Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

[Frankster]

I'll just leave a link for a well thought out and written article.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/let-us-fight-you

The back and forth you and others were having with Bara was a rather interesting read, but I feel if that article is indicative of your beliefs, then it does you a disservice, for a lot of the basis of that article is based on gender beliefs which are...questionable:

?Women and children first? has been a tenet of all emergency rescue efforts for time immemorial, yet we are evidently now prepared to dismantle this fundamental principle of western society for the sake of equality. It is an abdication of natural masculine responsibility to forfeit our role?even in small part?as protectors and defenders. Should we expect our teenage daughter to go down with the ship so a man might live in the name of equality? No matter how much she begs for the ?opportunity,? would you let her? - See more at: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/let-us-fight-you#sthash.W5XBlQIz.dpuf (...)

The question looming, hidden and afraid in masculine hearts, as this discussion rages, is nearly impossible to ask: Where now does a man go to prove his manhood in society? This is dismissed in our postmodern culture, but in the history of the world, the individual man has always had opportunities to prove his strength, valor, and skill as part of a grand adventure or the challenge of apprenticeship. If you do not accept the need for men to know intrinsically that they have proven themselves as men (protectors, providers, leaders) in a way only they can, consider the devastation of a woman unable to conceive. - See more at: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/let-us-fight-you#sthash.W5XBlQIz.dpuf"

I found these 2 paragraphs grating in particular, so if it was your son that begs to go down with the ship then its ok because he is male? Fuck this whole guys is disposable protector gender that needs to prove himself via feats of strength or courage to prove his reproductive value and worth as a man BS.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As an aside, if men being larger on average means that women shouldn't be in front line combat, shouldn't that also mean that men shouldn't be allowed in roles that have size restrictions?

Pilots, IIRC, have height restrictions. Women are generally shorter, so more women would fulfill that requirement, so we should get rid of all male pilots and only have women because something.

 

[Woodsey]

Yes. If they want to and can match whatever the standards set for men are, then why not?

 

[Ryotknife]

As an aside, if men being larger on average means that women shouldn't be in front line combat, shouldn't that also mean that men shouldn't be allowed in roles that have size restrictions?

Pilots, IIRC, have height restrictions. Women are generally shorter, so more women would fulfill that requirement, so we should get rid of all male pilots and only have women because something.

not really, according to http://www.afrotc.com/college-life/activities-experience/flying/

"?Have standing height of 64 to 77 inches and sitting height of 34 to 40 inches"

Average height for males (in the US) is 5 foot 9.5 inches or 69.5 inches, which is pretty much the middle of the requirements.

average height for females (in the US) is 64 inches, which puts them directly at the bottom limit of the height requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

So actually, women would be barred from being pilots if we were doing height restrictions barring an entire group. Im guessing if you are too short you cant see over the dashboard (and if you are too tall you just wont fit). Then again, nothing a phone book on the seat wont solve, although knowing the government they will pay$10,000 for that phone book.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Hey ladies and gents, i'm conducting research for history on the topic of women in the armed forces. Whilst its not anything to do with gaming, I thought I might use all you wonderful mature people of the escapist to give me a pretty even snapshot into general opinion. Any Comments or thoughts on the topics would be most appreciated.

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

It's a classic win-win situation for everyone involved.

Believe in equality for whatever reason? Winning!

Don't believe in equality of the sexes for whatever reason? Your political opponents will now enjoy an equal thus higher chance of coming home in body bags. Still winning!

Everyone is winning! Get along already!

 

[Shadowstar38]

Simple answer. Yes. Any person that is willing to put their life on the line for their country, should not be turned away based on their gender. If they are capable and willing to do their duty, why not?

Rampant sexual assault, unit cohesion, special privileges, physiological differences, and there hasn't been a single woman who was able to pass the Marine Corps Officer Infantry School.

Prosecute the sexual assault, Tell them to get over it like any other time units where intergrated, remove those, irrelevant, and doesn't mean there won't be in the future.

Sexual assault does get prosecuted (not as much as it should) and what you're saying is you want people (most of which are) in the prime of their life, to ignore baser instincts. It doesn't matter how well disciplined a group is, it's going to happen, and when it does people will get punished while being set up to fail.

I doubt you know what I mean by special privileges, so "remove those" isn't a proper answer. But if you want, I guess we can do away with female bunks, bathrooms, showers, and everything else. Integrate everything, go ahead, that'll just make sexual assault easier if not more enticing.

You say physiological differences are irrelevant, no they're not. One of the reasons there hasn't been a female who has passed the Officers Infantry School is because of their weaker abilities. Not to mention heavy gear is already divided into sections because it's too damn heavy by itself. It's divided but into few parts to keep it ready as possible for when there's a use for it. Dividing it up even more lessens the overall combat capabilities of the squad/fire team/etc.

Doesn't mean there won't be in the future, I agree with you, but with how it's going it'll be a long time and the few who do will be surrounded by men... and don't you fucking dare say "lower the standards."

I'd expect adults to be able to control their urges when the more important matter of staying alive is at hand. Them not fucking is just a rule they have to follow along with anything else. If women really want these positions, the guys not being able to keep it together is a poor excuse.

I wasn't sure what you meant by special privileges. But the things you did mention don't seem like much of a burden to provide.

Poor wording on my part for the last one. Everyone's been stating women should join "If capable/ if they meet the requirements". So assuming a female can carry what you'd want a man to carry and do the same duties with the same skill, there's not much to object to.

 

[Wedgetail122]

Hey ladies and gents, i'm conducting research for history on the topic of women in the armed forces. Whilst its not anything to do with gaming, I thought I might use all you wonderful mature people of the escapist to give me a pretty even snapshot into general opinion. Any Comments or thoughts on the topics would be most appreciated.

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

Wow where did you learn how to sample for research?

Meh, I know its not the most reliable method but it was more out of interest than anything else, I think I might snip a copy of the poll or a couple of these comments into my documentary for a passing mention, its only for a (almost) final piece at high school. The topic is just interesting to me because I'm an Aussie male dead set for going into a career in the Royal Australian Air Force, every time the topic comes up there seems to be a few interesting opinions on it. Its good to see a plethora of arguments from all sides being brought up here.

 

[LetalisK]

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yes! More blood for the Blood God! More skulls for the Skull Throne!

 

[michael87cn]

Personally I don't think women are suited for war, but neither do I think men are.

War is a horrible evil that's usually forced upon the unwilling.

However I think that women would have a lot more trouble coping with the psychological aspects of warfare due to their natural emotional sensitivity.

I think there are good reasons why most every society has had male only combatants. I am positive most of them 'tried it out' and found it wasn't good.

This day and age I wonder sometimes. People are so 'brain-washed' sort of, to just be accepting of any idea if it means 'equality' without stopping and thinking of the consequences.

Equality is great, acceptance is great, but it's not always the right thing to do/be.

 

[TheSYLOH]

Yes for all roles.
I think mixed units are feasible.
But if you really have problems. Single Gender Units.
It solves all those nonsense arguments about the effect of women on men in combat zones.
Sure segregation and all that, but really we have no objection to bathrooms being segregated along gender lines, why not military units.

Also... I fully admit this is kinda sexist...
But the image of an all female mechanized company simultaneously PMSing sounds like one of the most epically awesome things to behold.
The enemy shall flee their merciless onslaught!

 

[DugMachine]

Maybe in a basic infantry role if they can meet the physical requirements that men must but I doubt they could make it in special forces. They are extremely physically demanding and like it or not men are just physically stronger than females more often than not.

 

[AngloDoom]

I believe that only women should serve on the front-lines, thus lowering my chances of being dragged into war by even more.

Also, have you ever spoken to a police officer regarding the Saturday-night town-centre clean-out? It is always women who go absolutely ape-shit bananas and start ripping people's eyes out.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Maybe in a basic infantry role if they can meet the physical requirements that men must but I doubt they could make it in special forces. They are extremely physically demanding and like it or not men are just physically stronger than females more often than not.

Actually, no. Going off-topic a bit but special forces are just that, forces that are special. This includes elite units expected to perform much better than regular soldiers, but also anyone that doesn't do what the rest of the military does. Spetsnatz, IIRC, includes CBRNe units.

There's constant arguments about what special forces should do, whether they should be like normal forces, only better, or whether they should do completely different things.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Maybe in a basic infantry role if they can meet the physical requirements that men must but I doubt they could make it in special forces. They are extremely physically demanding and like it or not men are just physically stronger than females more often than not.

Actually, no. Going off-topic a bit but special forces are just that, forces that are special. This includes elite units expected to perform much better than regular soldiers, but also anyone that doesn't do what the rest of the military does. Spetsnatz, IIRC, includes CBRNe units.

There's constant arguments about what special forces should do, whether they should be like normal forces, only better, or whether they should do completely different things.

You're mixing up your terms. At least in the United States Military, "Special Forces" are an actual branch of the Army (18 series MOS). They wear the crossed arrows insignia and have to actually go through Special Forces training (they are the guys you see with the "long tabs" on their left shoulder). Women are not permitted in Special Forces.

What you're thinking of is "Special Operations" (AKA 'Spec Ops'), which covers all units with generally out of the norm missions, as well as support personnel assigned to those units, and essentially anyone who falls under Special Operations Command ('SOCOM'). Spec Ops can include everything from psychological operations, civil affairs, the 160th SOAR (Special Operations Aviation Regiment) to people who work in a Special Forces group who aren't Special Forces (an SF group needs paper-pushers and supply folks the same as any other unit). To give another example, US Army Ranger Battalions are considered Special Operations, but they are not Special Forces.

Women can, for the most part, be part of Special Operations (I knew several females in Civil Affairs and Psy-ops), but they cannot be 18 Series MOS Special Forces Soldiers, Warrant Officers, and Officers.

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

Female fingers squeeze triggers no less effectively than male.

 

[Ariseishirou]

The Canadian Forces have allowed women in combat (provided they meet the same physical requirements for combat infantry - which in Canada is a separate test for non-combat roles, where the standards are different) for 30 years now. Meaning that female Canadian soldiers have fought on the front lines in Afghanistan since the beginning. Some have been killed. They haven't really interfered with unit cohesion; nor has the sky fallen.

So, yes. Obviously, I support the rational choice not to discriminate for the same bullshit esprit d'corps pseudo-rationalizations that were used for black men and gay men previously.

 

[carnex]

Female fingers squeeze triggers no less effectively than male.

That is true. But, for exmaple, infantry in Yugoslavia had one simple test after 2 months of taining 20 km forced march (defined as 7km/h) under full equpment to pass, 40km if you want to earn any rank. In mountain infantry that was 40km up the goat trails (acording to one officer, one such run resulted in 25% foot injury rate due to footware used). And every member of mountain infantry carried either mortar, mortar plate, mactine gun, mortar granades... every soldier had some 15kg extra weight over their equpment.

If they can do that, I have no problem.