CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Of course! I do, however, believe that fitness standards should be the same as for men.
I also have very rarelly come accross a woman who uses her gender in the military to her advantage. Some may try, but it gets beaten out of them pretty quick. Drill instructors hate EVERYBODY ;P
Yeah, However I'm in the Navy and I think it is a little ridiculous that the females have to only do half the pushups and get two minutes extra to complete their 2.4 km run. It is sexist and old fashioned to have seperate requirements for males and females. I want to know that If I break a leg and only a female is around that they would have as great or greater strength than my male couterparts.
yes, i agree. Although my 2.4k run time needed only be something around 14 minutes, i aimed to complete it in the required time for a man, as i believe they should be the same.
yes, i agree. Although my 2.4k run time needed only be something around 14 minutes, i aimed to complete it in the required time for a man, as i believe they should be the same.
Very much agree. Whether someone is female or not, doesn't change the fact that if you do not meet the minimum specified requirements you will not be physically able to perform your job efficiently. So if you lower the physical standards, you are defeating the purpose of having the requirements in the first place.
So then you're question should be "Females should be allowed to be front-line combatants", because women have been allowed to join the military since at least WWI.
One of the best arguments, I think, for the exclusion of females from close quarter combat operations, is that Male soldiers upon seeing their females comrades killed in combat make poor tactical decisions (due to their protective instincts over females) and thus dramatically reduces a unit's fighting effectiveness. At least this is the idea behind it. How true this may be, remains to be seen.
The reason i believe that they should be allowed on the front line (not wishing to veer off the original debate too much), is because, in the British Army at least, women may fight alongside men as signerlers, dog handerlers, medics, translators, ect. The do the same effective job as the infantry unit they are attached too, as well as their own job, as a medic for example.
Although you make a good point about male reactions to a woman being killed, they have still been in positions where they are fighting with men, and done so successfully.
because, in the British Army at least, women may fight alongside men as signerlers, dog handerlers, medics, translators, ect.
They can do the same thing in the United States Army as well. These are not close-quarter combat MOS' (except arguably the medic).
The do the same effective job as the infantry unit they are attached too, as well as their own job, as a medic for example.
In the Army we have the profession 68W "Healthcare specialist", females in this MOS are not going to be combat medics in anything except support units. Although unexpected things happen, and females soldier sometimes do find themselves under direct fire. We try to avoid this as much as possible.
I believe that there may be some sort of legislation saying that women supposedly should not be on the front line, however if it exists, it is mostly ignored.
A woman joining, say, the Royal Engineers, can expect to see at least some combat.
I believe that there may be some sort of legislation saying that women supposedly should not be on the front line
Not any legislation that I'm familiar with. What Military occupational specialties (MOS) a female can hold, is determined by Military regulations and policy.
however if it exists, it is mostly ignored. A woman joining, say, the Royal Engineers, can expect to see at least some combat.
Not at all. We have no control over who our enemies attack, the regulation that exists does not determine how much "action" female soldiers will see, it merely restricts the positions that female soldiers can fill. There are numerous engineering MOS' for which women can fill, but women cannot become a 21B "Combat Engineer" in the US Army.
In fact, I would be very surprised in females were allowed to be "Royal Engineers" in a combat unit, in the British Army.
Whilst i dont know how the US army does things, i am only saying what i know about the armed forces over this side of the pond.
Engineers are not often attached to another unit like, say, dog handerlers, but mostly operate as a unit of their own. Their role being "bombs, bridges and buildings", as opposed to teeth arms, whilst they will encounter combat, and will take causulties, their primary role in infrastructural.
As a rule of thumb, in the British army, a woman can do any role, except be in the infantry.
Females should be allowed to serve in the army if it is part of their desires to do so. Society should be all about equality and women can have as much potential as the men of our society do. Women should not be restrained from playing a major role in serving their country because they are the ones that can become a role model for those other women who question their potentiality. If a women can handle the pressures and rigid training of becoming part of the army, then i see no reason why there should be any objection. To do otherwise and turn women away from the army will result in gender discrimination and this i believe can become a form of oppression.
