Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

[Heronblade]

No. We shouldn't be allowed to join the military. Because no one should be allowed to.

You can legitimately argue against some of the tasks we have used our military for, but this is childish at best. The level of peace and prosperity you enjoy on a day to day basis is almost exclusively thanks to our armed forces.

This world is filled with people that delight in preying on the weak. That has always been the case, and always will be the case so long as human nature remains unaltered. I suspect that the changes required would be drastic enough that the new generation could no longer be considered members of the same species.

Because of this, even people who are collectively devoted to peace must have some means to defend themselves, even if only by proxy. Without that, others who are less... principled can and inevitably will take everything, your homes, your family, your lives. In the end, clinging that strongly to your philosophy of uncompromising peace will only cause there to be fewer peaceful people in the world.

OT: I'll add my voice to the growing yes chorus. Only caveat is that there may be some situations where mixing genders may make the unit weaker. I suspect that those situations may be more rare than the officials in the armed forces fear, but it is indeed a legitimate concern. Of course, there is always the possibility of dealing with such cases by initiating an all female unit.

 

[carnex]

2. Replenishing numbers - put simply, women were too valuable a commodity to risk in wars since losing them meant a lower capacity to replenish your numbers between conflicts. A hyperbole to illustrate: a village of 200 people, all in their 20ies, 50/50 male/female split. If they send 100 women out to fight and only 10 come back alive, they can pop out 10 kids a year, meaning it would take them 9 years to reach the previous population levels. If they send out 100 men and 10 come back alive, some polygamy ensues and you're getting 100 kids a year, reaching old population levels in a year. Considering the whole overpopulation thing we're starting to have to deal with, I don't think this is much of a concern anymore...

The actual reason women haven't historically been allowed in armed services is because large amounts of combat-trained women = no more patriarchy. It's the same reason we never armed the slaves...

If you look at history you will notice that many armies actually relied on their slaves. Most of the Ottoman Empire forces came from their slaves, so called Janichari forces, kids taken from christian families and trained for military and administration. So that tangent isn't true.

And it is true that one of the reason women never were in combat, unless there was real shortage of men, due to reproductive disparity between sexes. Other include that both sides didn't want to be forced to kill women, women are physically weaker and have less endurance, have regular periods of weakness and was believed that they would cause disorder in ranks.

Perhaps the most oppressive society was ancient japan, and yet wives of Samurai's were trained in use of Naginata to defend their family in absence of head of family.

P.S.
Children are armed in some countries since they are easy to control, cost less and they don't have certain urges. It's pure abuse, nothing to do with their capability as soldiers. And they are usually piss poor soldiers.

 

[Heronblade]

There was some movie where they discussed how with the advent of assault rifles, children are just as effective of combatants as grown men can be, because killing people no longer requires physical strength what with the advent of automated killing machines.
What was it, Lord of War?
Anyhow, yeah, children are just as capable as grown men of effectively killing people when they have an ak47 in their hands. What swings between their legs makes even less difference

Uh, yeah, no

A child can be just as effective in combat as a grown man IFF the latter has no real training. In other words, the only time it makes no difference is when all our loathsomely unprincipled commander needs is cannon fodder to throw at the meat grinder. Giving them a machine gun just gives them a very small chance of taking someone down before they are cut down in turn. You want a soldier? Someone that is likely to not only survive, but effectively accomplish something in the meantime? Aside from the training, they need strength, stamina, and agility, and far more of the first two than any child can manage.

A lot of women cannot manage it either, but far from all.

 

[Lightknight]

Yes, in all roles, as long as they meet the requirements and as long as those are the same requirements for male combatants and not reduced.

There are other elements that could potentially change my decision. If we find out that women soldiers cause soldiers to behave in ways that make them less effective (such as being overly protective of the individual in battle) then I may reconsider. Or we can go to all-female units and such. But from what I've seen, other countries have been able to do it successfully though the women generally get horribly treated elsewise.

 

[siomasm]

Not in general support roles, no. It's not the fact that women can't physically handle it, but they have many concessions that must be made in order to meet certain cultural standards and various other social impacts that aside. IE women need their own restrooms, they need feminine products for that time of the month, men and women in desperate situations and close proximity means you must be prepared for the various dramas that may cause to occur.

When you say "women" you must mean "ALL women" regardless of attitude, intelligence or professionalism. There will be those who have the right attitude, intelligence and professionalism to act like a proper solider. There are many however, that will not, just like there are men who will not.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a romantic at best and ignorant at worst.

 

[Knife]

As a guy who actually served in a combat unit with women, my opinion is likely to be unpopular.
Should women be allowed to serve in combat units? Definitely.
Do I actually want them to serve in combat units? Hell no.

Men and women have different biologies. I'm no doctor but from what we were told some of the difference lies in fat layer (Men have a bigger fat layer in proportion to their body). Hence women have to rest more and can't carry around big weights. You can see how that might be a problem - there are tasks that a unit has to complete, and if the women are sleeping or unable/prohibited to help, then it falls to the men to finish their own portions of the task as well as picking up the slack for the women. Under normal circumstances you would be carrying somewhere around 10-50kg, women would be carrying 10-20kg. In combat if the soldier next to you is wounded you are expected to carry him out of danger along with his and your equipment. How do you expect a woman to perform such a feat in combat if she's never trained to do that to begin with and in fact prohibited from doing that? How come women that serve in the same unit have to do 50 push ups instead of 70, and come 3 minutes late on 2km run? Either you care about their health and leave them out of combat units, or you apply the same standards.

Then there's the problem with logistics, women need their own separate bathroom, their own separate tent. Instead of 100 men using 2 bathrooms, it's 90 men using 1 bathroom and 10 women using 1 bathroom, imagine the lines.

When we started there were 90 men and 10 women. A year later there were 60 men and 3 women (everyone's alive, they just dropped out). 33% dropout rate for men, 70% dropout rate for women. That's because the men were sent to the unit, the women volunteered. Men had no expectations and hopes, no point to prove. Women were idealists and when those ideas crashed against harsh reality those ideas disappeared.

A combat unit isn't a picnic. After 4 months of training I had both my legs broken. After 7 weeks of recuperating I came back, because I knew that if I wouldn't my brothers in arms would have to pick up the slack - by going away (to heal) I actively made their lives harder. You don't go into a combat unit to prove "men and women are equal", you go because someone has to. You put your life in danger so that the general population would be safe.
If that's your reasoning and you are ready to put in the same effort as everybody else, knowing full well that you're risking your health and your very life, then you're welcome no matter your gender.
Otherwise do everyone a favour and prove your points elsewhere.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I have no probelm with women in combat if they really want to be in that position and do meet the requirement.

Granted years ago a military woman did make a talk in my High School about the army and she did say that women shouldn't be in the frontline (she say that men were stronger phyiscally). Well it was years ago so I wouldn't hold that statement to be valid.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Not in general support roles, no. It's not the fact that women can't physically handle it, but they have many concessions that must be made in order to meet certain cultural standards and various other social impacts that aside. IE women need their own restrooms, they need feminine products for that time of the month, men and women in desperate situations and close proximity means you must be prepared for the various dramas that may cause to occur.

Excepting that that hasn't actually been such as serious concern in mixed gender professions in various nations. OTOH, that's not to say this would apply to all societies.

There will be those who have the right attitude, intelligence and professionalism to act like a proper solider. There are many however, that will not, just like there are men who will not.

Er...isn't the military supposed to screen for that sort of thing?

 

[Amaury_games]

I voted "Yes.", and I find this comic strip fitting: http://humoncomics.com/warriors
Why shouldn't they be able to train in order to fight better defending their country, amongst other things?

 

[Combustion Kevin]

yes, if they meet the standards.

I also am less concerned about the sexual implications of having mixed squads, I've seen groups like that function under pressure and nobody would be stupid enough to compromise the group to gain favor or sexually compete.
And even then, if there is such an asshat doing that, any sergeant worth their pay would beat the stupid out of him, these are life and death situations, not hollywood scenario's.

 

[optimusjamie]

I'm all for a fully-integrated military, though their are concerns highlighted elsewhere about maintaining standards and sexual assault.

 

[kickassfrog]

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.

I was going to use that argument too. The only thing is, I don't know if that was out of a sense of equality among the Soviets, or just the need to send as many people who could fight against the Germans, regardless of gender.

Israel also allows women in the armed forces, which would give a pretty good estimate of how well it would work for the Americans.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Yes, of course they should be allowed in all combat situations.

The outdated idea that women will somehow interfere - either by being less capable or by distracting the men - is outdated bullcrap. They said the same thing about allowing African Americans into the military, and see how that turned out.

Women are active members of the military in full combat situations in a number of other militaries around the globe, and it causes no problems.

One final item - women should be available for the Draft too. Fair's fair - if you let women into combat, you can add us to the draft.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I was going to use that argument too. The only thing is, I don't know if that was out of a sense of equality among the Soviets, or just the need to send as many people who could fight against the Germans, regardless of gender.

Also, Vietnam. I believe that Thailand had female soldiers since before modern firearms.

 

[spartan231490]

First: the escapist community is not a good representation of general population. Second, I think many people are misunderstanding. The biggest problem with women in combat situations is not their combat ability. There is a fear that the men in the unit will take bigger risks when trying to save a female comrade than a male comrade, thus losing more soldiers than might otherwise occur. Personally, I said that we should allow women in any role that they can fulfill, but it might be wise to do research to see if male soldiers really would take more stupid risks because of females in combat situations. If so, it would probably be wise to either deploy all female and all male units, or to remove them from combat situations. However, until it's proven that putting women on the front lines would increase risk, I definitely think we should do so. We should also make them register for selective service.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

2, they have hygiene requirements that men don't. We have often been without proper hygiene for weeks or even months at a time but males can handle that, whereas females need proper hygiene on a regular basis and being in combat that is not something that cam be provided right away. Support roles allow for this which is why women are in support roles.

I'm going to ignore 1 and 3 since they are absolutely absurd. Plenty of women are that physically capable and equally aggressive.

As to 2... are you really going to claim that women can't be in combat because of their periods? I'm not sure whether to be amused by the comic immaturity or shocked that you actually think a period is going to stop a female soldier from doing her job.

If you are purely concerned about the lack of tampons in combat zones, then might I suggest those birth control implants that reduce a woman to only four periods a year? And if that's not enough for you, I'm sure the military could come up with a reusable pad for use in the field. They designed ash-trays for submarines that break into three not-sharp pieces when smashed, I'm sure they can manage this.

It's not periods that's the problem. Yeast infections can get very nasty very quickly when a group of women go without showering for a couple weeks.

Oh. Huh. I didn't realize that was a thing (I've only ever gotten yeast infections after taking antibiotics). Then again, I really like baths and showers (they're relaxing) so I've never gone without for very long.

Anyway...

Don't soldiers carry personal first aid kits? Throw in a couple of those hard-core anti-fungal suppositories - those will kill the yeast infection.

Also, wouldn't male soldiers get fungus growing on their junk after that long? I guess I assumed there was jock-itch cream in those first aid kits for that.

NOTE: This is a copy paste of my reply below so that anyone viewing this original post knows that I've addressed the yeast infection issue.

 

[Danny Ocean]

So Women in Combat Duties? Do you agree with it?

Yeah.

From a practical point of view, they've got bloody strong legs and backs.

From a philosophical point of view, the more formal equality, the better.

From a gendered point of view, excluding women from the military is demeaning to both men and women.