Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

[MrFalconfly]

Well I don't see why not.

If she can shoot, carry her own gear, and function within the group then I don't see why she shouldn't be a combat unit just like any other.

When I was in the Danish Royal Life Guards we had three women in our company (but that was mostly because they were the only ones who'd voluntered) and they were just as good both in the field and on guard duty as the rest of us.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There are two fundamental reasons why historically women were for the most part kept out of combat:

Not true, actually. This was more of a cultural thing, you have had cultures were women fought.

1. Physical strength - not quite as big of an issue as before. We're not swinging axes around anymore.

Even when we were, strength wasn't the main thing. The Romans, for example, could defeat ethnicities that tended to be larger on average with discipline. Fighting as a coherent unit is much more important than bigger muscles.

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...

In theory that is possible, yes, but really, most societies didn't introduce polygamy as a response to war.

 

[Kennetic]

I'm one of the few people here who is actually in a combat unit in the the US military. There are several factors that leave women at a disadvantage in combat. 1, they are generally less athletic than men and they don't currently use the same fitness standards that men do. 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. 3, Combat units are mostly filled with alpha male types and women simply don't fit there. Honestly, it's not safe for them unfortunately. EO training doesn't work. Sexual harassment training doesn't work. However, women have been approved for combat roles as of this year but I have yet to see any. Makes sense, combat roles generally aren't appealing to women or homosexuals for that matter. Open homosexuals have been allowed for over 2 years now amd I've yet to see one in a combat unit.

Edit: I apologize ahead of time if you quote me and I don't reply right away. I'm currently in the field and don't have time to get on my phone often.

 

[Maldark]

Where's the "Why is this even a question?" option?

 

[Jandau]

In theory that is possible, yes, but really, most societies didn't introduce polygamy as a response to war.

My example was oversimplified to illustrate the basic principle. The changes to the societal structure were likely over time, and even more likely, there was a sort of natural selection, where societies that kept women out of combat fared better over a longer period than those who allowed them to fight, resulting in higher survival rate for the society in question.

 

[Tomeran]

It 2013 and we still can't get over the equal rights thing?

Pretty much this.

Its a bit disgraceful that we still as a human species have to discuss this issue at 2013.

The obvious answer to the poll should be the top choice.

 

[Thaluikhain]

In theory that is possible, yes, but really, most societies didn't introduce polygamy as a response to war.

My example was oversimplified to illustrate the basic principle. The changes to the societal structure were likely over time, and even more likely, there was a sort of natural selection, where societies that kept women out of combat fared better over a longer period than those who allowed them to fight, resulting in higher survival rate for the society in question.

I don't agree with that, though I can't prove it's not the case. However, I've seen lots of people taking your oversimplified example or something like it as gospel.

 

[Jandau]

In theory that is possible, yes, but really, most societies didn't introduce polygamy as a response to war.

My example was oversimplified to illustrate the basic principle. The changes to the societal structure were likely over time, and even more likely, there was a sort of natural selection, where societies that kept women out of combat fared better over a longer period than those who allowed them to fight, resulting in higher survival rate for the society in question.

I don't agree with that, though I can't prove it's not the case. However, I've seen lots of people taking your oversimplified example or something like it as gospel.

I was making a short comment in a thread in the off-topic section of a gaming forum. I apologize for not writing a 20-page thesis on the subject complete with cited sources and footnotes. I forgot that Internet is serious business...

 

[dementis]

All roles but only if they meet the same requirements as men, all that giving women lower requirements does is ensure a continuing gender bias and a weaker fighting force. None of this helps anyone in the slightest.

 

[AuronFtw]

Kind of a silly poll. As long as they are combat ready, in fit shape and don't have hair that will interfere with equipment/gasmasks/bodysuits, there's nothing wrong with them running into fight.

That said, the "problem" with allowing women in those combat roles is that they often don't meet those requirements, and then they ***** and moan about them, making the requirements less stringent and allowing combat unfit people into combat. See also: boot camp in the 70s compared to boot camp today.

 

[Doclector]

Why the fuck not? If they can fight, they can fight. And I'm sure that soldiers are disciplined enough not to jump into each other's pants on duty, so that absurd argument goes right out the window.

 

[PatrickXD]

Women can work wherever they want, as long as training standards and entry requirements don't move ground in order to allow less able individuals in. If a woman can throw a grenade far enough to be outside of the danger zone, pick up a full grown male soldier and run them 100 yards, pull back the lever on an M16, keep up the pace and distance of a male soldier when running and maintain any other standard requirement of a male soldier then sure. Let them in. Otherwise, you're just a liability in combat - male or female.
Just keep in mind that equal opportunity does not mean an equal outcome.

 

[Griffolion]

If they meet the requirements, yes. The requirements should not be changed, lowered, or have exemptions given in any way.

Massive tangent:

It's not just armed forces that have this issue, it's also the fire service. A number of years ago, a feminist group made a massive furor in Britain because there are no female fire fighters. The fire services responded by saying it's got nothing to do with the fact they are women, it's just that the female form cannot (generally) achieve the muscle mass and level of fitness required of a fire fighter. The feminist group then responded by saying the requirements should be lowered to accommodate females. The reason why that is both an utterly stupid, and wholly dangerous, idea should be obvious by now.

In recent years, the fire service, under massive public pressure, has been made to relax fitness standards for the sake of letting women (and less strong men) into the service. One example is that, previously, a recruit was required to be able to set up a 100KG ladder within 20 seconds. Now, the recruit only needs to set up a 30KG ladder.

I'm all for women being in the fire service, I'm just not all for competency standards being lowered just for the sake of them being let into the fire service. Gender has nothing to do with when the chips are down in the middle of a fire, and you need to get someone out of a building.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

The only issues with women in combat is the opposite side. Correct me if im wrong, but i've seen some documentories about people who fought against women in certain wars. And many combatants were devastated, because to them it was much harder to shoot a woman than shooting another guy.

But besides that and the fact i'd rather have nobody would be joining the military, sure go ahead. As long as they fit the same requirements the men get for certain positions, why not. If you're qualified for a job that's all that matters.. and if a schniedel is dangling between your legs.

 

[Dizeazedkiller]

As long as they meet the requirements, anywhere. Unless I'm just being ignorant we don't live in a world where we need women to constantly bring new life into this world to replace massive losses at the hands of a war or something of its like.

However higher ups seem to have a bit of a problem with women meeting equal requirements. I remember a bit of a hubbub a while back about women in the fire service meeting lesser requirements than men to do the same job. I don't find that particular fair or safe but if they don't pander to extremists and just leave the requirements as uni-sex then its fine.

Edit.

If they meet the requirements, yes. The requirements should not be changed, lowered, or have exemptions given in any way.

Massive tangent:

It's not just armed forces that have this issue, it's also the fire service. A number of years ago, a feminist group made a massive furor in Britain because there are no female fire fighters. The fire services responded by saying it's got nothing to do with the fact they are women, it's just that the female form cannot (generally) achieve the muscle mass and level of fitness required of a fire fighter. The feminist group then responded by saying the requirements should be lowered to accommodate females. The reason why that is both an utterly stupid, and wholly dangerous, idea should be obvious by now.

In recent years, the fire service, under massive public pressure, has been made to relax fitness standards for the sake of letting women (and less strong men) into the service. One example is that, previously, a recruit was required to be able to set up a 100KG ladder within 20 seconds. Now, the recruit only needs to set up a 30KG ladder.

I'm all for women being in the fire service, I'm just not all for competency standards being lowered just for the sake of them being let into the fire service. Gender has nothing to do with when the chips are down in the middle of a fire, and you need to get someone out of a building.

This is what i was referring to. Beat me to it and with a much better explanation, too.

 

[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.