Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

Recommended Videos

Knife

New member
Mar 20, 2011
180
0
0
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

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Oct 29, 2010
18,149
2
3
Country
UK
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

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
20,140
4,508
118
siomasm said:
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.

siomasm said:
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

New member
Oct 13, 2010
196
0
0
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

New member
Nov 17, 2011
1,205
0
0
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

New member
Jul 14, 2012
111
0
0
I'm all for a fully-integrated military, though their are concerns highlighted elsewhere about maintaining standards and sexual assault.
 

kickassfrog

New member
Jan 17, 2011
488
0
0
Korolev said:
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

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,644
0
0
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

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
20,140
4,508
118
kickassfrog said:
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

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,184
0
0
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

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,644
0
0
Kennetic said:
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.

kingpocky said:
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

Master Archivist
Jun 28, 2008
4,148
0
0
Wedgetail122 said:
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.
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,739
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Various navies have had women on submarines for years, though there's a difference between SSBNs (nuclear poweres submarines armed with ballistic missiles, stay underwater for months on end), and conventional submarines that only stay submerged for a few days.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be on submarines at all, on the contrary.

What I am saying is that given that, as far as I know, there's sometimes still a boys' club attitude as well as in rarer cases even instances of sexual assault and rape, I don't think it's an entirely smart idea to place a single woman in a large group of men and then send them on an assignment that will isolate them for extended periods of time.

I mean there's a good chance nothing bad will happen, certainly there's no shortage of good people serving. But from what I've read on the subject the strong impression I've gotten is that there's certainly a realistic chance that the female soldier may not be truly accepted within the group, leaving her with absolutely no support on what probably can be one of the most taxing jobs should combat situations occur.

So women certainly should be able to serve on subs and in special forces, but I think care should be taken on the group's composition to ensure they have the social support they need.

To add, I believe everyone needs that support, on account of being human, and such care should not be limited to women. But seeing how women's treatment in the army has popped up as a worrying topic over the past years it's certainly not something that can be brushed aside.
 

Aramis Night

New member
Mar 31, 2013
535
0
0
On the subject of women in military submarines, I seem to remember reading somewhere about certain biological concerns with women serving aboard nuclear submarines. It seems that there was a possible risk of permanent reproductive damage caused by such long and close proximity to the radiation aboard a nuclear sub that could cause damage to a women's egg cells. If it caused sterility, id be all for it. But from what i read it would more likely lead to problems for the child rather than a lack of child.

Other than that, i'm all for women getting blown up/killed/maimed by the thousands in more for profit wars in countries not their own. Perhaps it might actually lead to more of the military budget going to taking care of the soldiers, rather than to contracts to make more weapons of war that will just sit around unused so some private company can profit. It might be like how there were no safety standards in most industries till women got involved. If men get hurt/killed by the thousands, no one cares. Hopefully with women getting killed/maimed, it will have the side effect of putting public pressure on governments to actually take care of their soldiers instead of just using them up and throwing them away.
 

SquidSponge

New member
Apr 29, 2013
75
0
0
For reference, option 1.

A lot of people used have said "as long as they meet the standard", so I'll post this regarding the aforementioned standard:
I got very frustrated with the UK army officer physical fitness standards because I was until recently attempting to train myself to thr application standard - I beat the womens' standard, but a considerable time later I never quite managed the male requirement (my training kinda lost momentum, then I turned my attention back to academia). Bearing in mind that this is supposedly for the same job at the same pay. For reference [http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20153.aspx], male/female:

Beep test - 10.2 / 8.1
Situps - 50 / 50 (2mins)
Pressups - 44 / 21 (2mins)

Which as far as I can discern means that the cardiovascular fitness test has ~25% longer duration [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beep_test#Calculations] for men, and the upper-body strength test is >200% as intensive for men. And that's before considering exercises get more difficult the longer they continue. At least the core body test is fair.

Re: submarines:
I used to presume the "no women on subs" thing was due to privacy concerns, but a submariner I once spoke to said it was in case someone broke the fraternisation rules (as always happens) and got their silly self pregnant. Submarine tours can be a loooong time (months?) and a sub can't afford to be operating with a (wo)man down, nor can it afford the medical and possibly nutritional requirements of a pregnant woman while it's got a mission to complete. And, being stealth vessels they obviously can't just drop into port any ol' time to let people off, so this could potentially ruin entire operations. I suppose segregated subs might solve this, but what if a submariner got pregnant and only only found out 3 weeks into a 6-month tour? It's not at all fair, but it's a hell of a lot simpler to just stick with "no girls allowed", so I presume that's why that is (was?) the case.

TL;DR - I see no reason women shouldn't perform the same roles as men, providing they are held to the same standard and assuming solutions are found for a few issues. Because bullets, long runs and heavy loads don't care whether you have a Y chromosome or not.
 

Grampy_bone

New member
Mar 12, 2008
797
0
0
For all the people saying "if they can meet the same requirements as men," there is something you need to understand:

If a man only meets the minimum physical requirements to join the military, he is largely deemed useless. He will be carrying gear and peeling potatoes, not given any kind of important job (i.e. combat roles).

The vast majority of women cannot meet the minimum physical requirements that men must meet. So in other words, women in the military are less than useless.

Sure, allow women to try out for the team if it makes them feel better, but don't expect them to do any heavy lifting.
 

ShiningAmber

New member
Mar 18, 2013
107
0
0
If she meets the requirements. And if it bothers the men so much, I really don't see that as her problem. They can learn to deal with it.
 

Mezworld24

New member
Jun 27, 2013
12
0
0
Combat wise, any one who is well trained and can shoot straight should be allowed wise.
Problems only really occur within the military itself. I suppose female only regiments would be best, if there are enough willing female soldiers.
 

Heronblade

New member
Apr 12, 2011
1,202
0
0
Maiev Shadowsong said:
Heronblade said:
Because of this, even people who are collectively devoted to peace must have some means to defend themselves, even if only by proxy.
Nope. Plenty of Buddhists are utterly passive.
The term "by proxy" was in there fairly deliberately. Buddhists tend to live in countries defended by various military and police forces. Most of them are, at least ostensibly, completely devoted to peace, but they are defended by people who are not.
 

thewatergamer

New member
Aug 4, 2012
647
0
0
My biggest problem is when women want to sign up but they have different standards then men just because they are women, in my opinion if a woman doesn't meet the requirements that all male soldiers meet then she shouldn't be given special treatment, with that out of the way, if anyone meets the requirements for any role in the military they should be allowed in regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation etc.

As long as they meet the physical requirements welcome to the army