Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

[saintdane05]

Hey, Kermit, what do you think?
<youtube=tv4KQbDaCfM>
I concur.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

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?

The word is "yea"

As far as I can tell, the only problems with women serving as infantrymen are: outdated sexual politics, and concerns about their reproductive parts causing trouble.

I am a man, and as such I won't pretend to understand how that machine of dark magics between your legs works, ladies. I barely understand my own genitalia. So the concerns of whether or not menstrual periods would be a liability in combat is not something I can say is true or false. The idea that servicewomen will get knocked up on duty and prove to be a problem IS something that is valid, because people are fallible and can't stop touching their naughty bits together even when expressly told not to. But it hasn't stopped women from serving aboard Navy vessels. But then, the navy isn't getting shot at in the desert with a hundred pounds of gear.

I dunno. I don't have a problem with it as a rights thing, so if those two biological issues arent legitimately compromising to military effectiveness, women should serve just the same as men.

 

[Jiveturkey124]

I think women should be held to the exact same standards as men. To allow them to skate by with lower standards as they have for decades just makes them a complete liability.

Holy shit is this the most ignorant comment I have ever read. Are you kidding me man? Women didnt "Skate By" or chose to be removed from combat, men have forced women out of combat for centuries upon centuries to "PROTECT" them.

Where by when you have to Protect someone, your showing superiority to them. Men have kept women back by not letting them into combat, now was this always done for the purposes of holding women back? Not necessarily, but look at the society we as Americans live in. Women were not even allowed to vote until the 1920's!

Please dont put this on Women, its ill informed and just makes you come off as a dick.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

OP's question is misworded (though not deliberately, I'm sure).

The debate over 'women in combat' was essentially over the first time they were allowed to enlist in the military. The modern battlefield doesn't really have a frontline to keep them from. A female admin sailor will be just as dead as a male infantryman if her ship is sunk by an enemy submarine. Rear echelon bases are attacked all the time. Females are assigned as MP's and see firefights regularly. They've been successful as combat pilots for some time now.

Women can handle "combat". There are many examples. The issue with allowing them into infantry MOS's is the debate, and that is where the mistakes are being made. Grunt life isn't so hard due just to the combat, it's the absolute shit conditions they endure for extended periods of time on top of it.

Read this female Marine Officer's take on it.
[link]http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal[/link]

Women in infantry roles is being pushed by those who generally have no experience there and view it as a "girl power" victory over the "male-dominated establishment". The question of whether or not it will benefit (or harm) our nations fighting ability in any way is irrelevant to them. Pity. It demeans all of the other ways in which women have served our armed forces in roles where they can easily be every bit as good (if not better) than the males.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

One of the greatest risks of pure pacifism is that you give power to the violent. Don't imagine that by valiantly letting yourself get slaughtered you are preventing violence and war. You are just as likely contributing to it.

Brilliantly stated.

 

[GryffinDarkBreed]

I think women should be held to the exact same standards as men. To allow them to skate by with lower standards as they have for decades just makes them a complete liability.

Holy shit is this the most ignorant comment I have ever read. Are you kidding me man? Women didnt "Skate By" or chose to be removed from combat, men have forced women out of combat for centuries upon centuries to "PROTECT" them.

Where by when you have to Protect someone, your showing superiority to them. Men have kept women back by not letting them into combat, now was this always done for the purposes of holding women back? Not necessarily, but look at the society we as Americans live in. Women were not even allowed to vote until the 1920's!

Please dont put this on Women, its ill informed and just makes you come off as a dick.

Ill informed? Not in the least. Women are never required to meet the same physical strength requirements as their male counterparts, which is an unfair double standard, which forces men to pick up any female slack in work centers that involve more than light lifting. To consider allowing women into COMBAT ROLES where a lack of upper body strength renders them completely incapable of moving a 210lb man plus his 30 lbs of gear is to doom any team they're assigned to. You want to work in the same areas as men? Be willing to meet the same standards.

Also average men couldn't vote until 1860. And even then they had to register for conscription and be over 21 to vote. Women STILL don't have to register for conscription.

Men pay for their political agency with the potential to be ordered to die.

Women get their political agency scott free, and have the GALL to whine that it took so long.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

This article right here -->http://judgybitch.com/tag/women-shouldnt-be-in-combat/

In it, a female gender rights advocate argue that there is a cultural value in having certain spaces reserved for only men, just as there are space only for women. She compares soldiering to child birth; both face down certain death doing something that is often painful and unpleasant, and we praise and commemorate them for their sacrifices.

If by argue you mean "Effectively yells repeatedly". There's no real argument there for why there should be certain spaces reserved. There's just a comparison to childbirth, which is simply a biological divide, not an arbitrary one. That's no argument for making an arbitrary divide here. Aside from that rather poor attempt she seems to have confused her getting angry and casting aspersions on the reason women may want to join for making a real argument for why they shouldn't.

I also don't think she comes off as much of a female gender rights advocate.

No. She's a gender rights advocate who happens to be a woman; I never explicitly said who she was advocating for, though she is a contributor for A Voice For Men.

I think theres value in having an area reserved for men, but for the life of me, I can't explain why. On the one hand, yes, women can be effective soldiers(the soviet all female sniper units in WWII proved that), but on the other hand, why can't we have a space in our culture that is only for males?

 

[Commissar Sae]

I've read enough interviews with women fighting in the Red Army in WWII and with the Viet Cong and Viet Minh during the Vietnam Wars to know that women are more than capable of fighting. As long as they are put in roles they are capable of doing(the same applies to men, use logic, someone who is short and thin should not be given the heaviest gear in the unit) then they should be allowed to fill the role.

It will always depend on the situation and the individual though, not everyone is cut out for military service, it applies equally to men and women.

 

[Skull Bearer]

Given the number of people posting to the effect that the military has a huge rape problem and this is a reason against women going tinto the military, I would strongly suggest excluding men entirely in that case, if they are such animals they can't control themselves.

 

[emeraldrafael]

If they meet the requirements for it let them serve where ever they want. I cant think of a single reason not to thats immediately there fault or something they caused for themself just for being a woman.

 

[Yuuki]

but on the other hand, why can't we have a space in our culture that is only for males?

Space yes (e.g. bathrooms), occupation/job no. Anyone should be allowed to perform any duty they desire, should they meet the requirements.

I think women should be held to the exact same standards as men. To allow them to skate by with lower standards as they have for decades just makes them a complete liability.

Holy shit is this the most ignorant comment I have ever read. Are you kidding me man? Women didnt "Skate By" or chose to be removed from combat, men have forced women out of combat for centuries upon centuries to "PROTECT" them.

Where by when you have to Protect someone, your showing superiority to them. Men have kept women back by not letting them into combat, now was this always done for the purposes of holding women back?

If women were equally combat-capable in the ancient times of swords/shields/armor then they would've NOT taken any shit from men and fought back (literally) for their place on the battlefield. They would not have let men force them away from anything, male dominance wouldn't even have existed to begin with. Think about that for a moment.

Even if men wanted to hold women back (i.e. "protect" them), women would've easily disagreed and fought back, fought for their right to fight and lead. It would've been in the kingdom/empire's best interests if both genders got along and fought together. It would've been clearly obvious that the average female soldier could hold her ground on the battlefield just as well as the average male soldier. Both genders would have respected each other as equally capable in all aspects. Traditional gender roles would have never come about. The entire human race would've progressed differently, we would not be having this discussion right now.

...but wait a minute. That wasn't the case. At all. I wonder why?

Was it simply a miraculous coincidence that throughout the history of humanity, almost every single civilization/nation/society concluded that women weren't suited for warfare? Oh, and they also made that decision completely independent from each other in isolation, over different time periods. All a coincidence, yes?

 

[kickyourass]

I love the poll options for the fact that it states "if they can meet the requirements". That should be the standard, not sex. You know that scrawny 95-pound, 5'2" geeky boy from high school? Do you really think he's cut-out to be front-line infantry, just physically speaking?

I find the biggest problem with the "debate" surrounding women in combat positions in the military is that nobody remembers that there are standards. Not everybody can be infantry - hell, not even everybody is build to serve in the military in any position at all. When Kristen Beck came out as trans, I heard some arguments pop-up about the validity of women serving in the special forces, and what I noticed was that those vehemently opposed completely forgot that not everybody is Navy SEAL material, and from those vehemently in support they seemed to forget that as well.

The easiest way to think of the sex divide and combat role requirements - a higher percentage of men would be fit for combat duty in the military as opposed to women. A percentage. Not the entire sex, just a percentage. I'll just make a fake number, 60% of men are fit for combat roles, 30% of women are fit for combat roles. You do not allow that 40% of men that can't fill the role take up the frontlines and you do not exclude that 30% of very capable servicemembers simply because they have a vagina. Its really not that hard.

Additionally, I'm disgusted by the arguments against because some men might have a problem controlling themselves. That's their problem, not the target of their attraction. The same argument was, and still is, used against allowing non-heterosexuals into the military. Plus, it feeds the ideas that men aren't to be held responsible for their sexual urges, and that military personnel are held to different standards than the other members of society. Both are bullshit reasons - military personnel are as human as anybody else - there are jerks, saints, criminals, and activists, just like society at large. It does our society a weakness to treat them with special consideration. Secondly, didn't Ariel Castro use the argument of "male needs" to defend himself as to why what he did was permissible? Additionally, if you have somebody in the Special Forces who is capable of operating in a cell away from any support for months on end, but cannot control themselves around a woman, you've got to get rid of them. The Special Forces and similar operations need the highest level of professionalism attainable, and if you cannot expect that from your operatives, then they shouldn't be operatives in the first place.

God dammit, I had this big long winded speech about this and here you go and hit basically all of my points far better then I would have hit myself.

Really the only thing I have that's a bit different is that Military Personnel being held to 'different standards.' It's not that I think Military Personnel should be held to different standards it's that I think they should be held to higher standards. I think they should be called heroes for what they do, but they need to learn how to act in a way that deserves such a title. You shouldn't forgive a soldier doing something bad because he's a soldier, a soldier doing something bad should be even more unforgivable BECAUSE he's a solider.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

The physical requirements for women were not as high as men in physical fitness so there was a lot of disparity. Many males in the unit did resent that women were treated differently and especially when it was time for a unit to rotate out to a field assignment a lot of women "accidentally" became pregnant and couldn't be sent out.

My personal opinion is as long as the woman can do the job then she should be allowed to do it. However they should be held to the same level of standards as males in order to prevent fraying of the camaraderie and unit cohesion I witnessed due to the different ways that women were treated. Some of it was guys that couldn't handle fighting next to a woman or being commanded by a woman. But a lot of it was the way that the sexes were treated by the commanders.

I am glad you were on the first page, otherwise I might have missed what you said.

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.

I don't feel like that was a tangent at all, haha.

I feel like you guys managed to put into words what seemingly asshat Conservatives are trying to say with their offensive ramblings.
Despite what the polls suggests, there is actually a more complicated topic that should be discussed.
I truly hope that the regulations are not being relaxed to accommodate women. Otherwise that is going even further from equality. Like my equal chance of being saved by a solder or fireman.

 

[TekMoney]

I think women should be held to the exact same standards as men. To allow them to skate by with lower standards as they have for decades just makes them a complete liability.

Holy shit is this the most ignorant comment I have ever read. Are you kidding me man? Women didnt "Skate By" or chose to be removed from combat, men have forced women out of combat for centuries upon centuries to "PROTECT" them.

Where by when you have to Protect someone, your showing superiority to them. Men have kept women back by not letting them into combat, now was this always done for the purposes of holding women back? Not necessarily, but look at the society we as Americans live in. Women were not even allowed to vote until the 1920's!

Please dont put this on Women, its ill informed and just makes you come off as a dick.

Ill informed? Not in the least. Women are never required to meet the same physical strength requirements as their male counterparts, which is an unfair double standard, which forces men to pick up any female slack in work centers that involve more than light lifting. To consider allowing women into COMBAT ROLES where a lack of upper body strength renders them completely incapable of moving a 210lb man plus his 30 lbs of gear is to doom any team they're assigned to. You want to work in the same areas as men? Be willing to meet the same standards.

Also average men couldn't vote until 1860. And even then they had to register for conscription and be over 21 to vote. Women STILL don't have to register for conscription.

Men pay for their political agency with the potential to be ordered to die.

Women get their political agency scott free, and have the GALL to whine that it took so long.

So you think women lack the strength to effectively serve, but don't like that they can't be conscripted? Please at least try to keep your insane talking points consistent with eachother.

 

[DefunctTheory]

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: I'm going to copy/paste this reply into my original post so that the person I originally replied to sees it.

No, soldiers don't carry personal first aid kits (at least in my unit they haven't), medics do (1-2 medics per 100 or so soldiers).
And I can attest most men do get fungus. On their feet. Not on their junk.

All US military personnel are issued a basic medical kit and are required to carry it on their combat load.

I have no idea what military your in, but if its the US, your unit is wrong and your command officer needs to be fired for incompetency.

As for the OPs question... its an issue that's complicated for various reasons. From a 'human rights' perspective, yes, they should. But the problem is that the military does not and should not, ever, compromise effectiveness for something as petty as gender politics. People's lives are at risk here.

The general female population probably could never pass male physical standards for infantry service. But that's note fair - Admission should be based on on individual ability. So as long as the woman can pass, it should be okay. But keep in mind this: part of that physical standard (Not tested, but certainly required) is being able to drag a soldier who weighs 250 pounds across the ground for 50 feet.

I've done this. When I was in the military, I wasn't exactly a physical stud, but I was pretty strong. And that shit it HARD. And I weighed 200 pounds and was well muscled.

There's other issues, of course. At least one study was done that estimated that male causalities would increase if females were in the infantry, because many males, when in the presence of females in danger, took far more risk then were necessary to insure their safety. It was subconscious on their part - that reptilian part of our brain responding to danger.

A lot of the other issues have been brought up already, and do not bear repeating.

I honestly don't know, to be honest. My gut says no, but they could just be that reptilian part of my brain kicking in, screaming 'protect the child machine.'

I will say this though - Anyone saying females should be denied service because they can't fight are morons. I hate fighting women. Every time I tried sparing with one, they went straight for the nuts.

I'm normally not opposed to women who are single minded in respect to my junk, but its unpleasant in that case.