@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial IssuesStarted 9yrs agoActive 2wks ago

Should the military allow women to serve in combat roles?

In December 2015, the Pentagon announced that all combat roles would be opened to women. The roles include driving tanks, firing mortars, and leading infantry soldiers into combat. Women would also be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps Infantry and Air Force parajumpers. Proponents of women in combat argue that women have been serving in Afghanistan and Iraq for 15 years and preventing them from combat operations is discriminatory. Opponents argue that allowing women to serve in these roles would limit the military's ability to fight in combat situations.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Cook (Illinois)

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 57.3k Cook voters.

89%
Yes
11%
No
75%
Yes
9%
No
13%
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 57.3k Cook voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 57.3k Cook voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

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

 @3PPN2QTfrom Minnesota  answered…4yrs4Y

No, the mere presence of women in a combat zone creates a dangerous mental shift in men

 @3PQFY5Kfrom Illinois  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, as long as they can pass the same physical tests as men and as long as they are drafted when there is a draft, just like men. Equality should cover all aspects of serving in the Armed Forces and as serving on the front lines.

 @47RB7ZLfrom Massachusetts  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, anyone stupid enough to volunteer for military service should be allowed to do so.

 @47SYR7Mfrom South Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

Men in combat are inclined to protect the women and become less effective in engaging the enemy.

 @5DR6G5Jfrom Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

no, because if all the women get killed, it is harder to reproduce. But if they can't have a baby then they can join.

 @3PPXZCZfrom Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

Women should be allowed MOS's that are traditionally combat but not in positions that place them in units where survival depends on defense of each other. Not because women are not capable but because our society raises males to defend and protect females, this may interfere with efficient operation in a combat situation.

 @47RRQHVfrom South Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

Women are more susceptible to sexual and physical assault in combat roles. This may make them emotional less stable in life or death situations.

 @52RWP84from Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

No women will ruin everything with their emotions! Men are emotionless. And you better believe me or I will throw a tantrum!

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…3wks3W

Donald Trump nominates Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General

Former President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General of the United States, should he reclaim the presidency in the upcoming election.Bondi, a prominent figure in Republican politics, served as Florida's Attorney General from 2011 to 2019. She gained national attention for her legal battles on issues such as health care reform, consumer protection, and opioid abuse litigation. Known for her steadfast support of Trump during his presidency, Bondi also served as a key adviser during his first impeachment trial, where she defended his administration against accusations of abuse of power.In a statement released by his campaign, Trump praised Bondi’s “unwavering commitment to justice” and her “track record of standing up for everyday Americans against the abuses of Washington’s elites.”“Pam Bondi has been a fearless advocate for the people, and she embodies the principles of fairness, accountability, and the rule of law that are sorely needed to restore trust in our justice system,” Trump said. “She is the right person to lead the Department of Justice into a new era of integrity and excellence.”While Bondi’s nomination has been met with applause from conservative circles, it has also reignited criticism from Democrats and ethics watchdogs. Her acceptance of a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation in 2013, which coincided with her decision not to pursue an investigation into Trump University, has drawn scrutiny in the past and resurfaced following the announcement.Democratic leaders have already voiced opposition, questioning Bondi’s ability to lead the Department of Justice independently. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) called the nomination “a political power play” and urged a focus on “restoring integrity, not entrenching partisanship.”

▲  2317 replies

Active 3 days ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Kamala Harris is considering running for president again in 2028

Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aides in Hawaii before heading back to the nation’s capital.But privately, the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”She is expected to explore those and other possible paths forward with family members over the winter holiday season, according to five people in the Harris inner circle, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Her deliberations follow an extraordinary four months in which Harris went from President Joe Biden’s running mate to the top of the ticket, reenergizing Democrats before ultimately crashing on election night.“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”Harris concedes: 'We must accept the results of this election'SharePlay VideoMost immediately, Harris and her advisers are working to define how and when she will speak out against Donald Trump and reassert her own role in the Democratic Party. Closing out her term as vice president, she’s set to preside over certifying the November election she lost to Trump, and then appear at the once-and-future president’s inauguration on Jan. 20.“There will be a desire to hear her voice, and there won’t be a vacuum for long,” a person close to Harris said.At the same time, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, will have a long checklist to plow through before they leave the Naval Observatory for good.They have to decide whether they’ll take up permanent residence at their home in Los Angeles, or establish a base elsewhere. No matter where Harris and her family live, some around her have expressed concerns about safety, as her Secret Service protection expires six months after stepping away.

▲  1023 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies