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.
I say yes. It is discriminatory to not allow women with the same physical abilities as men to not serve. Why can men die for their country when women cannot? Obviously they would still have to pass the same training as men and also take pregnancy tests, ect.
if the way they handed out contracts to potential recruits was changed i would agree with you and if the standards were the same but the way it is now hell no!!! Why because most women right out of the gate cant physically move 250 to 350 lbs of dead wait and neither can some men (and that's about the weight of the avg marine or solider going into combat these days). Secondly women don't physically develop as fast men as far as strength and endurance goes (that's the average male or female there are always exceptions). It would take more time and money for them to get on the same level.
Women who meet the same physical requirements as male soldiers should be able to participate in anything the men can. Eligibility for a job should be determined by how capable that person is at doing that job, not what their gender is.
On the same note I find it quite silly that female soldiers usually have less stringent fitness tests than male soldiers. I understand the basis for that is that women are naturally physically weaker than men, so "it's only fair that we give them easier tests". But if it has been determined that you need to be at a certain physical level in order to perform this job effectively, why should some people be able to get the job without meeting that level, or others not be able to get it unless they exceed that level?
If I was born with an intellectual disability and can barely understand the world around me, should I be allowed to become a teacher or doctor because that disability wasn't my fault and I should "have a fair go"? No, I would have to find a job that someone of my intellectual ability can perform well. This same standard should be applied to gender differences.
I was on the other side of this debate a couple of years ago.
I've come to the conclusion that for specific positions where physicality is a prerequisite not only to survival, but to completing a mission, the standardized tests set in place as to whether one qualifies should not be changed in the least, however women should be allowed to test.
I have to be honest, I believe it is a once-in-a-lifetime event when a female is able to do all of run a mile in under 6 minutes, do 50 man (not knee) pushups in a minute, carry 60+ pounds on her back for a 10 mile hike in formation, and pass the obstacle course - but I'm sure she's out there. She should have opportunity.
What should not happen is a lowering of these standards to accomodate.
Unfair? No, not really. There are men who cannot do it as well.
You are telling me that you can run a mile in under 6 minutes and do a 10 mile hike with 60 pounds on your back, but are physically unable to do 50 pushups?
Yes, i think they should. If you disagree, please read my reasoning.
Firstly, in my country, women, whilst not being in infantry units, serve alongside infantry units. For instance, a female signaller may serve with a combat infantry unit. That means, that she will fight with them, live with them, see combat with them just like they do, on top of their own job of signaller.
A female dog handerler will see combat alongside the rest of the unit they are attached to, whilst also having to look after the goddamn dog! Imagine being in a firefight and not only having to look after your own life, but also that of a dog!
We have proved their worth through methods like this that they CAN serve effectively on the front line.
However certain jobs are improbable for your average female. The job of being a grunt or infantry class soldier requires a heavy work load. One which the female body is not physically suited for anatomically.
I do not dispute that, overall, men are physically stronger than women. However, this rule is not universal, and female bodybuilding has a healthy following (even discounting those of them on steroids). These women are undoubtedly as strong, or stronger, than the average soldier.
I apologize if you have already addressed this in your earlier posts, but do you think even a women capable of meeting all the requirements of her male counterparts should still be disqualified from combat roles? It seems like most of the women interested in such roles would be fairly likely to be physically qualified for it.
Did you mention this due to me mentioning it earlier?
These women are undoubtedly as strong, or stronger, than the average soldier.
That is a bold statement, one which you are obviously not giving the average combat specialized soldier very much credit.
Your average combat infantry Marine is trained to hold the physical capability of running a mile in a half within 9 minutes, and run a solid 40 minutes straight.
I feel that your average female body builder would have trouble accomplishing such a task.
There are many different physical requirements of an infantry trained soldier, ones that I feel a female would not have the capability of accomplishing. The extremely limited few who do hold those capabilities can get a waiver, however the majority of women joining the military should not get to apply for such a job. It should be a request that is judged on a physical capability basis.
It seems like most of the women interested in such roles would be fairly likely to be physically qualified for it.
If you look at the requirements upon graduating between a male and female recruit you ought to note a noticeable difference. They are not as physically qualified as a male is, regardless of equality: a female trainee upon graduating did not have to meet the same physical requirements as a male trainee.
The military is an amazing opportunity for men and women alike, however I adamantly feel that some jobs should be reserved for men, unless a woman falls into the category of an overly physically qualified female.
There is absolutely no sexism present within my argument, any that is perceivable was either a mistake on my part or was a comment which was inevitable.
Did you mention this due to me mentioning it earlier?
I have not looked through the previous posts very thoroughly.
That is a bold statement, one which you are obviously not giving the average combat specialized soldier very much credit.
Your average combat infantry Marine is trained to hold the physical capability of running a mile in a half within 9 minutes, and run a solid 40 minutes straight.
I feel that your average female body builder would have trouble accomplishing such a task.
'Average' female bodybuilders are anything but when it comes to fitness capabilities. I do not intend to discount the capabilities of a soldier, only to illustrate that there is a demographic of women who can match them, even if they are fairly rare.
As for the rest of your post, I do not really disagree with you. I recognize the importance of physical requirements especially in combat positions and I do not think they should be transgressed for the sake of 'equality', even if it means that few women are able to meet them. I just now saw your first post on this side, and if I had seen it sooner, I probably would not have responded. It just seemed to me that your last post denied even qualified females on the basis of gender.
Which is why I said offering the job to all female applicants would be ludicrous when a waiver can be released to any female who meets the necessary requirements of a combat specialized soldier. To hold a whole 8 weeks of training for only a slight minority ending up graduating would be a useless waste of government spending. Whilst the elite women can merely get a waiver which allows them to fall into rank next to any man.
I think you will find, that whilst the fitness requirement for women is considerably lower, many women, myself included, would have passed even if we had been men.
I think you will find, that whilst the fitness requirement for women is considerably lower, many women, myself included, would have passed even if we had been men.
What in the hell are you talking about?
Even if you had been a man you would have passed?
I'm sorry but I don't understand where you are going with this.
I think you will find, that whilst the fitness requirement for women is considerably lower, many women, myself included, would have passed even if we had been men.
What you are saying exactly is this : If I had been a man I would have still passed the physical exam.
What you are saying is incoherent, what you meant to say I hope was : I think you will find, that whilst the fitness requirement for women is considerably lower , many women ( including myself , could pass the physical requirement of a male soldier even though we are women.
In which case I have no dispute there.
There is a handful of females that can be a special operative, but that is a handful. My proposition is that the job of special ops and jobs of that caliber of physical activity are not listed as a choice for women as not the average woman is physically capable of being in Spec Ops. What I am saying is that a waiver should be administered if a female passes a male graduation standard for physical fitness.
It is fair and equal and would keep the drop out rating of women spec ops to an extreme low.
They already have this same work load as an average infantry soldier, as well as say, being a translator.
Women already have the same workload as an average infantry soldier? Then why might I ask are their requirements to graduate lower than the requirements of men?
And what does being a translator have to do with anything?
If you had read my earlier post, you would know that some women who work as translators, dog handerlers, signallers, and many other trades, often work allongside infantry units, even elite ones such as paras or marines. In that role, they will work effectivelly as part of the infantry unit, like all the other members, until time comes that they are needed for their specific trade, such as a translator.
And as for the graduation standard, why are you asking me that? I believe the standards should be the same, but did i make the rules?
If you had read my earlier post, you would know that some women who work as translators, dog handlers, signallers, and many other trades, often work alongside infantry units, even elite ones such as paras or marines.
I read it originally only a few days ago, my debate turned from you over to Zombee and had completely forgotten your mention of this.
However as for linguists they are prized possessions. If they are working in the field they are doing so within an office.
signallers
I am not familiar with the Tech school of a signaler, or dog handler. My questions for you are of these average women who are holding jobs that have no need of a restriction based on sex: when you say they are working in the field do you mean they are doing the physical tasks of lets say a Marine? If a soldier is wounded and weighs 200 pounds is the female linguist already physically strong enough to carry the soldier to safety? Is this dog handler trained to give cover fire with an M-16 while lobbing grenades over 30 yards? Is that signaler ( as a requirement of their respected Tech school ) required to do the same physical activities as that Marine infantrymen was during his Tech school like say run a 6 minute mile?
Don't tell me about yourself, tell me about the average woman who takes up these jobs. Does BMT ( which has an easier workload to graduate ) make a woman who is anatomically not as physically strong as a man ( on an extreme average ) automatically able to carry out tasks that for the average woman are not actually physically possible?
My motion: a waiver for those specially qualified.
And as for the graduation standard, why are you asking me that?
I addressed that above.
I believe the standards should be the same, but did i make the rules?
There would be a much lower demographic of women in the military.
I am unsure whether their combat training of other trades would be on a par to that of a marine, but i would doubt it. Still, women in these situations have proved themselves capable of the basic rigours of combat. All soldiers are trained as a soldier first, trade second. A postal worker will have gone through and successfully completed the exact same training as a rifleman, before going on to train for their trade. EVERYONE is trained to provide covering fire, to launch section attacks, and to bayonet a man in the chest (actually, i believe we may have stopped teaching bayonet training recently, there was talk of it).
I am unsure if this is the same in America.
I know of at least one linguist that has worked in the field. I can only assume from that there are more.
As for a waiver, i think that would be a good idea. It allows those capable to fulfil the same roles as capable men, whilst not encouraging droves of feminists that only wish to join to prove their worth.
everyone says that women is not suitable for combat roles physically, but mentally women are more stronger than men. She has the mental ability to face any challeges in the war front.
Physical requirement in the combat roles can be decreased with the improvement of technology which increases the thinking ability and other major requirement needed for the warfront, at this stage women should be allowed.
Yes, I think women should be allowed 2 combat the difficult choice of what they should make me for breakfasts lunch and dinner. They are well suited for the role as they have been preparing 4 it their whole lives. It also keeps them out of harms way so that the men can do the real work.
Yes, I think women should be allowed 2 combat the difficult choice of what they should make me for breakfasts lunch and dinner. They are well suited for the role as they have been preparing 4 it their whole lives. It also keeps them out of harms way so that the men can do the real work.
In fact, unlike men, women carry more fat than muscles, so they're obviously less efficient than men in combat roles.
Of course there should be equality between the sexes, but woman and men cannot be compared when it comes to physical differences. At this point feminism is just stupid by demanding rights that would certainly be unfavorable.
The problem is that some women ARE fit enough. Admittedly, there are less of them, however, just because strong, capable women are in the minority, why does that mean we should not be able to join the infantry?
You say, "We". Are you implying that you are among the minority of women who can pull the same weight as a trained infantryman? If so, Kudos. But regardless, If this door gets cracked for small percentage of women, it might as well be flung wide open. Not to mention the POW Possibility...HMMM
Women are equal to men in the armed forces, but they are not the same as men. While the vast proportion of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to which women are just not physically suited. While some women are able to meet the absolute physical requirements for front-line combat such as carrying a wounded soldier, throwing grenades or digging a trench in hard terrain, most are not.
there are some to which women are just not physically suited
The same can be applied to some men. Does that mean that we should just dump off everyone and get rid of the army because some people of a certain gender may not be able to do something?
While some women are able to meet the absolute physical requirements for front-line combat such as carrying a wounded soldier, throwing grenades or digging a trench in hard terrain, most are not.
Source? Statistics? Something that supports this absurd line of thought?
You want statistics on how 'many women can't hold a 200 pound soldier'? Can your cousin do that? Can your sister? If they can, they should be absolutely able to join the front lines.
At the cellular level there's no difference between female muscle and male muscle. So, theoretically a woman with X pounds of muscle mass will be as strong as a male with X pounds of muscle mass. Women are designed to carry more muscle in the lower body, so she will probably have stronger legs and glutes and he will have stronger arms/back/chest.
We ( Women ) have fewer muscle fibers (especially in the upper body), so it's difficult for us to achieve the muscle mass of even an untrained man.
Lest say that I am a 5'4, 140 lb wrestler on a high school wrestling team. My wrestling coach is not being discriminatory by prohibiting me from fighting someone who is 6'4, 260 lbs. I said that to say this; I have no problem culturally with women having equal roles as men. But putting women into combat situations is irresponsible. Expecting a 5'4, 140 woman to pull the same weight as a company of 5'10 180 lb men is dangerous. Not to mention the POW possibility. hmmm.
Women would obviously still have to pass the same basic training and be of the same minimum/maximum bodily specifications as men. Someone's sex does not totally determine their strength, height and endurance. Also, if the POW thing is such a big deal, women could be required to be sterile to fight in combat.
I am anti-war unless in defence of one's own country--not theoretically but actually. Thus, if someone invades this country, both men and women should serve their country in ways best suited to their sex and areas of expertise. If, however, insanity continues to rule this country and we continue to invade other countries, women should not be able to serve in combat but should remain at home to rally against wars perpetrated on other countries. While men and women should have equal rights relative to pay, the sexes like it or not are different. We each excel at different things. We complement one another. And while there are in Nature anomalies; e.g., homosexuality, and a whole host of other sexual variables amongst us, the norm should be what is followed for the most part. However,there is still room for the butch woman to do whatever she wants and can do in a man's world and an effeminate man should be able to work at what he qualifies for in a woman's world.
