Should women have to fight combat roles during war?

Question

Do you think women should have to fight combat roles during war? Just wondering since I read about a lot of guys dying in Iraq. Plus aren't American women equal to American men? And a lot of them are also big too. So they can physically handle it.

Natalie, war is fought with guns and bombs. Physical strength does not matter. Girls can fight just as well as guys.

Natalie, a machine gun could care less if you are strong or brave. It will RIP YOU TO SHREADS. A bomb will blow you apart no matter how strong you are.

So no, a person's physical strength does not matter. Forget about dumb hand to hand combat. It's never like that in real war

Bayouborn, the Iraqi insurgents do not have fancy combat gear. They fight only with their guns and bombs. And frankly, they have managed to kill a lot of soldiers. So NO, physical strength does not matter. Just the guts to fight. If anything, your combat gear slows you down and makes you an easier target

Answer 1

We all wear fatigues.

Answer 2

I have been serving in the Army for over eight years and with all of the women I have met, hundreds, while serving only about one or two would be worth taking into combat with you. Two big problems would happen if you let it happen would be like the rest of the Army, the Army would lower its standards so that women could actually pass the course and then you start deterating the course. The other problem is you get these over achievers that come in to prove they can do anything a man can physically. Generally these types end up getting themselves or someone else hurt.

Answer 3

To some degree or another, but such talk is pointless. The military needs recruits in order to function. Conscription is out of the question, the sheer amount of civil disorder and unrest it would cause is enough of a prohibitive factor, then add in elections=no go. They tried lowering the standards, lowering their recruitment goals but young men are slowly but steadily opting out of the military meat grinder. But, women on the other hand want to serve more and more. Women will be put into combat roles because of necessity, I we shouldn't be all too surprised if an all female draft pop's-up in our life time as women are less anti-government then men(since the government helps women more then men, they have a more positive view of government and society then men, thus it is fitting that they be made to fight to defend a society that only benefits them).

Answer 4

Keep up with the times, women are fighting and dying in this hell hole of a war. There are rules against women doing certain jobs in the Army, but that doesn't mean they aren't getting blown apart and shot at. This isn't a war with battle lines and objectives. This is a war on every street at all times. Its like saying in earlier wars that women couldn't carry arms, all that meant was they couldn't shoot back, but the Army nurses were hit all the same. This country likes to pretend that women have no role to play in combat but doesn't give them their due when they are wounded or injured by the enemy, and in my book that's combat.
Just look at the previous answers, how many knew that women have already been killed in Iraq?

Answer 5

The fact is that women are in combat, and always have been. Traditional "roles" of combat are not what they used to be. But even when wars were fought with a front line, women were there, most nursing wounded men back to health, but some fighting. You'll find historical documentation of women disguising themselves as men in order to be allowed to fight in the Civil War. Besides that, today wars are fought very differently and there is no "safe zone" away from combat. The rules that our military had in place preventing women in combat also prevented women from rising among the ranks - a "camouflage ceiling" if you will. If a woman joins the military with a desire to serve her country then she should be allowed to do that. There are physical demands but most women (and men) gain the necessary ability to perform through training. More men are dying b/c more men volunteer for military service. I have the utmost respect for every person, male or female, who volunteers to serve our country. They are special and truly understand determination, dedication and honor, more so than most.

Answer 6

I have looked over the answers you was given, her choice is so wrong. If it is her choice it should be his choice also. Army is as Army does. If you don't want to carry a weapon, be shot at, etc, don't join. A woman's choice ends when she signs the dotted line. I think they should be right out there with the men doing her job. The contract to protect and serve is just that, legal and binding.

Answer 7

should??? i think its her choice.. i hate that some of the roles women cant be part of.. stupid people will answers things like no b/c women are special to mankind and bs like that as if their all going to join, and that men are pigs and will treat her difrently in combat.....and that thier not equal in strength- BS thats very generalizing...there are women out there that can kick butt..its no ones buisness if a women wants to fight then hell she should fight, she has every right and will to serve her country as any other man

Answer 8

The reason American women aren't in combat rolls is due to society, not skill. Females are in combat rolls in other nations' military. It's our society that is against it. When that changes, the law will too.

Answer 9

Paradox you are an idiot.Ofcourse physical strength matters.
Do you have any idea how much combat gear weighs?We have to run with this stuff on sometimes for days at a time with very little rest.
I am not downing women,but no.They do not belong in combat rolls.

Answer 10

im divided over this, a mans nature is to protect a woman, this could (despite training) cause SOME to act irrationally, and put themsleves in dangerous situations that he might otherwise not be in.

the other side of me says "if they are capable, then why not?"

which leads me back to the 1st thing i stated. lol

Answer 11

Would you want women (instead of men) fighting combat roles in a war YOU wanted to win?

I say let women that want to fight fight but don't MAKE them and then give the non-combat roles to a man. Men are more suited for war and anyone that doesn't know that is in denial or an idiot, and yes OF COURSE this is a generalisation. Yes, SOME men are weaker than SOME women bla bla bla but most often a MAN would be who I want defending me if it comes down to something like hand-to-hand combat, etc.

And your statement about American women being equal to American men? Idiotic. We want equal rights. That doesn't mean we want people thinking that we are equal in physical strength. WTF?