Poll: 53% Support Women in Combat Roles

83% Favor Women in Support Roles Such as Military Police and Medics, CBS News/New York Times Poll Finds

(CBS)  Women in the U.S. military currently are prohibited from joining combat units and only a slim majority of Americans support their participation in ground fighting, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll.

Just 53 percent support women in combat roles, while an overwhelming majority of Americans (83 percent) are in favor of women serving as support for ground troops in such capacities as military police, medics and Humvee drivers.

Views on Women in the Military

Both men (53 percent) and women (53 percent) favor an expanded role for women in the military, but just 44 percent of women age 45 and older support it, compared to 62 percent of younger women.

Most Democrats, independents, liberals and moderates favor military women being directly involved in ground fighting. Republicans and conservatives oppose the idea.

Age matters as well. Just 37 percent of Americans age 65 and older support the idea of women joining combat units - the lowest of any age group.

Also, 60 percent of those living in the northeast favor women being directly involved in combat - the highest of any geographical region.

---

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1050 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone July 24-28, 2009. Phone numbers were dialed from random digit dial samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher.

This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

[blueline09]

This support for putting wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters in combat, something they?re not equipped to do physically or psychologically, is merely another sign of what a sick and twisted society we?re become.

[mom_medic2006]

I have read a lot of these comments and would just like to say a few things. First, you should not judge all women equally. I have been in the army since I was 17 and I am a combat medic. I am also a mother of two boys. Women may not be stronger than men physically, but we can take a lot of crap. We can and have deployed to combat zones, we have seen our friends fall and fought to save their lives. We have been wounded and killed just the same as men. We sit in tanks and hold our pee until the missions are over or find creative ways to go to the pot. We ruck for miles with full loads just like the guys. Just because you don't hear about it a lot doesn't mean its not done or can't be done. And when we go back home we step back into our roles as wives and moms. So don't down females just because you don't think they can do it. Let the ones who want to prove themselves. In the end we all bleed and die the same way. We are soldiers and we are tested thought the flames of combat just the same way.

[proudmilvet]

Almost forgot, Bill O'Reilly. Another Super Patiotic Flag Waving Clown who somehow never found the time to serve!!

[proudmilvet]

Archie-Clement... You stated that you know of no Liberal that served in the Military. You might want to include all of the Super Patriotic Flag Waving "Heros" of the Right Wing in that same catagory! Dick(Old Draft Dodgin Dick)Cheney,fully supported the war in Vietnam but chose to take 5 college draft deferments! Also among those who never served: Rush Limbaugh,Sean Hannity,Glenn Beck,Newt Gingrich,Ann Coulter,Michele Malkin,Tom Delay,Dick Armey,Phil Gramm,ect. All Chickenhawks!!

[idcabouturproblems]

I wonder what terrorists will do when that capture a women soldier, think about it...

[bpb58]

Besides, the majority of women dress like the men anyway.

[bpb58]

hey, equal means equal. I also think young women should have to register for the selective service like the young men. I actually think mandatory service is a good idea, like many other countries.

[devipod07]

Having been an Army Infantry soldier with a tour in Afghanistan, I can honestly say I do not support women being in forward combat units. Not the infantry at least. Its not that I dont beleive women can do the job, or that they are inferior in anyway. Its the psychology of the job that is at stake. Co-ed combat units I think would be ineffective. There needs to be a bit of male chauvinism. The gravity of the task hand demands a bit of the 'invincibility' feeling that young men have in them. Likewise, men might feel obligated to be overprotective of their femal counterpart, or the female may be OVERLY aggressive in an attmept to assert her place. In combat, those can be fatal mistakes. There is in no way I look back at my tour and think I could have done the same job, with women in my platoon especially given the conditions we were in. I almost think its hardwired in male evolution to be the fighters, and women to be the ardent, and confident supporters. Changing those roles too much would be really risky in my opinion

[daffy64]

Any woman that advocates women in combat...it obviously not concerned that they are personally going to go into combat.

[rational_1]

I agree with previous posters who say that if women can meet the physical standards required of men (not the watered down standards they now meet) then by all means they'd be physically capable of combat and should go. But, what are the odds? A few things to consider. On average women have just over half of the upper body strength of men and about 70% of the lower body strength, so it's truly an exceptional woman who has the strength of a grown man. Facts aren't sexist; that's just the way it is. So, what percentage of women get close to the average for male strength? Anyone know - I bet it's pretty low. My wife is literally one in a thousand at 6' tall (and she weighs about 150) and I doubt she would last a minute in a fight against a guy who weighs 130-140 lbs (and that's pretty small for a man). Next is the issue of how much it's going to cost to identify these rare women. One of the goals of basic training is to weed out unfit men. Why have many many women go through this procedure to identify the truly rare woman who is capable of passing? We're trillions in debt and this is how we want to spend even more money? Participating in the military is not a right and women have no intrinsic rights to combat roles - and it's going to cost a lot of money and waste a lot of time just to identify the rare few that could handle it. Seems pointless to me.

[daffy64]

Yeah. But you're missing the point.

Feminists view any all-male organization as a "boys club" to be invaded by spunky women and used to demonstrate equality of the sexes.

One has to wonder why combat roles in the military are singled out and not professional sports.

Surely if women are capable of carrying 100 packs up mountains in desert heat and killing enemy soldiers with their bare hands, they're capable of playing football in the NFL.

You go girl.

[rational_1]

There is a weird dichotomy here among women who favor putting women in combat. One could rightly view combat (especially hand-to-hand) as the most intense physical competition that one might ever encounter. So, for those arguing that women are able to compete on these terms with men, they would surely also be able to compete directly with them in athletic events such as in the Olympics. So, let's get rid of the LPGA, women's tennis, WNBA, have them all compete together and let the best man or woman win. LOL - that'll be the day. Feminists really are an interesting lot; they'll go on about the right to compete with men whenever they think they can win, but immediately demand protection from male competition whenever they can't (which leads to women's teams in sports). So, which is it? Pick a lane - if you can handle combat, surely a 100m dash run against men should be a cinch.

[cbs_tom]

Be it that I believe there are many women capable physically and emotionally to handle combat, however, I believe that women do not belong in combative positions. Men go to war to protect women and children. Call this an old fashioned belief, but shivelry should still exist. The idea of placing those we love and provide for in harms way goes against all that humanity should offer. War is a horrible place we wish not to even send our sons, but from time to time we must in order to restore peace. It is difficult enough observing the death of a fellow soldier. But, to see a woman killed, maimed, or tortured is over the line for sanity.

[daffy64]

Maybe it is time to let females take over all combat roles. After all, men have shouldered that burden for the past several thousand years.

As a bonus, maybe when women are eligible for the draft and are FORCED to experience the horrors of combat, they'll become so revolted with the dirty work that only non war-mongering politicians will be hired.

[stryker54]

just turn loose the unmanned aircraft. nobody is in harms way. just the bad guy.

[daffy64]

If this means opening up the draft to women, I'm all for it. But you can't have it both ways. Women can't have the "luxury" of serving in combat (if you want to call it that) but not the obligation. That's not equality.

Drafting an 18 year old schoolgirl to go fight hand to hand against a battle crazed ***** enemy soldier doesn't seem like a particularly good tactical idea to me, seeing as the average physical strength of a woman of ANY age is roughly equivalent to that of a 12 yer old boy. But hey. You can't tell feminists anything they don't want to hear.

By the way, I'm wondering why there aren't any women in the NFL, NBA or NHL yet? Sexism? Of they just can't keep up?

[idcabouturproblems]

I am guessing that the physical training would be just fine.

[goffredo29]

Here's an idea. Before we debate THIS question, let's start by getting rid of the Selective Service and all its fascist elements, like mandating that the personal information of young boys be automatically sent to Washington if they apply for a drivers license, like denying male college students student aid if they don't register, like offending men who happen to go to post office with Selective Service posters like the one that says: "A Man's Gotta Do What A Man's Gotta Do." This, not to mention that our Selective Service history is available to everyone.

[rplat]

Only a small miniscule fraction of the 53% know what "combat" really is and if they're smart they'll leave this decision to the ones that do.

[darth_dionysus]

As a retired military Senior NCO, I have to say that I fully support women fighting right along side of men ... as long as the physical requirements in basic and advanced training are equal, and only those that meet the standards get to go.

Women want and deserve equality, so give it to them, along with equal responsibility. Register them for a fictitious draft that will never come and stop trying to pretend that those in combat zones now are not there in combat roles.

Everyone in the US military deserves to serve in the area that would benefit both them and the US the most, regardless of gender.

[Solarrays247]

Thank you, Sir. Great post! As a woman, mother of a daughter and a son...I fully support your post. My daughter thanks you, also.

[Hosheen]

Anyone that can pass the test should be able to fill any roll they want. That's why women often make good combat and bomber pilots. They can also make good ship commanders and fire control officers. If they can pass the physical tests, why shouldn't the be combat infantry? A lot of men can't pass those physical tests either. I'd prefer a mentally and physically qualified woman watching my back than an unqualified man any day.

[daffy64]

If they can pass the physical tests, why shouldn't the be combat infantry?

--

They can't pass physical standards unless the standards are drastically reduced. They've found that here in Canada even for Police and Firefighters. A sixty year old man can EASILY pass the entrance exam for a woman. And on average, a twelve year old boy is a strong as a female of any age.

But reality doesn't really matter as long as some grumpy feminist somewhere can claim that women are equal.

You'll convince me of that with the very first woman NFL player!

[Solarrays247]

daffy64 August 16, 2009 7:40 PM EDT
If they can pass the physical tests, why shouldn't the be combat infantry?

--

They can't pass physical standards unless the standards are drastically reduced. They've found that here in Canada even for Police and Firefighters. A sixty year old man can EASILY pass the entrance exam for a woman. And on average, a twelve year old boy is a strong as a female of any age.

But reality doesn't really matter as long as some grumpy feminist somewhere can claim that women are equal.

You'll convince me of that with the very first woman NFL player!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey, daffy64! Do YOU play for the NFL? LOL

And what in the hell are you doing to the women where you live, when a young twelve year old boy is as strong as a female of any age? Gads, are your women even fit to bear children!

You are so full of it!

[daffy64]

Hey, daffy64! Do YOU play for the NFL? LOL

And what in the hell are you doing to the women where you live, when a young twelve year old boy is as strong as a female of any age? Gads, are your women even fit to bear children!

You are so full of it!

--

Well this may shock you, but Canadian women are JUSSSSST about the same as American women.

My point is, any time they want to integrate women SUCCESFULLY into a male dominated profession like firefighting or combat roles, they alter the standars to suit them. Women are only 70% as strong as men and a fifty year old man has the same anaerobic ability as a twenty year old woman.

Hey, if the enemy is willing to lower their standards as well and get a good percentage of women soldiers, I don't see a problem.

[cs4466]

Women and men are equal. Each should be afforded the right to do whatever it is they want to do. When it comes to social science, equal does not mean identical except in the mind of a bigot.

[daffy64]

So why aren't there any women in the NFL?

[formrusmcsgt]

People who claim that only sexists could object to women in combat show all their intellectual laziness.

Women and men are, indeed, equal. But that is not to say we are the same.

[the_majesty]

If women were physically equal to men.
You would see women playing on the NFL.
Stop the lies.