Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

[Thaluikhain]

And was it by sheer coincidence that almost every kingdom/empire/nation/civilization found gender roles to be the best way to function throughout the history of mankind? Oh and it was also coincidence that they all arrived at that conclusion completely independent/separated from each other by time periods or geographic locations, right? Because I highly doubt everyone was copying everyone else, as if one civilization said "hey I heard rumors of a nation beyond the horizon who use men for war and protect their women! Lets copy them, yeah!". I'm fairly certain each one arrived at their own conclusion independently and used something that worked best for them. Despite the vastly different cultures, societies and conditions that each civilization rose from, there was ONE strikingly similar pattern across all of them - gender roles. Coincidence? Stupidity?
Or are you really implying with a straight face that all that was simply a miraculous stroke of luck on a global scale resulting in the exactly the same scenario for men and women, over and over again, over the course of thousands of years? All a made-up nonsensical thing, yes?

You'll note, of course, that not every culture with gender roles has the same gender roles.

 

[Yuuki]

You'll note, of course, that not every culture with gender roles has the same gender roles.

They had their own little spin on it depending on how they worked, lived, progressed, etc. But some basic patterns were definitely present through all civilizations (or at least, ones who were successful and at least left their mark on the world)...can't really ignore that.

 

[Thaluikhain]

They had their own little spin on it depending on how they worked, lived, progressed, etc. But some basic patterns were definitely present through all civilizations (or at least, ones who were successful and at least left their mark on the world)...can't really ignore that.

Oh, which basic patterns?

For that matter, slavery was very common throughout many empires. Absolute rule by a hereditary ruler.

Should we bring those back?

 

[Yuuki]

Oh, which basic patterns?

If I have to explain that, then nothing I say will convince you.

I'll try some basic stuff...

The bit about women warriors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior#Women_as_warriors
The very first sentence in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_Medieval_warfare

Take note of something similar about all the soldiers in the below art (sorry they didn't have cameras back then, you'll have to take my word for it):

Spoiler

For that matter, slavery was very common throughout many empires. Absolute rule by a hereditary ruler.

Should we bring those back?

Depends, does it have a need/benefit today? If yes, bring it back. If no, leave it in the past. Adapt to the times and needs, think logically, aim for the best results, obvious stuff...and I explained a few posts above why female combat/frontline soldiers are more of a liability than a help with tons of info/links you should read first, stuff written by women & men who have known (and experienced) far more military life than you or me. Don't take my word for it, take theirs.

There is only one specific situation which I accepted as a good reason to let women be combat/frontline soldiers, that being a desperate lack of male recruits and the military needing more at any cost. In that case fine, resort to deploying women into combat since desperate times call for desperate measures. Otherwise let men do what men do best, war isn't a playground where people get to dream about ideologies, war is where people have to face facts.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The very first sentence in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_Medieval_warfare

Take note of something similar about all the soldiers in the below art (sorry they didn't have cameras back then, you'll have to take my word for it):

Spoiler

Ah, so you think the entire world was Europe.

 

[Yuuki]

The very first sentence in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_Medieval_warfare

Take note of something similar about all the soldiers in the below art (sorry they didn't have cameras back then, you'll have to take my word for it):

Spoiler

Ah, so you think the entire world was Europe.

Hang on hang on, you responded too fast. Sorry but I have such an absurd amount of info/facts/evidence it's hard assembling it all into one post, since you asked such an insanely obvious question.

Not of obscure medieval times, but something happening RIGHT NOW in Syria:

Spoiler

Random image search of "syrian rebels" result:

These men aren't even trained, they're simply fighting for what they feel is right.
Where are the women? Why aren't the women taking to the streets and letting the men stay home? Where are all the female rebel groups? That is the reality of when the shit hits the fan in actual warfare. It's not an ideological world where the genders are equally good at fighting, it's when you have to face facts.

Also check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior#Women_as_warriors
It's not about medieval Europe, it's about warriors in societies and civilizations in general. Note the word "exceptions" - i.e. not normal, incredibly rare to the point of being exceptions.

How much longer till you accept that there is an obvious pattern through all civilizations of men being the frontline combatants & fighters? I've already posted enough info/links of why women still would only pose downsides/negatives as combatants on the frontline, see my previous posts.

I think that's all the info I'm digging up for now, it's too much work to have to explain such incredibly obvious things. At this rate I'll probably get asked where babies come from.

 

[DerangedHobo]

Yeah they should be but there is two main things I have a gripe with, A. Last time I checked they lowered the requirements for women which is bullshit, if someone gets shot and they have to drag a 200lb man off the field they probably can't and B. There is a lot of room here for sexual assault/falsely accused sexual assault and not saying every female in the army does this but if fucking happens then you got pregnant soldiers who were probably trained and only in there for a month and then they're discharged.

 

[Thaluikhain]

These men aren't even trained, they're simply fighting for what they feel is right.
Where are the women? Why aren't the women taking to the streets and letting the men stay home? Where are all the female rebel groups?

You mean like how the Viet Cong had thousands of female soldiers? Or they have female soldiers in the Thahan Phran (ok, not a rebel group, but a paramilitary militia). For that matter, in the Thai military in general, for quite some time.

That is the reality of when the shit hits the fan in actual warfare. It's not an ideological world where the genders are equally good at fighting, it's when you have to face facts.

Ah, so openly gay people suddenly stopped being inadequate soldiers in the US a few years back? Black soldiers a few decades before that?

I somehow doubt Syria has suddenly embraced gender equality and would allow women in all positions they are suitable for.

It's not about medieval Europe, it's about warriors in societies and civilizations in general. Note the word "exceptions" - i.e. not normal, incredibly rare to the point of being exceptions.

For much of history, female leaders of major nations was exceptional. Should we ban female leaders because of this? Females in other various important professions?

 

[Yuuki]

You mean like how the Viet Cong had thousands of female soldiers? Or they have female soldiers in the Thahan Phran (ok, not a rebel group, but a paramilitary militia). For that matter, in the Thai military in general, for quite some time.

I can't find any evidence of lots of females in combat/frontline roles in the Thai military. Please find me some, then I'll add the Thai Military to the list of exceptions where females have been allowed to serve in combat/frontline roles. Thank you.

Ah, so openly gay people suddenly stopped being inadequate soldiers in the US a few years back? Black soldiers a few decades before that?

Gay and black soldiers haven't been denied the ability to fight over a global scale across independent civilizations/societies over mankind's history. There's no pattern. But men being far better suited for warfare than women is something that IS a pattern across all civilizations/societies over mankind's history, with a few rare exceptions (yes, exceptions). US Military is a fairly new thing compared to the rest of the world.

I somehow doubt Syria has suddenly embraced gender equality and would allow women in all positions they are suitable for.

Those weren't photos of the Syrian military, those were Syrian rebels - rebels have no positions, ranks or roles. They are common folk like you and me, folk driven to desperation and any able-bodied person who is willing to fight can join the battle or run away if they don't feel like. Yet they are all almost exclusively males doing all the fighting. There ARE a few exceptionally rare cases of women grabbing guns and joining the male groups, nobody is stopping them from doing that. I simply proved that that even among untrained common folk, when war/chaos arrives there is an immediate tendency for the men to take the fighting stance and women to seek shelter/protection. Syria is living proof of this.

For much of history, female leaders of major nations was exceptional. Should we ban female leaders because of this? Females in other various important professions?

Oh my god, read the thread title. This thread is specifically about combat/frontline roles. There is a reason I'm literally spamming my ass off with "combat/frontline" everywhere I can. Women are absolutely WELCOME to do whatever other positions they like, whether it be leading, playing tennis, governing nations, baking cookies or being the queens of the whole damn world. But let men use their physical advantage to do what they do best, and don't shove women into those roles (even if they want to be there) because in the long term and on a large scale it will only do more harm than good - both to the womens' bodies AND the military. See my linked reports/articles in earlier posts for proof, and also an extensive range of opinions from women and men who have served in the military in the more physically demanding roles. Take their word for it, not mine.

 

[CHUD]

Reducing discrimination is just something to make people feel warm and fuzzy on the inside

Yeah, sure, and so was ending slavery and fighting apartheid. Just us crazy hippies and our "fuzzy feelings".

As long as the requirements for whatever military role in question stays unchanged - there is also no basis to claim that taking in women will "reduce effectiveness".

 

[DefunctTheory]

For that matter, slavery was very common throughout many empires. Absolute rule by a hereditary ruler.

Should we bring those back?

Depends, does it have a need/benefit today? If yes, bring it back. If no, leave it in the past. Adapt to the times and needs, think logically, aim for the best results, obvious stuff...

My mind is, quite frankly, blown, at how casually you just disregarded hundreds of years of social progress for efficiency.

The very first sentence in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_Medieval_warfare

Take note of something similar about all the soldiers in the below art (sorry they didn't have cameras back then, you'll have to take my word for it):

Spoiler

Ah, so you think the entire world was Europe.

Hang on hang on, you responded too fast. Sorry but I have such an absurd amount of info/facts/evidence it's hard assembling it all into one post, since you asked such an insanely obvious question.

Not of obscure medieval times, but something happening RIGHT NOW in Syria:

Spoiler

Random image search of "syrian rebels" result:

These men aren't even trained, they're simply fighting for what they feel is right.
Where are the women? Why aren't the women taking to the streets and letting the men stay home? Where are all the female rebel groups? That is the reality of when the shit hits the fan in actual warfare. It's not an ideological world where the genders are equally good at fighting, it's when you have to face facts.

Also check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior#Women_as_warriors
It's not about medieval Europe, it's about warriors in societies and civilizations in general. Note the word "exceptions" - i.e. not normal, incredibly rare to the point of being exceptions.

How much longer till you accept that there is an obvious pattern through all civilizations of men being the frontline combatants & fighters? I've already posted enough info/links of why women still would only pose downsides/negatives as combatants on the frontline, see my previous posts.

I think that's all the info I'm digging up for now, it's too much work to have to explain such incredibly obvious things. At this rate I'll probably get asked where babies come from.

Syria is a terrible example. Its a society (Not just government) that, when it comes to human rights (To include female rights), could be at best described as 'antiquated.'

 

[CHUD]

Where are the women? Why aren't the women taking to the streets and letting the men stay home? Where are all the female rebel groups?

Syria has a culture of VERY strict gender roles. That will not change suddenly just because fighting breaks out. And also - WHY would women fight? I have a feeling nothing will change for them no matter who wins.

 

[Yuuki]

My mind is, quite frankly, blown, at how casually you just disregarded hundreds of years of social progress for efficiency.

I'm fine with blowing minds

Syria is a terrible example. Its a society (Not just government) that, when it comes to human rights (To include female rights), could be at best described as 'antiquated.'

Syria has a culture of VERY strict gender roles. That will not change suddenly just because fighting breaks out. And also - WHY would women fight? I have a feeling nothing will change for them no matter who wins.

It's an example nonetheless. I don't see anyone finding examples, or info, or fucking ANYTHING to counter everything I've posted so far...other than digging up rare exceptions and failing to realize why they are exceptions to begin with.

I'm trying to prove a point that men are better suited for combat/frontline than women and therefore there's simply no need to deploy women unless the circumstances are absolutely dire in the recruitment department.
I have provided tons of articles/info/documents proving why there are no benefits and only downsides to sending women into combat/frontline roles, and opinions from female soldiers themselves for fuck's sake. It's pointless picking apart one of my several examples when I can quite easily pull a hundred more...and worst part is that you KNOW that you can too if you simply searched...but I'm having to do a ton of spoonfeeding -_-

 

[DefunctTheory]

Reducing discrimination is just something to make people feel warm and fuzzy on the inside

Yeah, sure, and so was ending slavery and fighting apartheid. Just us crazy hippies and our "fuzzy feelings".

As long as the requirements for whatever military role in question stays unchanged - there is also no basis to claim that taking in women will "reduce effectiveness".

You're welcome to refute anything that myself or others have presented to argue your point on why women should be in direct combat roles.

I didn't think so.

Wow. Really?

How rude.

In anycase... lets rock, bro.

Spoiler

I can't believe this is still going on.

Are equal opportunists that desperate to turn anything they can into a dog and pony show? I know there are a lot of keyboard warriors here, but without experience (not what you see on tv or read) you really don't understand how war is conducted or the problems that come with deployments. You're lucky, you also have no experience to speak on the subject; women are excluded for a myriad of reasons, many (if not all) have been given and you still ignore them. If you don't understand, I doubt you ever will.

No facts here.

Spoiler

Question: What's the difference between a Male and a Female of the human species?
Answer: Genitalia.

What on earth...meaning no offense but I recommend going back to school, or at least taking a biology class or two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology

Okay, let me rephrase that. What is the tangible, functional difference that means anything to the average human being between a Male and a Female of the Human species?

Answer: Genitalia.

Ah, that's more like it. Except that what is considered "tangible, functional" boils down to your personal opinion, and it also ignores that there are varying levels/types in functionality.
Men and women are created equal in the sense that we deserve equal rights, equal respect and we make each other complete (as far as nature/evolution cares). That's the extent of our equality. That's my opinion

Also another person's opinion, a female US Marine who served for a quite a long time and would therefore know (better than any of us) what the harsh reality is: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
Scroll down to the comments below that article to see perspectives of other females who have served in combat roles, and a vastly richer set of viewpoints in general (at least compared to this mess of a thread).

The overwhelming majority of posts in this thread must be along the lines of "as long as they meet same requirements blah blah", while giving absolutely no thought to the long-term physical, sociological, etc repercussions because apparently those don't matter as long as females pass the same fitness requirements as males. Sigh. Apparently being a successful combat soldier is as simple as passing field tests because they can totally "test" what happens over the course of 5/10/15 years of service and how it could impact the other men. Double sigh.

What I mean is that the only thing that makes us different in any sense of social interaction as Male or Female is our roles in reproduction. In any other situation, at any other time, at any other place, your gender is entirely inconsequential. Sociological and psychological things like tradition, gender roles, gender identity or the notion of masculinity and femininity are simply shit we made up and then reinforced. Gender roles aren't actually real, they were just opinions about gender we conformed to. Masculinity and Femininity were the ways we determined those roles. Gender Identity is a by-product of the stigma of those gender roles we conformed to. And Tradition was the flimsy excuse we used for all three.

In reality, on a base scientific level, none of those things are actually real. They aren't in any way apart of the real aspects of gender (body chemistry, reproduction, and base hormonal animal instinct). They're a creation (or by-product) of human stupidity (or rebellion against human stupidity in the case of Identity).

You fail to give a legitimate response to why women should be in direct combat. So you don't like gender roles, big deal; society adapted to them because they're what kept humans alive when the species was still developing. While you may not like it, there are differences between males and females that are more than just our role in reproduction. You seem to fail to understand the role of war (when it comes down to it) is killing. I'm not saying women can't be as lethal as men, but when it comes to deployments and hardships, men do handle the stresses better. One thing you seem to be devoted to is ignoring that the military isn't an all inclusive club for people; it's a force for fighting and it's not for everyone. Since it's selective, its allowed to be discriminatory, it isn't a place for social experiments or equality to make people feel all warm and fuzzy... it's a force that goes out and kills. So while you're on the kick about body chemistry, reproduction and base hormonal animal instinct; men are naturally stronger and more aggressive; why diminish your fighting capability in the name of equality?

Nothing yet...

Spoiler

Question: What's the difference between a Male and a Female of the human species?
Answer: Genitalia.

What on earth...meaning no offense but I recommend going back to school, or at least taking a biology class or two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology

Okay, let me rephrase that. What is the tangible, functional difference that means anything to the average human being between a Male and a Female of the Human species?

Answer: Genitalia.

Ah, that's more like it. Except that what is considered "tangible, functional" boils down to your personal opinion, and it also ignores that there are varying levels/types in functionality.
Men and women are created equal in the sense that we deserve equal rights, equal respect and we make each other complete (as far as nature/evolution cares). That's the extent of our equality. That's my opinion

Also another person's opinion, a female US Marine who served for a quite a long time and would therefore know (better than any of us) what the harsh reality is: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
Scroll down to the comments below that article to see perspectives of other females who have served in combat roles, and a vastly richer set of viewpoints in general (at least compared to this mess of a thread).

The overwhelming majority of posts in this thread must be along the lines of "as long as they meet same requirements blah blah", while giving absolutely no thought to the long-term physical, sociological, etc repercussions because apparently those don't matter as long as females pass the same fitness requirements as males. Sigh. Apparently being a successful combat soldier is as simple as passing field tests because they can totally "test" what happens over the course of 5/10/15 years of service and how it could impact the other men. Double sigh.

What I mean is that the only thing that makes us different in any sense of social interaction as Male or Female is our roles in reproduction. In any other situation, at any other time, at any other place, your gender is entirely inconsequential. Sociological and psychological things like tradition, gender roles, gender identity or the notion of masculinity and femininity are simply shit we made up and then reinforced. Gender roles aren't actually real, they were just opinions about gender we conformed to. Masculinity and Femininity were the ways we determined those roles. Gender Identity is a by-product of the stigma of those gender roles we conformed to. And Tradition was the flimsy excuse we used for all three.

In reality, on a base scientific level, none of those things are actually real. They aren't in any way apart of the real aspects of gender (body chemistry, reproduction, and base hormonal animal instinct). They're a creation (or by-product) of human stupidity (or rebellion against human stupidity in the case of Identity).

You fail to give a legitimate response to why women should be in direct combat. So you don't like gender roles, big deal; society adapted to them because they're what kept humans alive when the species was still developing. While you may not like it, there are differences between males and females that are more than just our role in reproduction. You seem to fail to understand the role of war (when it comes down to it) is killing. I'm not saying women can't be as lethal as men, but when it comes to deployments and hardships, men do handle the stresses better CITATION NEEDED. One thing you seem to be devoted to is ignoring that the military isn't an all inclusive club for people; it's a force for fighting and it's not for everyone. Since it's selective, its allowed to be discriminatory, it isn't a place for social experiments or equality to make people feel all warm and fuzzy... it's a force that goes out and kills. So while you're on the kick about body chemistry, reproduction and base hormonal animal instinct; men are naturally stronger and more aggressive CITATION NEEDED; why diminish your fighting capability in the name of equality?

The ability to fight and handle the stress of fighting is a psychological one. It does't discriminate by gender in any sense.

What's the legitimate response to why women should be in direct combat? There's no rational or scientific argument against it that doesn't rely on entirely anecdotal evidence. My point about bringing up the purely biological reason for Gender is that in any sense outside of reproduction, gender is entirely meaningless. If you're going to turn away a recruit, have it be because they failed basic training and lack the strength, endurance, and psychological conditioning to perform in combat. Not because you think them lacking a Y Chromosome automatically makes them a poor fighter.

But that's dumb. And incorrect. And dumby dumb dumb.

Physical fatigue isn't psychological, and as you didn't try to refute it, men generally have greater physical strength and endurance. Try carrying 120 pounds of gear on a 10+ mile hike, through mountainous terrain, and in the middle of summer; that's not just psychological, it's physical and is a daily occurrence in training and places like Afghanistan. That's one of the stresses of combat, so if you want to argue that females can handle physical fatigue as well as men; I'd like to point out that none of women who've tried have made it past the Marine Corps Infantry Officers Course, due to the physical demands put on their body.

http://blogs.militarytimes.com/battle-rattle/2013/07/03/two-more-female-marines-fall-short-at-latest-infantry-officer-course/

As for aggression, it's biological (something you love to reference); men naturally have more testosterone in their body due to being a male. While not directly linked to aggression, greater amounts of it have been shown to make someone more prone to aggression. Yes this can be trained or otherwise forced on people, but the fact is men naturally have more in them due to genetics.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=testosterone-promotes-agression-aut-12-06-09
(That's the most recent link from google when I search "testosterone linked to aggression.")

I'm sure you've also disregarded the obvious case that there would be a rise in sexual assaults. There's also the problem of mixed/coed commands having problems with sexual distraction. As well as female facilities/commodities aren't always available in places in a timely manner. When you have a bunch of people living in close quarters, one persons hygiene problem is everyones hygiene problem; so if a lady does not have access to commodities for their hygiene issues, it's going to affect a lot more than her. There's also the fact that women have what we call their "period." This can lead to cramps, emotional mood swings, constipation (at times and is a hygiene issue), bloating (improper gear fit which leads irritation), amongst other things.

So again I ask, why diminish your fighting ability in the name of fairness and equality?

Here we go.

Ok, so these women are failing a course... which means that we shouldn't bother letting them try? 'Those before you failed, thus you will also.' The world would be a terrible place if we ran on that assumption.

As for testosterone, you're only telling one side of the story. Here's what scientist have found about that nasty little hormone.

- Increases aggression
- Makes individuals more selfish when at high levels
- High levels often related to alcoholism, social delinquency, anti-social behavior
- Thought to be related to criminal behavior. Unable to verify

Doesn't look so good, does it? Particularly since naked aggression (Which testosterone is most certainly related to) is discouraged in military service.

The study you quoted, by the way, found that heightened testosterone makes people unconsciously attempt to dominate others in a social setting. That's far from proving it increases combat ability.

I'm going to ignore the period thing. Do you seriously think 'bloating' is going to make a female swell up so big her armor doesn't fit anymore?

Makes me recall Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

Spoiler

My mind is, quite frankly, blown, at how casually you just disregarded hundreds of years of social progress for efficiency.

I'm fine with blowing minds

Syria is a terrible example. Its a society (Not just government) that, when it comes to human rights (To include female rights), could be at best described as 'antiquated.'

Syria has a culture of VERY strict gender roles. That will not change suddenly just because fighting breaks out. And also - WHY would women fight? I have a feeling nothing will change for them no matter who wins.

It's an example nonetheless. I don't see anyone finding examples, or info, or fucking ANYTHING to counter everything I've posted so far...other than digging up rare exceptions and failing to realize why they are exceptions to begin with.

I'm trying to prove a point that men are better suited for combat/frontline than women and therefore there's simply no need to deploy women unless the circumstances are absolutely dire. I have provided tons of articles/info/documents proving why there are no benefits and only downsides to sending women into combat/frontline roles, and opinions from female soldiers themselves for fuck's sake. It's pointless picking apart one of my several examples when I can quite easily pull a hundred more...and worst part is that you KNOW that you can too if you simply searched...

No, it isn't an example. You can't point to a country that treats women like complete shit and say 'See, they don't let women have guns and fight! Why should we?'

 

[Yuuki]

No, it isn't an example. You can't point to a country that treats women like complete shit and say 'See, they don't let women have guns and fight! Why should we?'

Sigh, you're all caught-up on Syria and happily ignoring the full scope of my posts here.
You're 100% right, lets disregard Syria. My main point still absolutely stands true and I'm waiting for someone to pose a strong counter-point to mine.

But before you even bother replying to me again, you first need to read through this (including all the info in links, those are vital) because it covers the full scope of my posts:

Spoiler

I'm not going to let them try and convince me they can't afford plate carriers designed for women and a few more tents or barracks buildings per base, THEY CAN AFFORD IT.

But for what benefit? What does the military gain from doing that, as opposed to deploying male-only battalions/divisions and easily supporting them with facilities that are already available?

Is the unit's overall performance increased? Higher success rates of missions? There has to be some kind of return.

I'm not going to let them try and convince me they can't afford plate carriers designed for women and a few more tents or barracks buildings per base, THEY CAN AFFORD IT.

But for what benefit? What does the military gain from doing that, as opposed to deploying male-only battalions/divisions and easily supporting them with facilities that are already available?

Is the unit's overall performance increased? Higher success rates of missions? There has to be some kind of return.

You seem to be under the impression that if women join they'll replace men instead of being in addition to men

You seem to be under the impression that an infinite number of soldiers can be deployed anywhere...it is always specified how many troops are required to get a job done. While it's great to have a larger pool of soldiers to choose from, a smart nation isn't going to deploy 5 female soldiers with 95 male soldiers to a place where things are going to get harsh/uncomfortable, facilities are scarce and the women's performance suffers (even slightly) as a result.
That's why I asked, where is the benefit to the military unit? There are times where a nation has no choice but to send their very best in order to give themselves the best chance, where nothing unnecessary/extra will be done (i.e. cut all corners) unless there is a quantifiable pay-off/return.

So you're deliberately ignoring benefits to increased recruitment because of specific situations you may not want it that you didn't specify beforehand? Shifting the goal posts much?

Besides it increases recruitment potential. When you need it you can't just flick a switch on then back off

That's why I said "...while it's great to have a larger pool of soldiers to choose from...".

Increased recruitment potential is nice, but 10,000 male troops vs 10,000 mixed-gender troops is going to have zero benefits, only downsides regarding increased male-on-female sexual assault and a sudden need for separated shower/toilet/etc facilities. What is the gain/return? Answer the main question already, the goalposts haven't moved anywhere.

The answer is simple; "Sack up and shower with the dudes."

Dear god, I can only imagine the shitstorm that would ensue. I remember a thread/poll here about gender-neutral showers...some said "sure why not", some said "only if I have to", MOST said "no fucking way".

Also what about all these other downsides...
> Increased male-on-female sexual assault
> Higher PTSD victims
> Higher fatigue-related injuries
> Higher stress-related injuries
> A sudden need for separated shower/toilet/etc facilities

What is the gain/return that will out-weigh those downsides? If it exists, I'm ALL for it, trust me I love working with logic/numbers instead of against it. Anything that improves the military's effectiveness on their missions, full steam ahead.
The goalposts haven't moved anywhere.

Like... meth high or weed high?

In seriousness though...

Sexual assault could be a problem.

More PTSD cases... probably. Women soldiers report a far higher percentage of cases (Something like 19%, as opposed to males who are around 9 percent). Several studies have found, however, that women handle it far better once they get state side. Men have a tendency to delve into destructive behavior.

The PTSD reports are also heavily flawed - While the US Military has gotten really good at supporting PTSD over the years, their still terribly bad at finding it in the first place. It took them 2 and half years to diagnose me, and I know several people that clearly came back from Iraq a bit scrambled but never were diagnosed or treated. Women are far more likely to seek treatment on their own.

Yah, fatigue injuries are more common in females.

Don't know what you mean by stress. Mental stress?

It really, really isn't hard to get a separate shower/bathroom and living space for females. It's not an issue, really, outside of maybe the Navy, where space is at a premium. And they already dealt with the issue years ago and figured it out.

That's all great.

Still waiting to hear about the benefits/gains to the military as a whole, besides higher recruitment numbers.

There you go comparing 10k to 10k.

The benefit was already pointed out, you tried to weasel out by talking about the scenario where apparently they just need 10k troops as opposed to more in general.

You shifted the goal.posts when you made it about a situation where numbers weren't important. In doing so you changed the scenario, not needing higher recruitment was not initially specified.

You you feel bigger recruitment numbers out-weigh all the downsides (and there's definitely a few more than I'm missing), that's fine. I can't argue against opinions.

I will happily give you that point - if more troops are needed in combat and not enough are signing up, nations can resort to sending women into combat. Actually I think a couple of ancient civilizations/kingdoms DID literally resort to using women/children as warriors after they ran out of men. It didn't work out too well and they fell anyway, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Like I said, I'm happy with whatever works best.

Sociological and psychological things like tradition, gender roles, gender identity or the notion of masculinity and femininity are simply shit we made up and then reinforced. Gender roles aren't actually real, they were just opinions about gender we conformed to. Masculinity and Femininity were the ways we determined those roles. Gender Identity is a by-product of the stigma of those gender roles we conformed to. And Tradition was the flimsy excuse we used for all three.

In reality, on a base scientific level, none of those things are actually real. They aren't in any way apart of the real aspects of gender (body chemistry, reproduction, and base hormonal animal instinct). They're a creation (or by-product) of human stupidity (or rebellion against human stupidity in the case of Identity).

And was it by sheer coincidence that almost every kingdom/empire/nation/civilization found gender roles to be the best way to function throughout the history of mankind? Oh and it was also coincidence that they all arrived at that conclusion completely independent/separated from each other by time periods or geographic locations, right? Because I highly doubt everyone was copying everyone else, as if one civilization said "hey I heard rumors of a nation beyond the horizon who use men for war and protect their women! Lets copy them, yeah!". I'm fairly certain each one arrived at their own conclusion independently and used something that worked best for them. Despite the vastly different cultures, societies and conditions that each civilization rose from, there was ONE strikingly similar pattern across all of them - gender roles. Coincidence? Stupidity?
Or are you really implying with a straight face that all that was simply a miraculous stroke of luck on a global scale resulting in the exactly the same scenario for men and women, over and over again, over the course of thousands of years? All a made-up nonsensical thing, yes?

Different times call for different needs. We are in a time where the rise of technology is making gender roles less and less relevant, but it is only thanks TO that constant progression of technology & advances in our knowledge. Being able to use brains instead of manual labor has opened up a lot more options for women, which is great, I love it. But the long-term physical toll of being a SOLDIER (that's what this thread is about) isn't much different from what it was 500 years ago. It's still absolutely brutal on the body, inflicting strain on a daily basis - and men are capable of handling that over extended periods far better than women, even if that tiny portion of women do manage to pass the same entry physical tests. This isn't about gender equality, it's about being logical.

Unfortunately the majority of the people who are campaigning for women be allowed into combat/frontlines are civilians or activists who have absolutely no clue about what they're asking for, they just want to see their wonderful ideology of "true equality" play out in this harsh/unfair world where men and women are still very much different in everything from career/occupation choices to gender roles. Gender roles are still prevalent in most of the world's population (call it human stupidity, call it whatever you want), you can't just look at first-world-countries and yell "see, gender roles are gone, completely gone!". They are most certainly NOT gone if you look at any developing nation with lower GDP and worse living conditions than the oh-so-glorious USA.

The ability to fight and handle the stress of fighting is a psychological one. It does't discriminate by gender in any sense.

What's the legitimate response to why women should be in direct combat? There's no rational or scientific argument against it that doesn't rely on entirely anecdotal evidence.

Errr it's a documented fact that PTSD rates among female soldiers is far higher than males, as well as their rates of medical discharges & therapy for strain/fatigue-related injuries being significantly higher than males. They also face higher rates of sexual harassment (not their fault, simply harsh reality).

Here's several links documenting the realistic impact of gender differences how they have differing sociological effects, differing physiological effects, injury rates/long-term performance, etc...but I don't know why I'm posting these because you'll probably ignore all of it:
http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/ [http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7] / Cached version [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_ylOQK5HkPYJ:www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx%3Fdocid%3Db42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a] (just read the Foreword on page 7 lol)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279143/ [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279143/]
http://www.hopetocope.com/Item.aspx/558/women-war [http://www.hopetocope.com/Item.aspx/558/women-war]
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal [http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal]
http://www.coe.ucsf.edu/coe/research/ptsd-sexualtrauma.html [http://www.coe.ucsf.edu/coe/research/ptsd-sexualtrauma.html]
http://ptsd.about.com/od/causesanddevelopment/a/PTSDandMST.htm [http://ptsd.about.com/od/causesanddevelopment/a/PTSDandMST.htm]
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174756788/off-the-battlefield-military-women-face-risks-from-male-troops [http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174756788/off-the-battlefield-military-women-face-risks-from-male-troops]

You really need to wake up and smell the coffee of biological differences and come out of this dream world of yours with the "it's just genitalia, nothing more!". In civilian life, yes we're getting there, in the military, fuck no. The ability to fight and handle the stress is NOT just a psychological one, it is very much physical as well and absolutely related to gender...as explained in all the links above.

I can keep finding more and more data if you want, but there's no point if you've simply encased yourself in a steel box and shouting things from the inside. That's not how discussions work.

You'll note, of course, that not every culture with gender roles has the same gender roles.

They had their own little spin on it depending on how they worked, lived, progressed, etc. But some basic patterns were definitely present through all civilizations (or at least, ones who were successful and at least left their mark on the world)...can't really ignore that.

Oh, which basic patterns?

If I have to explain that, then nothing I say will convince you.

I'll try some basic stuff...

The bit about women warriors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior#Women_as_warriors [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior#Women_as_warriors]
The very first sentence in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_Medieval_warfare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_Medieval_warfare]

Take note of something similar about all the soldiers in the below art (sorry they didn't have cameras back then, you'll have to take my word for it):

Spoiler

For that matter, slavery was very common throughout many empires. Absolute rule by a hereditary ruler.

Should we bring those back?

Depends, does it have a need/benefit today? If yes, bring it back. If no, leave it in the past. Adapt to the times and needs, think logically, aim for the best results, obvious stuff...and I explained a few posts above why female combat/frontline soldiers are more of a liability than a help with tons of info/links you should read first, stuff written by women & men who have known (and experienced) far more military life than you or me. Don't take my word for it, take theirs.

There is only one specific situation which I accepted as a good reason to let women be combat/frontline soldiers, that being a desperate lack of male recruits and the military needing more at any cost. In that case fine, resort to deploying women into combat since desperate times call for desperate measures. Otherwise let men do what men do best, war isn't a playground where people get to dream about ideologies, war is where people have to face facts.

You mean like how the Viet Cong had thousands of female soldiers? Or they have female soldiers in the Thahan Phran (ok, not a rebel group, but a paramilitary militia). For that matter, in the Thai military in general, for quite some time.

I can't find any evidence of lots of females in combat/frontline roles in the Thai military. Please find me some, then I'll add the Thai Military to the list of exceptions where females have been allowed to serve in combat/frontline roles. Thank you.

Ah, so openly gay people suddenly stopped being inadequate soldiers in the US a few years back? Black soldiers a few decades before that?

Gay and black soldiers haven't been denied the ability to fight over a global scale across independent civilizations/societies over mankind's history. There's no pattern. But men being far better suited for warfare than women is something that IS a pattern across all civilizations/societies over mankind's history, with a few rare exceptions (yes, exceptions). US Military is a fairly new thing compared to the rest of the world.

I somehow doubt Syria has suddenly embraced gender equality and would allow women in all positions they are suitable for.

Those weren't photos of the Syrian military, those were Syrian rebels - rebels have no positions, ranks or roles. They are common folk like you and me, folk driven to desperation and any able-bodied person who is willing to fight can join the battle or run away if they don't feel like. Yet they are all almost exclusively males doing all the fighting. There ARE a few exceptionally rare cases of women grabbing guns and joining the male groups, nobody is stopping them from doing that. I simply proved that that even among untrained common folk, when war/chaos arrives there is an immediate tendency for the men to take the fighting stance and women to seek shelter/protection. Syria is living proof of this.

For much of history, female leaders of major nations was exceptional. Should we ban female leaders because of this? Females in other various important professions?

Oh my god, read the thread title. This thread is specifically about combat/frontline roles. There is a reason I'm literally spamming my ass off with "combat/frontline" everywhere I can. Women are absolutely WELCOME to do whatever other positions they like, whether it be leading, playing tennis, governing nations, baking cookies or being the queens of the whole damn world. But let men use their physical advantage to do what they do best, and don't shove women into those roles (even if they want to be there) because in the long term and on a large scale it will only do more harm than good - both to the womens' bodies AND the military. See my linked reports/articles in earlier posts for proof, and also an extensive range of opinions from women and men who have served in the military in the more physically demanding roles. Take their word for it, not mine.

If you decide to bring up something that I have already covered/responded to in everything I've said above, I have no need to respond to you since your answer will already be there.

Thanks.

 

[Yuuki]

Syrian rebels are hardcore religious.

The kind of people who cut the clits of women.

The kind of people who rape and beat women to make them "learn their place."

The kind of people who bomb schools for women.

"Hey look! These Muslim extremists don't like women! They must be onto something" isn't a convincing argument.

Sigh, you're all caught-up on Syria and happily ignoring the full scope of my posts here.
You're 100% right, lets disregard Syria. My main point still absolutely stands true and I'm waiting for someone to pose a strong counter-point to mine.

But before you even bother replying to me again, you first need to read through this (including all the info in links, those are vital) because it covers the full scope of my posts:

Spoiler

I'm not going to let them try and convince me they can't afford plate carriers designed for women and a few more tents or barracks buildings per base, THEY CAN AFFORD IT.

But for what benefit? What does the military gain from doing that, as opposed to deploying male-only battalions/divisions and easily supporting them with facilities that are already available?

Is the unit's overall performance increased? Higher success rates of missions? There has to be some kind of return.

I'm not going to let them try and convince me they can't afford plate carriers designed for women and a few more tents or barracks buildings per base, THEY CAN AFFORD IT.

But for what benefit? What does the military gain from doing that, as opposed to deploying male-only battalions/divisions and easily supporting them with facilities that are already available?

Is the unit's overall performance increased? Higher success rates of missions? There has to be some kind of return.

You seem to be under the impression that if women join they'll replace men instead of being in addition to men

You seem to be under the impression that an infinite number of soldiers can be deployed anywhere...it is always specified how many troops are required to get a job done. While it's great to have a larger pool of soldiers to choose from, a smart nation isn't going to deploy 5 female soldiers with 95 male soldiers to a place where things are going to get harsh/uncomfortable, facilities are scarce and the women's performance suffers (even slightly) as a result.
That's why I asked, where is the benefit to the military unit? There are times where a nation has no choice but to send their very best in order to give themselves the best chance, where nothing unnecessary/extra will be done (i.e. cut all corners) unless there is a quantifiable pay-off/return.

So you're deliberately ignoring benefits to increased recruitment because of specific situations you may not want it that you didn't specify beforehand? Shifting the goal posts much?

Besides it increases recruitment potential. When you need it you can't just flick a switch on then back off

That's why I said "...while it's great to have a larger pool of soldiers to choose from...".

Increased recruitment potential is nice, but 10,000 male troops vs 10,000 mixed-gender troops is going to have zero benefits, only downsides regarding increased male-on-female sexual assault and a sudden need for separated shower/toilet/etc facilities. What is the gain/return? Answer the main question already, the goalposts haven't moved anywhere.

The answer is simple; "Sack up and shower with the dudes."

Dear god, I can only imagine the shitstorm that would ensue. I remember a thread/poll here about gender-neutral showers...some said "sure why not", some said "only if I have to", MOST said "no fucking way".

Also what about all these other downsides...
> Increased male-on-female sexual assault
> Higher PTSD victims
> Higher fatigue-related injuries
> Higher stress-related injuries
> A sudden need for separated shower/toilet/etc facilities

What is the gain/return that will out-weigh those downsides? If it exists, I'm ALL for it, trust me I love working with logic/numbers instead of against it. Anything that improves the military's effectiveness on their missions, full steam ahead.
The goalposts haven't moved anywhere.

Like... meth high or weed high?

In seriousness though...

Sexual assault could be a problem.

More PTSD cases... probably. Women soldiers report a far higher percentage of cases (Something like 19%, as opposed to males who are around 9 percent). Several studies have found, however, that women handle it far better once they get state side. Men have a tendency to delve into destructive behavior.

The PTSD reports are also heavily flawed - While the US Military has gotten really good at supporting PTSD over the years, their still terribly bad at finding it in the first place. It took them 2 and half years to diagnose me, and I know several people that clearly came back from Iraq a bit scrambled but never were diagnosed or treated. Women are far more likely to seek treatment on their own.

Yah, fatigue injuries are more common in females.

Don't know what you mean by stress. Mental stress?

It really, really isn't hard to get a separate shower/bathroom and living space for females. It's not an issue, really, outside of maybe the Navy, where space is at a premium. And they already dealt with the issue years ago and figured it out.

That's all great.

Still waiting to hear about the benefits/gains to the military as a whole, besides higher recruitment numbers.

There you go comparing 10k to 10k.

The benefit was already pointed out, you tried to weasel out by talking about the scenario where apparently they just need 10k troops as opposed to more in general.

You shifted the goal.posts when you made it about a situation where numbers weren't important. In doing so you changed the scenario, not needing higher recruitment was not initially specified.

You you feel bigger recruitment numbers out-weigh all the downsides (and there's definitely a few more than I'm missing), that's fine. I can't argue against opinions.

I will happily give you that point - if more troops are needed in combat and not enough are signing up, nations can resort to sending women into combat. Actually I think a couple of ancient civilizations/kingdoms DID literally resort to using women/children as warriors after they ran out of men. It didn't work out too well and they fell anyway, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Like I said, I'm happy with whatever works best.

Sociological and psychological things like tradition, gender roles, gender identity or the notion of masculinity and femininity are simply shit we made up and then reinforced. Gender roles aren't actually real, they were just opinions about gender we conformed to. Masculinity and Femininity were the ways we determined those roles. Gender Identity is a by-product of the stigma of those gender roles we conformed to. And Tradition was the flimsy excuse we used for all three.

In reality, on a base scientific level, none of those things are actually real. They aren't in any way apart of the real aspects of gender (body chemistry, reproduction, and base hormonal animal instinct). They're a creation (or by-product) of human stupidity (or rebellion against human stupidity in the case of Identity).

And was it by sheer coincidence that almost every kingdom/empire/nation/civilization found gender roles to be the best way to function throughout the history of mankind? Oh and it was also coincidence that they all arrived at that conclusion completely independent/separated from each other by time periods or geographic locations, right? Because I highly doubt everyone was copying everyone else, as if one civilization said "hey I heard rumors of a nation beyond the horizon who use men for war and protect their women! Lets copy them, yeah!". I'm fairly certain each one arrived at their own conclusion independently and used something that worked best for them. Despite the vastly different cultures, societies and conditions that each civilization rose from, there was ONE strikingly similar pattern across all of them - gender roles. Coincidence? Stupidity?
Or are you really implying with a straight face that all that was simply a miraculous stroke of luck on a global scale resulting in the exactly the same scenario for men and women, over and over again, over the course of thousands of years? All a made-up nonsensical thing, yes?

Different times call for different needs. We are in a time where the rise of technology is making gender roles less and less relevant, but it is only thanks TO that constant progression of technology & advances in our knowledge. Being able to use brains instead of manual labor has opened up a lot more options for women, which is great, I love it. But the long-term physical toll of being a SOLDIER (that's what this thread is about) isn't much different from what it was 500 years ago. It's still absolutely brutal on the body, inflicting strain on a daily basis - and men are capable of handling that over extended periods far better than women, even if that tiny portion of women do manage to pass the same entry physical tests. This isn't about gender equality, it's about being logical.

Unfortunately the majority of the people who are campaigning for women be allowed into combat/frontlines are civilians or activists who have absolutely no clue about what they're asking for, they just want to see their wonderful ideology of "true equality" play out in this harsh/unfair world where men and women are still very much different in everything from career/occupation choices to gender roles. Gender roles are still prevalent in most of the world's population (call it human stupidity, call it whatever you want), you can't just look at first-world-countries and yell "see, gender roles are gone, completely gone!". They are most certainly NOT gone if you look at any developing nation with lower GDP and worse living conditions than the oh-so-glorious USA.

The ability to fight and handle the stress of fighting is a psychological one. It does't discriminate by gender in any sense.

What's the legitimate response to why women should be in direct combat? There's no rational or scientific argument against it that doesn't rely on entirely anecdotal evidence.

Errr it's a documented fact that PTSD rates among female soldiers is far higher than males, as well as their rates of medical discharges & therapy for strain/fatigue-related injuries being significantly higher than males. They also face higher rates of sexual harassment (not their fault, simply harsh reality).

Here's several links documenting the realistic impact of gender differences how they have differing sociological effects, differing physiological effects, injury rates/long-term performance, etc...but I don't know why I'm posting these because you'll probably ignore all of it:
http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/ [http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7] / Cached version [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_ylOQK5HkPYJ:www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx%3Fdocid%3Db42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a] (just read the Foreword on page 7 lol)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279143/ [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279143/]
http://www.hopetocope.com/Item.aspx/558/women-war [http://www.hopetocope.com/Item.aspx/558/women-war]
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal [http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal]
http://www.coe.ucsf.edu/coe/research/ptsd-sexualtrauma.html [http://www.coe.ucsf.edu/coe/research/ptsd-sexualtrauma.html]
http://ptsd.about.com/od/causesanddevelopment/a/PTSDandMST.htm [http://ptsd.about.com/od/causesanddevelopment/a/PTSDandMST.htm]
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174756788/off-the-battlefield-military-women-face-risks-from-male-troops [http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174756788/off-the-battlefield-military-women-face-risks-from-male-troops]

You really need to wake up and smell the coffee of biological differences and come out of this dream world of yours with the "it's just genitalia, nothing more!". In civilian life, yes we're getting there, in the military, fuck no. The ability to fight and handle the stress is NOT just a psychological one, it is very much physical as well and absolutely related to gender...as explained in all the links above.

I can keep finding more and more data if you want, but there's no point if you've simply encased yourself in a steel box and shouting things from the inside. That's not how discussions work.

You'll note, of course, that not every culture with gender roles has the same gender roles.

They had their own little spin on it depending on how they worked, lived, progressed, etc. But some basic patterns were definitely present through all civilizations (or at least, ones who were successful and at least left their mark on the world)...can't really ignore that.

Oh, which basic patterns?

If I have to explain that, then nothing I say will convince you.

I'll try some basic stuff...

The bit about women warriors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior#Women_as_warriors [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior#Women_as_warriors]
The very first sentence in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_Medieval_warfare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_Medieval_warfare]

Take note of something similar about all the soldiers in the below art (sorry they didn't have cameras back then, you'll have to take my word for it):

Spoiler

For that matter, slavery was very common throughout many empires. Absolute rule by a hereditary ruler.

Should we bring those back?

Depends, does it have a need/benefit today? If yes, bring it back. If no, leave it in the past. Adapt to the times and needs, think logically, aim for the best results, obvious stuff...and I explained a few posts above why female combat/frontline soldiers are more of a liability than a help with tons of info/links you should read first, stuff written by women & men who have known (and experienced) far more military life than you or me. Don't take my word for it, take theirs.

There is only one specific situation which I accepted as a good reason to let women be combat/frontline soldiers, that being a desperate lack of male recruits and the military needing more at any cost. In that case fine, resort to deploying women into combat since desperate times call for desperate measures. Otherwise let men do what men do best, war isn't a playground where people get to dream about ideologies, war is where people have to face facts.

You mean like how the Viet Cong had thousands of female soldiers? Or they have female soldiers in the Thahan Phran (ok, not a rebel group, but a paramilitary militia). For that matter, in the Thai military in general, for quite some time.

I can't find any evidence of lots of females in combat/frontline roles in the Thai military. Please find me some, then I'll add the Thai Military to the list of exceptions where females have been allowed to serve in combat/frontline roles. Thank you.

Ah, so openly gay people suddenly stopped being inadequate soldiers in the US a few years back? Black soldiers a few decades before that?

Gay and black soldiers haven't been denied the ability to fight over a global scale across independent civilizations/societies over mankind's history. There's no pattern. But men being far better suited for warfare than women is something that IS a pattern across all civilizations/societies over mankind's history, with a few rare exceptions (yes, exceptions). US Military is a fairly new thing compared to the rest of the world.

I somehow doubt Syria has suddenly embraced gender equality and would allow women in all positions they are suitable for.

Those weren't photos of the Syrian military, those were Syrian rebels - rebels have no positions, ranks or roles. They are common folk like you and me, folk driven to desperation and any able-bodied person who is willing to fight can join the battle or run away if they don't feel like. Yet they are all almost exclusively males doing all the fighting. There ARE a few exceptionally rare cases of women grabbing guns and joining the male groups, nobody is stopping them from doing that. I simply proved that that even among untrained common folk, when war/chaos arrives there is an immediate tendency for the men to take the fighting stance and women to seek shelter/protection. Syria is living proof of this.

For much of history, female leaders of major nations was exceptional. Should we ban female leaders because of this? Females in other various important professions?

Oh my god, read the thread title. This thread is specifically about combat/frontline roles. There is a reason I'm literally spamming my ass off with "combat/frontline" everywhere I can. Women are absolutely WELCOME to do whatever other positions they like, whether it be leading, playing tennis, governing nations, baking cookies or being the queens of the whole damn world. But let men use their physical advantage to do what they do best, and don't shove women into those roles (even if they want to be there) because in the long term and on a large scale it will only do more harm than good - both to the womens' bodies AND the military. See my linked reports/articles in earlier posts for proof, and also an extensive range of opinions from women and men who have served in the military in the more physically demanding roles. Take their word for it, not mine.

If you decide to bring up something that I have already covered/responded to in everything I've said above, I have no need to respond to you since your answer will already be there.

Thanks.