CreateDebate


Debate Info

86
63
Yes No
Debate Score:149
Arguments:81
Total Votes:169
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (49)
 
 No (30)

Debate Creator

victor01(146) pic



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

I took a test on the army website of possible jobs i could do if I joined the army, well they all came up with jobs that a woman is not allowed to do. It came up with five different sorts of special forces, infantryman and a load of things i cannot do as a girl. They are the things that i want to do though, i don't want to just assist. I want to be involved. I complained to my teacher and he said, well, fight it. So, just curious, how many of you think women should be allowed these jobs in the military before i go and "fight it".

Yes

Side Score: 86
VS.

No

Side Score: 63
6 points

A strong woman is as strong as or stronger than fit man. I dont care what anyone says.

Side: yes
trevinator(12) Disputed
6 points

There are reasons sports are gender divided at the competitive levels.

Side: No
E223(193) Disputed
3 points

It's because we live in a world dominated by men. There are sports where women are as good as, if not better than, the men. In shooting, women are naturally better than men. Shorter torsos compared to total body height, more control over their bodies, better at keeping focused, the list goes on. Just look at the 2008 summer olympics results. I shot 50m .22 caliber competitive riflery for my military school in virginia, and I'm a certified Riflery instructor by the Civilian Marksmanship Program, I know what I'm talking about.

Side: yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
4 points

The gym I go to has probably twice as many girls. Yet I've never seen one of them lift more weight than even the casual male gym-goer. Statistically this does not back up your theory. In fact, there is a body building chick there every time I go almost. Her arms are actually bigger than mine, I still lift more weight than she does as do most of the guys there. I'm confused. Maybe you have a different definition of "stronger"

Side: yes
3 points

Of course they should, some women I know are quite tough excluding women from these jobs is ridiculous. Women may lack bulk but make up for it in other departments, intelligence, skill, stealth (light on their feet), and an ability to multi-task unrivaled by men.

Side: yes
3 points

The problem isn't whether women should be allowed in special forces or not. Since the not all women are the same (meaning some are just more naturally adapt at being a fighter than others)

The real problem lies within the reasoning of those who decide whether women should be allowed. The reasons behind is because "Generally" and I stress the word generally, women are physically weaker than men. That cannot be argued. Countless evidence prove that with the same amount o training, a males body can withstand more blunt physical trauma (i.e hitting) than a females. Not only that, countless test show that males generally conclude their decisions logically the majority of the time vs. Females. War isn't pretty, it causes all sorts of stress, trauma and psychological and emotional damage to the person. During all this, especially in the special ops, they need people who will think clearly without emotions clouding their judgment. Not only that, generally, males have been shown to prove to outlast females in endurance tests with the same amount of training/ preparation. Basically, when it comes down to it. The males body is more suitable to fight. Now keep in mind these are all generalized statements and I pointed out that this isn't the issue and is just the view of the military.

On the other hand...

The real issue is the fact that it is generalized. Like I said earlier, not all women are the same and some are more adapt to fighting just as well to men. The real issue is they Military should open it to all genders but have them go through a rigorous training, a year if they have to, more brutal than the one they have now to make sure that those who past are really fit to become part of the special ops program. Excluding women out of some of the military's programs is ignorant in a way to exclude some potentially valuable soldiers to the military. The the issue in short is, excluding women out won't do any good if some women can make the cut. Make both genders go through the same training and weed out the weak ones individually.

Side: yes
3 points

I think that women should have the same oppritunites when it comes to any field in the military. When it comes to special forces, I feel the same way. On average, mahybe men are more physicaly enhanced than femals, but there are exceptions. During the selection period for the special forces, they will be able to weed out the ones that don't meat the standard and the ones that do.

Side: yes
3 points

Yes I think women should be able to be in the special forces. We can be just as deadly as men and I am against men only in the front lines. I come from a military family so I want to be in the Special Forces. Women are more flexible, agile, easier to disguise, quick thinkers.

Side: yes
3 points

The weak females will definately get weeded out during the one to two years of training they must go through to qualify. Why would you look down on a equal human being that just happens to be a female that is in the special forces. They worked for it just as hard as the men in the same MOS. Just because they are female though, they dont get the same amount of credit and respect? Get your head out of your a. There are women out there right now beating even some of the men in training. Screw the bias about men being "genetically surperior." If a female wants to do something bad enough and work for it and actually get through the training for it, then she will & deserves it. Women sure as heck dont request special treatment either. They demand equality.

Side: Yes
2 points

Yes, I think women should be allowed to do any job they prove themselves capable of.

Side: yes
Bohemian(3861) Clarified
2 points

I am still a little bit divided on this myself. While I agree with your statement, the most convincing counter-argument I've heard is that particularly for spec ops who are in situations in unfriendly territory with few resources cannot provide accommodations for both males and females. Sexual harassment and rape is a big issue. Having males and females sleep and bathe in the same location is a No-Go in the Military.

Side: Yes
2 points

I know this is an old debate but I saw this video and it reminded me of it. In this video there is some great stories but there is one of significance. Watch if you are interested in womens military ability.

Supporting Evidence: Ryan Lobo Photographing the hidden (www.ted.com)
Side: yes
2 points

Yes, if they can pass the same tests that a man has to, then I don't see why not.

Side: yes
2 points

Yes they have a right to be allowed just as men are to join the those forces. Its there choice if they want to join it or not.

Side: Yes

woman should have the same rights as men because some women are just as strong and some can kick a guys ass any day

Side: yes
1 point

to be honest i don't care who goes into war as long as it helps decrease the worlds population

Side: yes
mudkipz2(358) Disputed
1 point

how bout you go to war then...........................................................

Side: No
Axmeister(4317) Disputed
1 point

after you....................................................

Side: yes
1 point

the reason there not aloud in isnt do to wemen are weaker then men its due to relation ships. what if a soilder falls in love with another soilder and insted of focusing on the mission they focus on each others safty more and cause the mission to fail. now if they diveded it like all male units and all female units it would work great

Side: yes
1 point

I think if you are capable and prove yourself equal then hell yea it should be allowed! The men who say no are probably just worried a woman can do their job better.

Side: Yes
1 point

Only certain types of personalities are suited to the above professions/workplaces this is a fact regardless of gender.

Women should be aloud to apply for a position if they are not suited to the environment, they can leave just as males can.

Side: Yes
1 point

You all are missing the point. Service is not about how strong you are. Its about honor, integrity, and something special. Anyone who has been to any combat training special forces or not.you know its rarely the strongest big guy who ends up with the upper hand. These traits do not know sex or race. You either have them or you don't. As long as the training is equal this means no changes to training at all. Then I think if they can pass. Then may God bless ass.

Side: Yes
REAPER-A(5) Disputed
1 point

does it not take strength to break away from your pears and do the right thing it takes strength in the beggining but it becomes natural to be honerable but it still requieres strenght to see your freinds killed and continue the fight with them in your mind

Side: No
1 point

Men and women are different, but WE HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. Not letting a woman join SF just because she's a woman it's discrimination, that simple. If they can handle the training, then they deserve the beret.

Side: Yes

They need sandwiches too ;)

Side: Yes
1 point

Sure, anyone can take a job if they fit the requirements.

Side: Yes

If they want to voluntarily join, why not?

Side: Yes
1 point

navy SEAL's is of high interest to me i am leaving soon and know that it is one of the most challangin training enviornments in the world.

anyone not fit to work in this enviornment WILL wash out no question.

women have proven that they are combat capable while in the gulf war with the security forces involved i beg you to try to refute me so i can ruin your veiwpoint.

Side: Yes

This isn't the 50's anymore guys were in the year 2013,things have I changed now and I think women should have the right!

Side: Yes
1 point

i might be young but women can be just as succesful in any military division. Were all human there for we should all have the same rights. Such as women being allowed in the special forces

Side: Yes
6 points

Females are not suited to that type of work. They commonly suffer from ailments such as PMS, post-partum depression, menstruation, etc. They are not strong enough. They are too emotional, as per their raising. Males are commonly raised to hide from their emotions, females are - either raised under the belief that, or by some natural occurrence - commonly in touch with their feelings. Females are necessary for the continuation of our race. One male can impregnate many females. One female can only gestate one or a few fetuses. Thus, males are more expendable.

If we have even more soldiers, then that is even less of a reason to ever stop fighting wars.

Side: No
E223(193) Disputed
4 points

There are females that are suited to being in the special forces and in the navy seals. Hell, they'd even sometimes be helpful (a lot of the special forces/navy seals operations involve blending in, and an enemy is going to be less suspicious of a woman).

A woman's period is not at all a problem, either. Most women that go through basic training don't have their periods for that 6 to 8 week time. As for women usually being emotional? Sure, they usually are, but that doesn't mean that every single woman is too emotional, and that they should all be ignored.

"One male can impregnate many females. One female can only gestate one or a few fetuses. Thus, males are more expendable." What does the "expendability" of a human (if you can even call it that) have anything to do with whether they should be allowed to fight?

Side: yes
trevinator(12) Disputed
3 points

I think you're mistaking special forces for the more specific CIA Special Activities Division... the only types of blending in the other special forces do is with camouflage. Also just because population isn't a concern right now, if it was expandability would be the deciding factor.

Side: No
TERMINATOR(6751) Disputed
2 points

If all but ten males and five hundred females in the world are killed, then the human race is alright. If, however, only a few females remain, then the human race is most likely doomed.

Side: No
1 point

i totally agree with you! you made a great point. I am a female and i am going to be in the Navy Seals. If they let women in but i have faith that hopefully they will one day

Side: Yes
zombee(1024) Disputed
3 points

Not all females are suited to this kind of work, but not all males are suited for it either. Because of average physical size and strength, females may be less likely to qualify, but some of them will, and should not be discounted because of their gender. Contrary to the implication, women are not walking ovaries, ruled purely by tempestuous, unpredictable fits of screaming and crying. We have the mental acuity to control ourselves, although not all of us choose to exercise it. To be successful in the army, women would have to quickly be conditioned out of any irrational impulses, and remember the safety of themselves and their comrades is on the line, and I fully believe plenty of women are capable of this.

Your second point might be more applicable if the human race were in dire straits as far as population goes. As it is, there is no reason to judge someone's value to society by their reproductive potential. Women should not be sheltered, coddled, or restricted from risky activities just because they have a womb.

Side: yes
shashank255(3) Clarified
1 point

i agree that all males are not suited.but all who will be suited are males.

Side: Yes
shashank255(3) Disputed
1 point

well special ops job sometimes needs such ruthlessness that you should be prepared to kill a child.if he compromises the mission.i agree that few are physically capable.but that mental toughness is in men's blood.

Side: No
ricedaragh(2500) Disputed
1 point

Is this not stereotyping? ------------------------------------

Side: yes
TERMINATOR(6751) Disputed
4 points

Whether or not it is stereotyping, it is, in many cases, the truth. Just because it is stereotyping that does not make it automatically inaccurate.

Side: No
-1 points

I do not think women should be in the navy seals or any other special ops teams. Not because I think men are better than women, but this type of work is more suited for men. There are already enough problems (when it comes to rape etc.) in the regular military with women. The special ops can not afford these types of problems. If you look back in time, you will see that the men did all the fighting. Its what were built and programmed for, to defend our families (this includes women) so that our families may prosper. Here's where another problem comes in. Since a male's mind is programmed to protect females, a male soldier would put his life at an unnecessary risk to protect a woman, and would therefore not only put himself in danger, but possibly compromise the whole mission. Also men are stronger both emotionally and physically (normally they are). Special operations cannot afford any breakdowns of any sort during a mission. Women can be strong, but they are not storng enough.The list of problem's goes on and on.

Side: No
navyseals(2) Disputed
1 point

thats why they have training... to be sure nothing like that happens. the Navy wouldnt send out any women who they feel isnt 100% ready

Side: No
3 points

After reading the posts on this debate, I believe many here don't understand that in the military there is only one goal, mission accomplishment. Every choice or option will always, always, be analyzed in its effect on how the mission is accomplished. Sure for the run of the mill infantry women are acceptable, but in the incredibly high-risk situations that special forces usually operate this would jeopardize mission accomplishment to an unacceptable level. The chance of ending up in hand-to-hand combat or some other similar situation where women aren't equal to men is just too high.

Side: No
ricedaragh(2500) Disputed
4 points

I don't agree. Maybe the worlds best fighting male would beat the worlds best fighting female but that is a hypothetical situation. Size and strength is not the only things necessary to win a fight and can sometimes be a hindrance. Women are more flexible, agile and can be just as deadly.

The armed forces is governed by a majority male and Christian hierarchy the choices made are reflective of the sexual stereotyping that along with other forms of discrimination are holding the world back. It is these people that are making the decisions that are irrefutably bias.

Side: yes
3 points

why do people get upset when it has been prove that men are naturally stronger then women? its not an insult. its just fact. I'm so sick of this feminist movement going on.

i mean in U.K there are actually talking about paying men who get married to decrease divorce and cause the increase of marriage.

Side: No
Elvira(3447) Disputed
1 point

You have never met a female black belt, have you?

Side: Yes
2 points

LOOOOOOOOOOOOL

They shouldn't even be allowed in the army.

But then again they could be trained for combat.. we just don't know it.

They bleed once a month and don't die. There must be some sort of way we could use that for the army....

Learn the secrets behind it... so if I get shot.. it'll just be part of my cycle...

Side: No
1 point

This is not an issue on a woman's determination to prove herself to be as physically strong as the male partner in such military ops.

There is a reason why military, especially in the infantry fields, tend to exclude women for deployment on those tasks.

Conditionally, whenever in situations like this; Women tend to think more than men, and in the field, you don't have the luxury of enough time to think as much in the comfort of a classroom. I've seen my share of arguments from the woman's side in this subject, and most supporters tend to advocate "women can be just as physically strong as man if she wants to". However, that argument is irrelevant to the military's actual reason for their decisions on this matter.

In war, a man can think 12 seconds when in conflict to make a decision, a woman(and some of you have to admit that you argue that women think a matter more thoroughly than men) would take 20+ seconds to reach a decision. A bullet would not wait for your thoughts to finish, the other side would not restrain his trigger finger for your far more rational thinking than man.

Seconds are very precious in the battle field; An eight second gap may not seem like much, but being a relative of more than five Iraqi war veterans; Eight seconds is the difference between dragging your body with a wound in the leg from a bullet, or sending a folded flag home.

Edit: I do not wish to come across as sexist, I'm merely stating my point here

Side: No
1 point

women cant do anything like men .all the things they can do is just give birth

Side: No
Elvira(3447) Disputed
1 point

Ha! Example of what a woman can't do, that does not involve reproduction?

Side: Yes
1 point

they are not built for it.its the nature.if you are tough enough,try joining the SAS(british)

Side: No
1 point

There are probably some women who could easily tough out the training, but if women were allowed they would definitely have to have women only teams (for obvious reasons) and also they would never be used if they did have thier own teams or if they were allowed in the seals period. Men are better at this work and the people in charge know that so they would never deploy women

Side: No
1 point

if women are in the special forces what if they are captured by the enemy and do you think women could carry 50 kg and their back and run 20 km then stay up all right doing a massive work out then repeat stuff like this for 20 days plus be able to put up with the mental pressure, being yelled at, hiding their emotions and being in close quarter with men for long periods of time

Side: No
REAPER-A(5) Disputed
1 point

yes they can the training is provided yo keep anyone incapable of hacking washes out. women will take as much as any man you also go through this wonderfull little training process called sear. survival evasion resistance and ecscape. in other words what to do when captured or risking being captured.

if they f--- in the middle of the jungle thats their problem.

Side: Yes
Elvira(3447) Disputed
0 points

Yes, I know some that are fully capable. What about being captured?

Side: Yes
1 point

male chauvinist or not. the female body, is not made to endure the pressure you have to deal with as a part of the specialforces. as mentioned before, to carry a 50 kg backpack for twenty days, is tough enough for a male body. it have also been mentioned that Scientific test have proven that men naturely can withstand more than women.

Side: No
Elvira(3447) Disputed
1 point

Women can naturally withstand more pain than men.

Side: Yes
REAPER-A(5) Disputed
1 point

yes but it takes a highley athletic lifestyle and years of physical pain to form the level of fortitude requiered women can do it i agree but it is less likley that a women has subjected herself to that it is a culture norm for men although anymore people are becoming preppy little wimps

Side: No
1 point

hi everyone I'd like to say this, my father is a former SF guy and a ranger and he's huge(6ft 215lbs, he also works with SEALs at his SOCOM office). We were talking last night and I asked if he thought women should be allowed into SF and he said "in my SFAS course we had 470 guys and out of those guys only 68 made it through. If 400 ATHLETIC MEN can't get through SFAS then how could a woman get through it. Also when you are on a UW mission you need a beard which Women don't grow." I agree with him.

Side: No
REAPER-A(5) Disputed
1 point

im pretty sure that socom is aware that women dont grow beards. my entire family is militarily related and has served the country sience the beggining women can be disguised to blend into an area as men can. do you really think that there is a countrey of all men.

Side: Yes
1 point

What if they are raped and get pregnant? .

Side: No
REAPER-A(5) Disputed
1 point

women will be made aware of the situation and the risk they take. if they sign the contract they accept it

Side: Yes
Sitara(11088) Disputed
1 point

It is not fair to bring a baby into that situation. If women want to go to war, they need to get their tubes tied to avoid bringing a baby into a bad situation if they are held hostage.

Side: No