Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

[Yuuki]

Women can fight. During WWII, there were quite a few women soldiers (hundreds of thousands of them at the very least) fighting for the Russians. They went into some of the fiercest battles like the Battle of Kursk or the Battle of Berlin. The Russian women proved that women could drive tanks, use sniper rifles effectively, use AAA guns and perform admirably well as combat medics. There are too many stories of russian women running onto fields, picking up wounded men and literally hauling them back to the field hospital for these stories to have been made up. Women are capable - but they're often told that they aren't.

This is the single best argument in favor of women in front line combat. Anyone who thinks they somehow can't do it, you're wrong. The russians have been doing it for nearly a century. Perhaps the best example is Lyudmila Pavlichenko, both one of the single most successful snipers in WW2, and the woman with the highest confirmed kill count in history at 309. Think about that. Most men in Iraq never achieve more than 100 confirmed kills today. This lady scored 309 kills, mostly with a freaking SVT-40, which was nowhere near as accurate at range as the Mosin Nagants typical of Soviet Snipers in WW2.

If the Russians saw the value of female combat troops in WW2, what does it say about America and western Europe that most of us want to keep them off Submarines and such, 70+ years later?

I didn't know "frontline combat" was about driving tanks, using AAA guns or firing sniper rifles from half a mile away (which btw even a teenager could do, given enough training) and treating injuries on the battlefield. If it is, sure, let women into those roles.

I thought this thread was about actual combat-heavy infantry roles like being in the USMC (United States Marine Corps). Women are currently not allowed to apply for a good freaking reason, they absolutely do not belong there. The kind of brutal physical torture on the body = most MEN start falling apart in just a couple of days. A women stands absolutely no chance.

 

[Costia]

There is an Israeli mixed unit named Caracal. So women can fight, there is no question about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion
Their post army service injuries seem to be more frequent/severe than men's. This is mostly due to the standard training process being designed for a man's body build and needs to be tweaked for a woman. And by tweaked I don't mean made easier - I mean different.

Edit: not sure it matters, but I personally know a girl that served in Caracal. She's a normal girl, nothing extreme or physically special. Just a lot of motivation.

 

[PirateRose]

Attention: Sexual assault victims in the military are mostly men. Sexual assault in the military has really been going on for decades in the military, reports these days are bubbling up from clear back to Vietnam. But, because of the extreme shame put on a man being violated by another man, people try to pretend the problem doesn't exist. Men don't get raped! Only women do! These men are too scared to fully admit and press charges and the Pentagon won't address it. Women are more likely to speak up about it and fight the issue when ignored.

In a 2012 study, out of 26,000 sexual assault cases in the military surveyed, 14,000 were men. link [http://www.saveservices.org/2013/05/victims-of-sex-assaults-in-military-are-mostly-silent-men/]


So please don't use that lame excuse that women shouldn't join the military because they might be raped by sex deprived, stressed out men. With that logic, no human being should ever join the military because even men are at risk.

Bottom line, rape is not about sexual pleasure. It's about having power over someone else.

 

[Nghtgnt]

Before I have more words put in my mouth or get my morals questioned, I'd like to make something abundantly clear; I will not ever, ever, FUCKING EVER, defend a rapist.

Now where to begin; aside from rape, the military in general has a much higher problem with almost everything when compared to civilian population. I mean sexual assault, alcoholism/drunk driving, suicide, and other problems; and while not in sheer numbers, the percentages are higher. This is due to stresses that the job puts on us and at times our loved ones.

"In FY2010, there were 3,158 total reports of sexual assault in the military. The DOD estimates that this number only represents 13.5% of total assaults in 2010, making the total number of military rapes and sexual assaults in excess of 19,000 for FY 2010."

http://servicewomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/DOD-Releases-2011-Report-on-Military-Sexual-Assault.pdf

I recently read somewhere that lately the rate of suicides in the military is actually lower then the general population. Wish I could remember where.

As for the sexual assault bit, I'll just reference my earlier post:

Secondly, some people were talking about sexual assaults in the military - despite what the media and "documentaries" and politicians would have you believe, the military is NOT filled with rapists. In fact, the numbers are horribly misleading and you can find a pretty good analysis as to why here [http://rokdrop.com/2013/05/20/how-the-special-interests-are-sensationalizing-the-military-sexual-assault-issue-and-i-have-the-facts-to-prove-it/]. This isn't to say it doesn't happen, or that ANY amount sexual assault is acceptable, just that people are misleading the public.

 

[oZode]

It doesn't matter much since everyone's going to be piloting drones by 2050 anyhow.

While that is depressing, it is certainly the trend. Warfare is no longer running in with a rifle and shooting people, it is more sniping from miles away and piloting drones of many sorts. Much more based in infiltrating and precision strikes, with technology doing most the work. For that reason it is not a big deal to me. Even morseo when we get far enough into the future and nanofibre muscle suits or something makes physical requirements less a issue since gender don't matter when you can put on a suit that makes you carry have a ton with ease.

Take for instance how in halo the gender of a spartan 2 had no impact on the appearance of the character, only the voice. Sure with the sheaper 3s and 4s there was difference in the hips, the suit and genetic mods made up for the biological physical weakness a female is given due to the oppressive nature of nature.

Not that I consider halo realistic at all since by the year 2500 spartans sure as hell won't be the only things with genetic mods nor would marine infantry be practical at all. But alien drones vs human drones is no fun.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It doesn't matter much since everyone's going to be piloting drones by 2050 anyhow.

Er...yes, there will be more use of remotely piloted planes rather than ones with the pilot in the cockpit.

But, what difference does that make to the people on the ground? Infantry have had air support since WW2, they are still important. You still need infantry for a variety of roles your planes, piloted remotely or not, cannot fulfill.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

You still need infantry for a variety of roles your planes, piloted remotely or not, cannot fulfill.

What do you mean? Drones can't win the hearts and minds of the people? I say poppycock!

 

[CellarDweller]

As long as there's no diluting of the standards or bending of the rules (as there was with the first British female Commandos, they did the course in installments) and they don't end up becoming what we would call "the troop handbrake" and end up slowing everyone else down then why not.

Currently women (in the British Army) are allowed a shower every 3 days in the field, not sure how they'd get round this one.

 

[Karthak]

Women can't cope with frontline combat?
Speaking as a male, that sounds damn silly to me.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/dahomey.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons
http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/

For instance, the Mino, a military unit founded by the king of Dahomey that consisted solely of women. And guess what? They were a goddamn terror to their enemies, with a penchant for decapitation.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Treatment of women by their fellow male soldiers has obviously been pretty bad in a fair % of cases [...] Plus, as women are the only half of the population able to bear children, that's an argument against overuse of them as soldiers

So, you're basically saying women should not be soldiers because their male comrades-in-arms can't help but act like sexist beasts towards them - and because women are supposed to be baby-making machines, anyway?

*Sigh*.

I'm still for women soldiers myself. But I'm starting to wonder why any woman would WANT to risk her life defending this society...

No, I basically said I wondered if having a lot MORE women in the forces would help address that problem. In that they could offer greater support to each other. That said, maybe more women in command roles would be effective in that. (Which is, since you seem confused, a pro-more-women-in-the-military-argument)

For the latter matter, that's for society as a whole to consider. I didn't set up the rules of biology that say that only women can bear children. I'd be happy for men to be able to as well, but facts are facts. You'd have to be mad as a cut snake to have excessive numbers of fertile women on the front line in a major conflict.

Not that you have much of a choice if the enemy is on your home soil.

 

[Yuuki]

Women can't cope with frontline combat?
Speaking as a male, that sounds damn silly to me.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/dahomey.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons
http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/

For instance, the Mino, a military unit founded by the king of Dahomey that consisted solely of women. And guess what? They were a goddamn terror to their enemies, with a penchant for decapitation.

I only had to read the first sentence of the first link: "The Dahomey Amazons are the only documented all-female official front-line combat arms military unit in modern history."

The only documented one...jee, I wonder why. Maybe because exceptionally rare exceptions are exactly that?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I only support it if there are enough capable women to form separate fighting forces. As there will always be vastly more men capable of combat duty, women dispersed among the military evenly would result in them making up a small minority of any given fighting force. In such a situation, the majority of the force will become distracted by that small minority. This not only hurts troop cohesion, but based on how men, historically, have tended to conduct themselves during warfare, would put that female minority at risk of being raped by their fellow soldiers.

However, enough capable women operating as their own fighting force would be equally as good as an equally competent all male fighting force.