Current Events > Do you approve of having women in combat roles?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm kind of undecided on this question because there are a lot of factors involved - some physical fitness related, some psychological. But I'm leaning towards "yes" provided that the women meet the same standards as the men.
---

If someone is willing to die for this country and won't put their fellow soldiers in danger, I say fucking go for it. I sure as hell wouldn't be out there.
---

The Soviets proved it worked, among others.
---

do you mean like everyone else or like in special roles
---

DocileOrangeCup posted...

do you mean like everyone else or like in special roles

Like everyone else.
---

It depends, does it make our military more effective? I'm skeptical that putting women in combat would make us better at killing people, but whatever works.
---

PikachuMaxwell posted...

DocileOrangeCup posted...

do you mean like everyone else or like in special roles

Like everyone else.

If they are able to perform exactly the same as their male peers then I don't see a problem.
---

I worry that it will hurt unit cohesion to have women around.
---

If an individual is able and willing to perform a task, then (external circumstances notwithstanding) they should be allowed to.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

I worry that it will hurt unit cohesion to have women around.

---

Yes. Equality, dammit.
Anyone who can hack it, should definitely be allowed to murder the enemy.

Yes. It's their choice.
---

There no logical reason why a woman who can meet the physical requirements shouldn't be allowed to serve her country if she chooses.
---

If it's someone like my former Sergeant who treated the army like kindergarden, then no.
If it's someone like my former Captain, who was a motorcycle riding, leather wearing hard ass who feared nothing, then still no.
Not because I think they couldn't do it adequately, but because men tend to become unfocused idiots when there's a set of boobs around.
---

They can flash boob to inflict stun status effect to enemies soldiers
---

Smashingpmkns posted...

If someone is willing to die for this country and won't put their fellow soldiers in danger, I say fucking go for it. I sure as hell wouldn't be out there.

You always hear about people who would die for their country but never anyone who would kill for it
---

Flasbangs posted...

If it's someone like my former Sergeant who treated the army like kindergarden, then no.
If it's someone like my former Captain, who was a motorcycle riding, leather wearing hard ass who feared nothing, then still no.
Not because I think they couldn't do it adequately, but because men tend to become unfocused idiots when there's a set of boobs around.

If men get distracted so easily, remove them all for being potentially useless and use that female distraction to our advantage against enemy combatants.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Flasbangs posted...

If it's someone like my former Sergeant who treated the army like kindergarden, then no.
If it's someone like my former Captain, who was a motorcycle riding, leather wearing hard ass who feared nothing, then still no.
Not because I think they couldn't do it adequately, but because men tend to become unfocused idiots when there's a set of boobs around.

If men get distracted so easily, remove them all for being potentially useless and use that female distraction to our advantage against enemy combatants.

But then there'd only be like 10 people left in the army. 9 of those who are only there to "prove that they can".
---

Flasbangs posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Flasbangs posted...

If it's someone like my former Sergeant who treated the army like kindergarden, then no.
If it's someone like my former Captain, who was a motorcycle riding, leather wearing hard ass who feared nothing, then still no.
Not because I think they couldn't do it adequately, but because men tend to become unfocused idiots when there's a set of boobs around.

If men get distracted so easily, remove them all for being potentially useless and use that female distraction to our advantage against enemy combatants.

But then there'd only be like 10 people left in the army. 9 of those who are only there to "prove that they can".

I'd rather have them than distracted men
---

gunplagirl posted...

Flasbangs posted...

If it's someone like my former Sergeant who treated the army like kindergarden, then no.
If it's someone like my former Captain, who was a motorcycle riding, leather wearing hard ass who feared nothing, then still no.
Not because I think they couldn't do it adequately, but because men tend to become unfocused idiots when there's a set of boobs around.

If men get distracted so easily, remove them all for being potentially useless and use that female distraction to our advantage against enemy combatants.

We need to have enough soldiers to function. With only qualified females, you might have about as large of a military as Luxembourg
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Flasbangs posted...

If it's someone like my former Sergeant who treated the army like kindergarden, then no.
If it's someone like my former Captain, who was a motorcycle riding, leather wearing hard ass who feared nothing, then still no.
Not because I think they couldn't do it adequately, but because men tend to become unfocused idiots when there's a set of boobs around.

If men get distracted so easily, remove them all for being potentially useless and use that female distraction to our advantage against enemy combatants.

We need to have enough soldiers to function. With only qualified females, you might have about as large of a military as Luxembourg

Do we REALLY need a military? I'd prefer we simply return the nation to the rightful hands of the surviving native tribes. Maybe some to African Americans as reparations for slavery. You know. Things the UN has suggested we do.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Do we REALLY need a military? I'd prefer we simply return the nation to the rightful hands of the surviving native tribes. Maybe some to African Americans as reparations for slavery.

Lol
---

CE is too easy.

Like trying to make a toddler happy. Give them a cup full of froot loops to snack on, turn on spongebob and give them some blocks to play with.
---

No. I don't approve of having men in combat roles either.

On_The_Edge posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

I worry that it will hurt unit cohesion to have women around.

I don't. Instead, I worry that people will be brandishing this reasoning as justification for keeping women out of combat roles a century from now and that effectively nothing will have changed in the public perception between now and then.
---

gunplagirl posted...

CE is too easy.

Like trying to make a toddler happy. Give them a cup full of froot loops to snack on, turn on spongebob and give them some blocks to play with.

You are correct. When someone has such hilariously awful opinions as you it is indeed easy to troll CE
---

Women should not be in combat roles. The Marines conducted research showing that women are less accurate shooters than men, more likely to get injured in combat, more likely to slow down units in their tasks, and are more likely to take leave. They bring into tense situations unnecessary complications like sexual relationships and pregnancies, as well as higher risks of sexual assault.

Integrating women into combat roles will lead to more deaths. It really is that simple.

Maybe small surrounded nations like Israel should have integrated forces. The United States is a near continental sized nation with vast manpower reserves. We have no need of women on the front lines.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-marines-women-20150912-story.html
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2017/08/11/at-boot-camp-3-out-of-4-women-fail-to-meet-combat-standards/
---

My problem with the unit cohesion argument is that it's reminiscent of why gay men couldn't serve or why black men couldn't serve.
It's sort of like "oh but periods" ignoring shots that prevent them or the fact we manage to send chocolates / cheerleaders to combat zones.

A better argument in my opinion is about the physical requirements. There are two kinds of requirements, the kind where you have to prove you're in shape (and so women will have different standards to men, similar to older men having lower requirements to younger men), and the kind where you have to physically be capable (such as carrying your equipment, injured comrades, etc.) that women will struggle to meet. Even if they do meet those standards, you run into a problem with how bone structure regarding hips have proven that they fuck up female soldiers who are loaded up like pack mules.

glitteringfairy posted...

gunplagirl posted...

CE is too easy.

Like trying to make a toddler happy. Give them a cup full of froot loops to snack on, turn on spongebob and give them some blocks to play with.

You are correct. When someone has such hilariously awful opinions as you it is indeed easy to troll CE

Don't know how often I need to repeat it but I only troll on Saturdays in the afternoon because I'm stuck at work, or all day Sunday because I'm stuck at work AND tired because my schedule doesn't let me get much sleep.

Seriously though, make America native again.
---

Callixtus posted...

Maybe small surrounded nations like Israel should have integrated forces. The United States is a near continental sized nation with vast manpower reserves. We have no need of women on the front lines.

We have comparatively little need for men in these roles either. It happens that competence favors men here, but it's not like there aren't competent female soldiers.

And I'm happy that you mention Israel here. Were the expectation of martial competence the standard demanded by society, the performance gap observed in the cited study would likely change.
---

Callixtus posted...

The Marines conducted research showing that women are less accurate shooters than men

that's interesting, pretty much everything i've ever seen and heard has shown that women tend to be better shots than men
---

The difference with gay men and black men is that neither of those two get pregnant, and then have to go on leave for 9 months wasting taxpayer money. There is also the issue of sexual assault which will no doubt rise as more women are put in combat.

Liberals think young frat boys can't control themselves. Now they want women surrounded by young men at the height of their libido, potentially thousands of miles away from accessible women, facing the real possibility of death every day. What do they think will happen?
---

Being less accurate shooters is a good thing, it means they're less likely to kill people

Callixtus posted...

The difference with gay men and black men is that neither of those two get pregnant, and then have to go on leave for 9 months wasting taxpayer money. There is also the issue of sexual assault which will no doubt rise as more women are put in combat.

Liberals think young frat boys can't control themselves. Now they want women surrounded by young men at the height of their libido, potentially thousands of miles away from accessible women, facing the real possibility of death every day. What do they think will happen?

I think some people will get fired for inappropriate and unprofessional behavior, and everyone else will learn from their mistakes or share their fate.
---

hollow_shrine posted...

Callixtus posted...

The difference with gay men and black men is that neither of those two get pregnant, and then have to go on leave for 9 months wasting taxpayer money. There is also the issue of sexual assault which will no doubt rise as more women are put in combat.

Liberals think young frat boys can't control themselves. Now they want women surrounded by young men at the height of their libido, potentially thousands of miles away from accessible women, facing the real possibility of death every day. What do they think will happen?

I think some people will get fired for inappropriate and unprofessional behavior, and everyone else will learn from their mistakes or share their fate.

Even now the military is rife with sexual assaults. Women in combat areas are more likely to report sexual assault occurrences as well. This will only increase as more women are put in these positions. The infantry branches, Army and Marines, also have far twice the rates of sexual assault as the Navy and Air Force.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/360959-military-victims-reporting-sexual-assault-increased-in-2016
https://www.stripes.com/news/sexual-harassment-assault-more-likely-for-deployed-women-who-saw-combat-1.243735
---

They should meet whatever standards there are for whichever role they want, there should not be a lower bar for being a woman.

If that means less women with rifles on the front line, so be it.
---

I completely approve with the caveat being there is no different fitness standard. If a fitness test means a man has to run a 2 minute mile in a certain time and do so many pushups then the female should do the same in a combat role.
---