the matter, I will not, however prevent any human being with free will, from attempting to pass the physical standards test for military combat, and if they can accomplish that test, then I do not oppose them at all, and have a greater amount of respect for them.
It depends fully on your choice. I have a friend that is a die hard "we need woman's rights!" voter, but it is unlikely SHE will join the army. And with that, Men go to war to save the Women, which are treated poorly, if not worse, in the military. If they were fighting for a worthy cause, then yes: they should go to war.
Well there's a problem. I'm totally for women being allowed in combat, it's just that the military makes a valid point, men can be called sexist all they want, but the truth is that women just aren't physically capable, our bodies aren't built for that kind of endurance.
I never thought I would say this, but no, we do not belong in combat as it is defined today. Now, that being said, I know there are many women in forward positions being shot at, blown up, wounded and killed, as close to "combat" as they can be without getting the extra pay. The rules for combat pay need to change to accommodate more and different job duties. Of course it is not all about the money - it is about equal opportunity. HOWEVER, Eguava99 hit it on the head - we are built differently and are not built to tote 100 pound packs for days at a time. Our strength is in our lower bodies, where it has to be. We do not, as a rule, have the upper body strength to march into combat. We also have biological differences that have to be addressed. If the biological events are not addressed properly, we could die.
No one really should But my opinion they should ! We are as equal as men and sometimes even stronger and we should not be define by our gender. Some women can't but some others has the ability ( like men)
11 months ago
Last edited at 7:00PM on 4/22/2013
Anyone can fight in combat regardless of gender. What it comes down to the end is training and drive. Yes, a civilian woman who has never gone to the gym probably wouldn't do so well in a combat situation. However, the same thing could be said for a civilian dude who doesn't exercise often and who has little to no physical training. Anyone can do the training if they want to and come out fit and capable of combat. That's what the training is for, and men have to do it too. If a chick works out as often as a dude does and completes the same military training, she is just as capable as he is. The only thing stopping a man or woman from being strong is not taking the opportunity to strengthen their muscles on a regular basis, not some kind of mysterious RPG style stat penalty/advantage to strength depending on which sex you are.
NO!!! No one should be put in battle. But what I think doesn't matter. I have a Mother a Sister and two daughters. As a man I could not imagine putting them in harms way ! It's bad enough my brothers and I had to fight people who hate us and will kill us unless we kill them! Why would I allow the women I love to try to fight these men ?No,No,No women in combat.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Thursday lifted a ban on women serving in combat roles, which clears the path for military women to serve on the ground in direct combat. It overturns a 1994 rule that prohibited women from being engaged in infantry and other combat roles.
Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey said that removing the ban formally acknowledges the changing realities for women at war, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. Women are often serving alongside male combat units, and in Female Engagement Teams, which manage Marine Corps interactions in areas where contact between local women and men is restricted. They are often found in the line of fire, regardless of the fact that they aren't officially designated as combat troops. Now, supporters of the new policy say, women can be formally recognized for the roles they play on the ground and servicemembers can be assigned to any position they are qualified for.
Sure they have the right to be in combat and sure they have the right to choose to die. Bottom line Americans want to protect the females of our nation. But by all means you want to go die with us then happy dieing.
I do not think it is a good idea women are just not built the same as men don't get me wrong there are always exceptions but there uncommon plus women can become a distraction to men and when your in the middle of a war distractions are not good
Sex is a determining trait in many things whether people wish it to be or not. Women have significantly lower testosterone levels, which impacts not only ability to increase muscle mass but also affects, visual-spatial perception and fear response. The British tried integrated combat training where both sexes were trained to the same standard (men's) and found that a significantly higher proportion of women were getting substantial injuries (broken bones etc.) Should women be allowed to try for combat roles? For those who say there is no difference in ability I have a question. If women are just as physically capable then why do police and firefighter standards have levels of physical fitness determined by sex? So if a woman is capable of passing the physical standards, toting 100 lb. racks AND an injured buddy, then sure let them be in combat. But it won't be many and I doubt they'll stay long.
If you have ever served with a combat unit you wouldnt even need to ask this question. Not only are women substandard to men it terms of physical and mental requirements in a combat zone, but they create a burden and ruin the cohesion of units.
Women should never serve in a combat unit and if it were up to me, women wouldnt be serving in any aspect of the military. period.
I have seen women rip apart units because guys want them and are putting on a different face for them. Women's rights is all good and dandy, but when logic, reason, and safety is sacrificed just so women can feel equal, there is an issue.
Men are generally more combat ready naturally, so if people are being drafted, only men should be drafted, but then again, men come back from war with pretty damaged psyches, the stuff on the battlefield isn't pretty. Women can definitely have a cold, detached side, that is suited for such horrific events. You should be allowed to serve your country, if that is your wish.
Yes. Women who can pass the physical requirements at a man's level and have both the aggressive bloodlust and mental capacity should be allowed to enter and possibly excel at combat situations. I am a ten year veteran who has seen many women show greater endurance than some of the worthless pieces of crap who whined the entire time, turned tail, and ran like little girls.
Yes. The Viking women would fight next to the men and were known as "shield maidens". They would fill the gaps in the formations when warriors fell in battle and were expected to hold their own. I can think of a few women that I have seen that I would not want to particularly scrap with.
Yes. Before, some women were already in combat situations (say they are the driver, but then get attacked) however if a man were in the exact same position, he would have been eligible for higher pay and more benefits (such as counseling) while a woman, although having experienced the exact same situation, could not have been eligible. Doesn't seem too fair in my opinion. I don't think very many women should be in combat, because not a whole lot of women have the physical strength a man has. Some do, but not all. So I think if she is up for it and has the same skills, she should get paid for doing all the same things. It's the woman's choice.
11 months ago
Last edited at 3:22AM on 4/24/2013
I believe that they should BUT during war seeing a women being murdered or Injured is not like seeing a man. I don't know if her male colleague can handle it. It maybe a source of defeat more than source success. I'd vote for allowing females to learn the war art but am not going to use their skills unless i really have to. After all a female is all about tenderness and heart.
Women are already serving in combat positions in many armies around the world. Women also serve as patrol officers in many police departments. If a woman is motivated to serve, and can pass the required tests, the answer to your question is Yes.
I would say its fine for a woman to go into combat. When I was younger no one ever said "don't hit a girl". If a boy hurt me, I hurt them back, and it was done. I think women who train the same amount as men will be as good as men
No, not because of the women but because of the men, if a woman was injured in a combat zone, the man's instincts would kick in oer his own personal safety and orders and sabotage the whole operation. It would be safer if they weren't.
There already are females engaging in combat in the U.S. military-however they are not in Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) that fall under the category of Combat Arms. The primary role of any military personnel is to protect and defend the People and Constitution of the United States. The argument I offer against females in a Combat Arms MOS is the conditions these personnel are subject to (defecating into a bag the your buddy is holding comes to mind not to mention the unsanitary conditions sometimes endured for weeks on end by combat troops coupled with certain biological functions unique to females would undoubtedly present a sanctity of life issue...TSS. Also I would hate to see what would be the fate of a female combat troop in the hands of enemy combatants who do not recognize international Rules Of Engagement ie. rape).
A woman should be allowed to do whatEVER she wants.... to include going into combat. Women are smart enough to know the risks involved. Why do men have to keep telling women that they have their own place and why do men tell them what that place is. I served in the military with some fine women that could kick some major butt if they had to. Why is anyone still telling women what they can and cant do?? Women are people too... and have a right to make up their own mind about what they want and what they can do.
11 months ago
Last edited at 12:09PM on 4/24/2013
Honestly, I don't care. Good question though. (I am a corpsmen, not a marine. If you want to know more or dare even question this statement, do some research.) To answer fully: I have served alongside women and treated them... Sadly, the majority of them would be a disappointment in combat (a select FEW, maybe). The mentality of the marine grunt is to exterminate the enemy. We have all seen and done things... I won't go further... but a woman must be ready to understand that if she wants to roll with us... she must prove that she can do what we do and be ready to do the unthinkable at times. If she messes up, she should be beaten like the rest of us, again it's the mentality. She also must be ready to learn to survive for the marine next to her to keep fighting to bring him home... she can't worry about her kids or what's going on at home, she must kill for her marines.
11 months ago
Last edited at 1:18PM on 4/24/2013
As a woman in a combat unit myself, I obviously say yes lol, but I also say that it depends on the woman, I don't try to kid myself into thinking that I am stronger than men, but I feel that if I can fire a weapon better than most of the males, and I stay out of drama then I deserve to be in combat if I so choose to, on the other hand if there is a woman who doesn't contribute in any way, is constantly causing problems, and is distracting the men by trying to act cute...then no, that type of woman does not deserve to go, that type will get everyone killed. Hope I helped :)
In my personal opinion a woman is not built for combat. Women are made for nurturing and loving not fighting and killing! However, there are many positions in the militiary for a woman to serve our country in ways, that in my opinion, are more acceptable:) GBUSA
I belive that Women should be treated the same as the men in the work force when it comes to the positions. Women have been tryin to get on the front lines for a while, and many women are proud that they will soon be on the front lines.
Women are perfectlly capable of fighting along side men in battle, so yes, I think it's a good idea.
11 months ago
Last edited at 7:31AM on 4/25/2013
Yes and no... If a women is qualified, and physically able to be in combat, then yes. I want to be in a combat position personally. Everyone has equal rights to serve their country, and defend it. BUT it honestly isn't the best. Men have a nature to protect a woman. If you put a woman in combat, men are more likely to pay more attention to her and her safety, which can get them killed. Also, its hard for a women to be out there when she has a monthly period. And with that being said, its easier for infection when you have to take care of such things in combat. Besides, i dont think anyone wants a hormonal, bleeding, PMSing women with a gun next to them...
I'm of 2 minds about this question: 1. There are plenty of women out there who have a LOT of testosterone, so yes, they can be in combat if they want to because they are about as strong as the average man. 2. On the other hand, I don't believe a woman should leave her children to go to war. Of course neither should a man, but what are ya gonna do? This is never gonna change.