@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial IssuesStarted 9yrs agoActive 6mos ago

Should the military allow women to serve in combat roles?

In Germany, women began joining combat units in 2001 after the European Court of Justice ruled that preventing women from such jobs was against gender equality principles. Women can choose any military career they want, including elite groups such as marine commandos. The number of women in the German armed forces tripled between 2001 and 2014, with about 800 women in combat units, including many who have served in the Afghanistan war. Proponents argue that it will help the military retain more women, who tend to leave the services permanently when they have children. Opponents argue that allowing women to serve in these roles would limit the military's ability to fight in combat situations.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  FDP

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 1.6k FDP voters.

89%
Yes
11%
No
71%
Yes
9%
No
17%
Yes, as long as they can pass the same physical tests as men
1%
No, women are not as physically capable as men for combat
2%
Yes, preventing women from serving in combat roles is discriminatory
0%
No, men are more likely to risk the success of a mission in order to protect a women from danger
0%
No, combat roles place women in a high risk situation for sexual assault

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 1.6k FDP voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 1.6k FDP voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from FDP voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9SRMBBDfrom Maryland  answered…6mos6MO

I personally disapprove of military combat in general, though if it is necessary, all genders should be allowed to serve in whatever role they best fit in.

 @99ZNFDGanswered…2yrs2Y

No, no one should be allowed to serve in the military as as such women should not

 @8W8TQHBanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but the end goal of every country should be the dismantling of the military.

 @97S2D8Gfrom Connecticut  answered…2yrs2Y

They should be allowed to but there should never be female conscription

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Women in Combat” news articles, updated frequently.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies