Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?
- Thread starter Wedgetail122
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I used to be all for it, but the fact is, women aren't built for it. The Israelis tried it, and people died as a direct result. How? Say your team is assaulting an enemy machine gun. If it's an all-male unit, people don't stop if someone gets shot. If there's women and men, men stop for women, therefore presenting easy targets.
Also, even the fittest women have inferior grip and upper body strength, as well as a lower lung-capacity. On top of that, do officers really want to worry about the havoc relationships could play with unit cohesion in the heat of battle?
Do you believe that the a woman, carrying twenty kilos of her own gear, could carry an eighty kilo man, and his twenty kilos of gear, in temperatures exceeding thirty degrees? I don't. And given that people's lives would be lost if she couldn't, I regretfully cannot support the integration of women into frontline service.
But that doesn't matter, at least not to the US Army. How do they intend to neutralise the problems with female soldiers? By ignoring them. When lives are at stake, that's wrong.
Also, even the fittest women have inferior grip and upper body strength, as well as a lower lung-capacity. On top of that, do officers really want to worry about the havoc relationships could play with unit cohesion in the heat of battle?
Do you believe that the a woman, carrying twenty kilos of her own gear, could carry an eighty kilo man, and his twenty kilos of gear, in temperatures exceeding thirty degrees? I don't. And given that people's lives would be lost if she couldn't, I regretfully cannot support the integration of women into frontline service.
But that doesn't matter, at least not to the US Army. How do they intend to neutralise the problems with female soldiers? By ignoring them. When lives are at stake, that's wrong.
I'd say I'm broadly against it. It isn't that I think they're incapable of taking a bullet or delivering fire or following orders or any of that nonsense - no one is particularly well suited to being shot at regardless of gender. The problem is simply that it doesn't seem particularly worth the effort.
First, from personal experience, it was rare that I encountered a female in the US Army who could actually physically perform the job of an infantryman (for example). I'm not particularly convinced this is due to that classical "feminine weakness" so much as it seems to be a cultural thing - the female soldiers simply didn't want to do the sort of workout that would give them the condition necessary to perform the tasks. That some otherwise normal women were perfectly capable of doing the ruck march in the right amount of time or passing other physical standards set for males seems to imply that this shortcoming was a personal failing rather than one that broadly affects all women.
The second is a health concern - simply put, women are more prone to very specific types of injury. Hip injuries for example are an incredibly common malady in Basic Training. Beyond that there are additional considerations of hygiene and health associated with the menstrual cycle along with the associated changes in hormonal chemistry over the course of the cycle. Finally, there is that eternal bugaboo, pregnancy, which more or less forces a soldier in a combat role to do something else for months if not years afterwards. Again, not to assert that this would somehow make them incapable of serving; it simply presents a complication in logistics across the board that are not present with male soldiers.
The thing is, I am entirely certain there are women who could do any job in a modern military. The problem is, because of the issues with simply finding a female that meets the physical standards and then dealing with the higher risk of common injury that would prevent them doing the job, it simply doesn't make a lot of sense to try. To put it simply, if a significant number of females are, for one reason or another, incapable of performing the job, then having lots of them try out (at an egregious cost to the taxpayer - training of a soldier can cost several hundred thousand dollars for certain jobs) and then fail only to be reclassified and sent to try again seems silly.
I suppose there is a simple answer to that problem in the form of simply having a series of tests designed to weed out those obviously incapable of making the cut. Of course, since such tests do not exist for males (since the average 18 year old male has demonstrably proven themselves capable of meeting the standards) I would expect this would elicit an outcry of unfairness.
Of course, there are other issues that are far harder to define that I don't particularly believe. There are wide ranging theories (almost certainly based on nothing more than bias) that including women in combat roles intentionally is foolish. For example, western civilization is more or less hard wired to be appalled at the death of "women and children" - the adult male by contrast is seen as expendable and only worth mention by exclusion. While no society is comfortable with sending people to die, some would argue we are far less comfortable sending women to die for a cause. Then there are various theories relating to gender politics that would assert the inclusion of sex (the natural result when you stick a bunch of twenty-somethings in close quarters for long periods) would be detrimental to the chain of command and disrupt unit cohesion. You might recognize that last one as one of the many arguments used against letting openly gay soldiers into the military. All of these have at least some element of truth in them but, given that I've never seen a real academic study on the subject, it's hard to determine just how big a concern such things are. For example, if we are less comfortable sending women to die, in the event of a hard fought war with high casualties, does that affect the total number of casualties we'd be willing to accept before seeking other options? And while sex within a group has a profound impact on group dynamics, is it necessarily a negative one from a military perspective?
When you get right down to it, the question really comes down to a wholly pragmatic quandary: would the military be improved, on the whole, by letting women serve in combat rolls? I don't see any reason to believe a military facing anything short of an existential threat would see an improvement and even then it's only on the basis that such a crisis would require as many soldiers as possible at whatever the necessary cost. Such threats are rare in the modern world - at least threats that can be fought with rifle and bayonet.
First, from personal experience, it was rare that I encountered a female in the US Army who could actually physically perform the job of an infantryman (for example). I'm not particularly convinced this is due to that classical "feminine weakness" so much as it seems to be a cultural thing - the female soldiers simply didn't want to do the sort of workout that would give them the condition necessary to perform the tasks. That some otherwise normal women were perfectly capable of doing the ruck march in the right amount of time or passing other physical standards set for males seems to imply that this shortcoming was a personal failing rather than one that broadly affects all women.
The second is a health concern - simply put, women are more prone to very specific types of injury. Hip injuries for example are an incredibly common malady in Basic Training. Beyond that there are additional considerations of hygiene and health associated with the menstrual cycle along with the associated changes in hormonal chemistry over the course of the cycle. Finally, there is that eternal bugaboo, pregnancy, which more or less forces a soldier in a combat role to do something else for months if not years afterwards. Again, not to assert that this would somehow make them incapable of serving; it simply presents a complication in logistics across the board that are not present with male soldiers.
The thing is, I am entirely certain there are women who could do any job in a modern military. The problem is, because of the issues with simply finding a female that meets the physical standards and then dealing with the higher risk of common injury that would prevent them doing the job, it simply doesn't make a lot of sense to try. To put it simply, if a significant number of females are, for one reason or another, incapable of performing the job, then having lots of them try out (at an egregious cost to the taxpayer - training of a soldier can cost several hundred thousand dollars for certain jobs) and then fail only to be reclassified and sent to try again seems silly.
I suppose there is a simple answer to that problem in the form of simply having a series of tests designed to weed out those obviously incapable of making the cut. Of course, since such tests do not exist for males (since the average 18 year old male has demonstrably proven themselves capable of meeting the standards) I would expect this would elicit an outcry of unfairness.
Of course, there are other issues that are far harder to define that I don't particularly believe. There are wide ranging theories (almost certainly based on nothing more than bias) that including women in combat roles intentionally is foolish. For example, western civilization is more or less hard wired to be appalled at the death of "women and children" - the adult male by contrast is seen as expendable and only worth mention by exclusion. While no society is comfortable with sending people to die, some would argue we are far less comfortable sending women to die for a cause. Then there are various theories relating to gender politics that would assert the inclusion of sex (the natural result when you stick a bunch of twenty-somethings in close quarters for long periods) would be detrimental to the chain of command and disrupt unit cohesion. You might recognize that last one as one of the many arguments used against letting openly gay soldiers into the military. All of these have at least some element of truth in them but, given that I've never seen a real academic study on the subject, it's hard to determine just how big a concern such things are. For example, if we are less comfortable sending women to die, in the event of a hard fought war with high casualties, does that affect the total number of casualties we'd be willing to accept before seeking other options? And while sex within a group has a profound impact on group dynamics, is it necessarily a negative one from a military perspective?
When you get right down to it, the question really comes down to a wholly pragmatic quandary: would the military be improved, on the whole, by letting women serve in combat rolls? I don't see any reason to believe a military facing anything short of an existential threat would see an improvement and even then it's only on the basis that such a crisis would require as many soldiers as possible at whatever the necessary cost. Such threats are rare in the modern world - at least threats that can be fought with rifle and bayonet.
Those aren't my points, they are the Army's reasons. I don't care one way or the other if women can be in combat jobs. In combat, the Army only cares about getting the job done, they dont have time for political correctness. Mind you, the Army reported at the beginning of the year that they are opening up combat roles for women but they didn't say when that would take effect. I imagine that they were waiting for the war to die down some more before they sit down and decide how they want to go about changing fitness standards and whatnot.Bara_no_Hime said:
My point is that without such protection, passive individuals are at the mercy of others.Maiev Shadowsong said:
Since a very large portion of the world are more than willing to take advantage of the weak and defenseless, a country that has no military defense and/or militaristic allies willing to defend them in turn like you suggested earlier will doom its citizens. Best case outcome for such a scenario is forceful occupation of the pacifist country by a more militaristic one. More likely however, the pacifist country's population just takes a steep decline as the hyenas tear out what they want.
To put it another way, pure pacifism just leads to a whole bunch of dead pacifists.
Well that was a "long" time ago, I have read that report, we can hope men don't like helping women as much anymore...Jakub324 said:
I would be VERY interested in seeing the woman that could pass special forces training like Bud/s [http://www.military.com/military-fitness/navy-special-operations/top-things-to-know-before-buds]. I think people forget that there is a non-trivial physical difference between men and women. Everything from males having larger organs (think more oxygen in the bloodstream for more endurance under a heavy load, greater average lung capacity, etc), denser bones (less chance of breakage), pelvic bones angled more efficiently for running (women's pelvic angle is wider in order to allow the passage of a large object through their body. This wider angle distributes weight less efficiently and makes running more difficult), significantly greater grip strength which even female athletes don't match, to even basic muscle growth (testosterone is a heck of a thing when you're trying to build muscle. Women are 40-50% weaker in upper body strength than men on average and 20-30% weaker in lower body strength). The fact is, for a woman to get up to even an average male she has to work her ass off and has to choose the areas that she'll compete in as working on one area can make others suffer. Imagine that a woman has to double her upper body strength just to get to the average male. There are women who do this and more and they're incredible for achieving that. But getting to the upper tier with that kind of disadvantage without giving up agility is impossible.
Women do have strengths in other areas that we do need though. From what I understand they handle pressure (physical pressure from ocean depths or gravitational forces) better than men. Current standards weed out most male applicants, let alone any possible females. And those bud/s washouts go on to special forces in other areas of the military or get 6-figure income jobs in the private security sector. That's how good even the people who don't make it through are.
The basic combat rules can be stringent, but it's nothing like special forces demands. I am against making the minimum requirements less for women than it is for men. Doing that is just as sexist as not even allowing women the opportunity should there ever come a day where they could pass.
A woman in the special forces? Highly unlikely but holy heck would I be impressed if one ever made it.
Women do have strengths in other areas that we do need though. From what I understand they handle pressure (physical pressure from ocean depths or gravitational forces) better than men. Current standards weed out most male applicants, let alone any possible females. And those bud/s washouts go on to special forces in other areas of the military or get 6-figure income jobs in the private security sector. That's how good even the people who don't make it through are.
The basic combat rules can be stringent, but it's nothing like special forces demands. I am against making the minimum requirements less for women than it is for men. Doing that is just as sexist as not even allowing women the opportunity should there ever come a day where they could pass.
A woman in the special forces? Highly unlikely but holy heck would I be impressed if one ever made it.
if they meet the requirements, they deserve to do whatever they want.
that said, they also need to understand that they're going to be in a place filled with a bunch of testosterone fueled alpha males, male on male rape is a huge issue as it is, their chances of serving without incident aren't great...
that said, they also need to understand that they're going to be in a place filled with a bunch of testosterone fueled alpha males, male on male rape is a huge issue as it is, their chances of serving without incident aren't great...
They should be able to, as long as they meet identical standards to men. So no easier physical tests, and same haircut etc.
If and only if they can meet the exact same standards that are expected of men. No special treatment. No leg ups. If your a strong woman and think you can hang go for it. Just don't get in and start complaining about how things are to hard for you.
That is a nice thought, but do you have any evidence at all that your position is supported by reality? What country do you live in that you are so sure you have no enemies that would take advantage of your weakness?Maiev Shadowsong said:
The history of the human race is one of oppression or destruction of the weak by those in a position of power. Slavery, the holocaust, the crusades, and I can go on for as long as you want me to. The list of wars we have fought is endless. The oppression of humans by other humans is practically a constant in this world. The defenseless are taken advantage of.
To take a random example, lets say South Korea suddenly completely disarmed and all of their allies decided to never help them in case of attack. Do you think that North Korea would hesitate in attacking and taking over?
Before someone asks: Yes, I was a soldier. US Army 11B.
I answered No, however, this is not really a question of "should," and the answer is not as simple as "Yes" or "No."
Obviously, if you ask "should" a woman be allowed to serve in a combat arms (boots on the ground) role, the answer is "of course, so long as she can meet the exact same minimum physical standards as any male soldier." Yes, there are women out there who can do that, though it's not really as normal as some people like to make it out to be. Carrying a 200lb injured man, with his 20lbs of attached equipment (not talking about his weapon and dropped ruck, which is another 45-80lbs) out of direct fire is not an easy thing on its own, much less dragging him to where he might need to go to get actual help. A lot of men can't do that, either.
But, the real questions that have to be asked is "who are we fighting" and "what are the rules of engagement?"
If this was X-Com, or Starship Troopers, where the enemy is some monstrous alien being or some form of animal with no physical relationship (and, thus, no sexual relationship) to humans, then the answer, for me, swings closer to Yes. In that situation a woman cannot be exploited by an enemy to the detriment of her comrades any more than a man can be. Equal risk.
If this some number of centuries ago, where it was normal rules of warfare to rape and pillage the countryside when victorious, then the answer is very much "Yes." If a woman is likely to be exploited/raped/murdered anyway, then let her fight. Same risk in either situation.
However, under modern rules of engagement and most (probably faulty, but I don't make them) expectations, civilians are either killed as collateral damage or avoided, but not purposefully raped and murdered. Obviously, there are exceptions, and they may be more the rule than the expected ROE, but the ROE is made under the pretense that the various Conventions apply. In this situation, I vote No. It has nothing to do with a woman's ability to fight, but rather with the ability of her to be exploited to the detriment of others. The threat or actual act of sexual abuse/torture against a female companion is a very powerful coercion technique. It will break people, I guarantee. Limiting this threat by limiting women to combat support roles is not necessarily a bad thing. It isn't evil or negative comment on female ability, in and of itself (though I'm sure it can be used to cover that up quite often). <~~~ This is my primary concern.
Also, there is the very good point that men are men and have natural tendencies to behave sorta like... well... men. They will form protective bonds with people around them, male or female, but their protective behavior towards women will tend to be more pronounced. This could potentially cause men to do some really stupid things in combat to protect a female comrade. However, this is one of those things I think men should be able to learn to get over. <~~~ A concern, but one that I think needs to be dealt with and dropped, rather than hidden behind.
That said, I am generally in support of women in combat roles where they are not part of a ground squad. While some of the same arguments above about using the threat of exploitation of a woman vs. male counterparts still applies, it is more mitigated in a situation where they are not part of an infantry type unit. Female combat pilots in both Air Force and Army aviation, I think, are perfectly great. Women serving on warships is fine with me (the pregnancy concern is very real, but I think there are ways to deal with it, rather than just hiding from it... people may not like the ways of dealing with, but equal rights means equal responsibility).
Anyway, I'd love to say yes. There are a lot of situations that I'd say "Yes" in, because I think women deserve the right to fight for themselves or others. However, in modern ROE warfare where the enemy is always another potentially disgusting human being, I still think the modern day infantry unit is safer being all male.
I answered No, however, this is not really a question of "should," and the answer is not as simple as "Yes" or "No."
Obviously, if you ask "should" a woman be allowed to serve in a combat arms (boots on the ground) role, the answer is "of course, so long as she can meet the exact same minimum physical standards as any male soldier." Yes, there are women out there who can do that, though it's not really as normal as some people like to make it out to be. Carrying a 200lb injured man, with his 20lbs of attached equipment (not talking about his weapon and dropped ruck, which is another 45-80lbs) out of direct fire is not an easy thing on its own, much less dragging him to where he might need to go to get actual help. A lot of men can't do that, either.
But, the real questions that have to be asked is "who are we fighting" and "what are the rules of engagement?"
If this was X-Com, or Starship Troopers, where the enemy is some monstrous alien being or some form of animal with no physical relationship (and, thus, no sexual relationship) to humans, then the answer, for me, swings closer to Yes. In that situation a woman cannot be exploited by an enemy to the detriment of her comrades any more than a man can be. Equal risk.
If this some number of centuries ago, where it was normal rules of warfare to rape and pillage the countryside when victorious, then the answer is very much "Yes." If a woman is likely to be exploited/raped/murdered anyway, then let her fight. Same risk in either situation.
However, under modern rules of engagement and most (probably faulty, but I don't make them) expectations, civilians are either killed as collateral damage or avoided, but not purposefully raped and murdered. Obviously, there are exceptions, and they may be more the rule than the expected ROE, but the ROE is made under the pretense that the various Conventions apply. In this situation, I vote No. It has nothing to do with a woman's ability to fight, but rather with the ability of her to be exploited to the detriment of others. The threat or actual act of sexual abuse/torture against a female companion is a very powerful coercion technique. It will break people, I guarantee. Limiting this threat by limiting women to combat support roles is not necessarily a bad thing. It isn't evil or negative comment on female ability, in and of itself (though I'm sure it can be used to cover that up quite often). <~~~ This is my primary concern.
Also, there is the very good point that men are men and have natural tendencies to behave sorta like... well... men. They will form protective bonds with people around them, male or female, but their protective behavior towards women will tend to be more pronounced. This could potentially cause men to do some really stupid things in combat to protect a female comrade. However, this is one of those things I think men should be able to learn to get over. <~~~ A concern, but one that I think needs to be dealt with and dropped, rather than hidden behind.
That said, I am generally in support of women in combat roles where they are not part of a ground squad. While some of the same arguments above about using the threat of exploitation of a woman vs. male counterparts still applies, it is more mitigated in a situation where they are not part of an infantry type unit. Female combat pilots in both Air Force and Army aviation, I think, are perfectly great. Women serving on warships is fine with me (the pregnancy concern is very real, but I think there are ways to deal with it, rather than just hiding from it... people may not like the ways of dealing with, but equal rights means equal responsibility).
Anyway, I'd love to say yes. There are a lot of situations that I'd say "Yes" in, because I think women deserve the right to fight for themselves or others. However, in modern ROE warfare where the enemy is always another potentially disgusting human being, I still think the modern day infantry unit is safer being all male.
Yeah, sorry Maiev, but for every idealist who truly believes that people are at their core good beings, there is either a person like me who believes that human beings will always do the wrong thing, absent social controls or, worse, there is a person who will absolutely take advantage of any weakness to take what the guy next to him has (these days, we give them a Masters in Business Administration and call them "consultants").
Pacificism is a good way to get dead. People are aggressive, predatory creatures who will bash their neighbor over the head to take his stuff, unless he's got strong social bonds to make him like that neighbor (in which case he'll find a neighbor farther away... like the next tribe over) or unless there are enforceable rules in place to stop him.
We've been doing it for as long as we've existed. We still do it on a day to day basis and every day lobbyists try to make it more legal, though we like to call that "de-regulation," apparently.
Pacificism is a good way to get dead. People are aggressive, predatory creatures who will bash their neighbor over the head to take his stuff, unless he's got strong social bonds to make him like that neighbor (in which case he'll find a neighbor farther away... like the next tribe over) or unless there are enforceable rules in place to stop him.
We've been doing it for as long as we've existed. We still do it on a day to day basis and every day lobbyists try to make it more legal, though we like to call that "de-regulation," apparently.
Depending on the country in question, that is indeed a possibility. But the countries that would still be safe are protected by the friendly military forces maintained by their neighbors. Hell, the way the US is taking on everyone else's problems, pretty much all of western Europe could disband and be fine. But that is still defense by proxy. All it means is that you are willing to let the citizens of some other country kill and die for the sake of you being able to live in peace rather than that soldier who lives two houses down from you.Maiev Shadowsong said:
Fear and violence do indeed go hand in hand, but so does anger, and greed, and a whole host of other nasty emotions. Your reluctance to defend yourself or for others to defend you not only does nothing to dissuade the nastier side of humanity, it attracts them. Its like diving into a pool of sharks with a bloody cut on your leg.
I'm sorry but I just cannot contemplate this line of thinking. How is allowing yourself and others to be killed by those who would do violence to you 'peace'?Maiev Shadowsong said:
Is your life so unimportant that you feel no need to defend it? Do your loved ones deserve no protection? Is your pacifism simply cowardice and apathy? I truly do not comprehend.
There will always be those who would do violence.
There will always be those who want what they do not have and are willing to use force to obtain it.
There are those who would kill you simply for being, because you are different and they don't understand or care to.
There should always be those who are willing to stand up to those people. Even for those who will not or cannot stand up for themselves.
Especially for those who cannot.
It's reallllllly not that hard to meet the minimum male requirements as a female. I don't think I ever took a PT test that didn't max my gender's requirements and more than meet the men's for my age group, and I never considered myself particularly athletic nor did I care enough to push myself that hard. The PT requirements simply are what they are, but that doesn't mean they can't be re-evaluated or changed. I couldn't do a single push-up in high school, but after training for a few months before I left for boot camp, they magically became much easier.Grampy_bone said:
Also about the periods, I chuckled.
I can't see any good reason why women shouldn't be allowed to play major roles in the military. There's no need for them to be segregated from men either. I don't think women should be drafted, however, but then I'm not a fan of the draft anyway, so if I had my way the draft wouldn't exist at all.
as a girl that served in the infantry my answer is kind of obvious i guess..
i do, however, support the idea of having gender blind requirements. if my life and health depend on another person, i want that person to be there because he or she is best suited for the job. not to fill some quota to appease some retard bra burning social justice warriors.
i do, however, support the idea of having gender blind requirements. if my life and health depend on another person, i want that person to be there because he or she is best suited for the job. not to fill some quota to appease some retard bra burning social justice warriors.