Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

[DirgeNovak]

First of all, it's spelled YEA.

And second, my answer is yea. If you have the ability to do it, you have the ability to do it. What you have between your legs is irrelevant.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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

Because it's discriminatory?

Creating societal barriers based on gender is simply wrong.

 

[Knife]

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.

You may notice I keep mentioning such strange things as kg, km and meters instead of lbs, miles and feet. I'm not from the US. And my ex command officer and I have long since left the military.
I assume you are from the US. How about you enlighten us on the content of US military first aid kit?

 

[Strazdas]

Yes if they can fit to same mental and physical requirements as the male counterparts.
No if we make special lower requirements because sexism.

 

[DefunctTheory]

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.

You may notice I keep mentioning such strange things as kg, km and meters instead of lbs, miles and feet. I'm not from the US. And my ex command officer and I have long since left the military.
I assume you are from the US. How about you enlighten us on the content of US military first aid kit?

Unfortunately, I have massive issues recognizing names on the forums, so I go by pictures (I know, I'm like a 6 year old).

As for my comment, I apologize if it seemed aggressive. That was not my intent (Unless you WERE from the US, at which case it would be, as this is a big no no).

Can I ask what country you are from?

As for the US Army's First Aid pouch, its fairly basic.

Israeli bandage, medical tape, medical gloves, gauze, nasal flange (An unpleasant device, I assure you), and a nifty high tech tourniquet (The things awesome). Infantry sometimes pack extra tourniquets, as Army first aid basically says that any injured limb gets one. It's easier, quicker and more effective to to slap one on then it is to actually examine the wound in the middle of a shit storm.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

That is often brought up, though I've yet to see any reason to assume this is a genetic, rather than cultural response.

 

[DefunctTheory]

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.

That is often brought up, though I've yet to see any reason to assume this is a genetic, rather than cultural response.

This is true. I can't really back up the results, other then with my own experiences (That, yes, I do get more aggressive then I normally would when a female, any female, is threatened. But that doesn't prove squat).

It could be very well be cultural. But whether it is or not, its still a problem. Then again, if any organization can break a habit, its the US Army.

Now that I think of it, though, it could be related to the 'Hero Complex' that's been observed in American fire departments. Basically, I've read that American fire fighters suffer higher casualties compared to competitively trained fire fights from other nations because their urge to be heroes, which is also subconscious, overrides reason.

Something to think about, I suppose.

 

[Knife]

Unfortunately, I have massive issues recognizing names on the forums, so I go by pictures (I know, I'm like a 6 year old).

As for my comment, I apologize if it seemed aggressive. That was not my intent (Unless you WERE from the US, at which case it would be, as this is a big no no).

That's perfectly fine, I took it with a dose of humour.

Can I ask what country you are from?

You can certainly ask. But I prefer to keep my privacy.

As for the US Army's First Aid pouch, its fairly basic.

That thing looks pretty damn awesome to me (definitely better than tear up your shirt for bandages and carry the wounded to the medic).

Israeli bandage, medical tape, medical gloves, gauze, nasal flange (An unpleasant device, I assure you), and a nifty high tech tourniquet (The things awesome). Infantry sometimes pack extra tourniquets, as Army first aid basically says that any injured limb gets one. It's easier, quicker and more effective to to slap one on then it is to actually examine the wound in the middle of a shit storm.

I have issues with tourniquets, we were taught that leaving a tourniquet for a long time may lead to gangrene, which in turn leads to amputation of said limb. If it's at all possible it is preferable to use bandages rather than tourniquets.

Captcha: I have fallen
Do you need first aid captcha?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I have issues with tourniquets, we were taught that leaving a tourniquet for a long time may lead to gangrene, which in turn leads to amputation of said limb. If it's at all possible it is preferable to use bandages rather than tourniquets.

Yeah, I've always been told that tourniquets are a last resort.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Unfortunately, I have massive issues recognizing names on the forums, so I go by pictures (I know, I'm like a 6 year old).

As for my comment, I apologize if it seemed aggressive. That was not my intent (Unless you WERE from the US, at which case it would be, as this is a big no no).

That's perfectly fine, I took it with a dose of humour.

Can I ask what country you are from?

You can certainly ask. But I prefer to keep my privacy.

As for the US Army's First Aid pouch, its fairly basic.

That thing looks pretty damn awesome to me (definitely better than tear up your shirt for bandages and carry the wounded to the medic).

Israeli bandage, medical tape, medical gloves, gauze, nasal flange (An unpleasant device, I assure you), and a nifty high tech tourniquet (The things awesome). Infantry sometimes pack extra tourniquets, as Army first aid basically says that any injured limb gets one. It's easier, quicker and more effective to to slap one on then it is to actually examine the wound in the middle of a shit storm.

I have issues with tourniquets, we were taught that leaving a tourniquet for a long time may lead to gangrene, which in turn leads to amputation of said limb. If it's at all possible it is preferable to use bandages rather than tourniquets.

Captcha: I have fallen
Do you need first aid captcha?

Fair enough.

They've gotten pretty good about restoring blood flow in the last decade or so. Arms and legs can go at least 24 hours without blood and still be revived under ideal situations (Weird, I know) - 12 hours is the typically what your aiming for though.

In the kind of wars we fight now a days, that's more then enough time.

I have issues with tourniquets, we were taught that leaving a tourniquet for a long time may lead to gangrene, which in turn leads to amputation of said limb. If it's at all possible it is preferable to use bandages rather than tourniquets.

Yeah, I've always been told that tourniquets are a last resort.

It should be noted that make shift tourniquets are basically no-nos now a days. At best, its ineffective , or you put too much pressure on too small and area and end up actually cutting the guy up some more. At worst, you only partially cut off blood flow, which is actually worse then just letting it bleed. Which is why the US Army uses this awesome contraption, that you can actually apply to your self with one hand.

You literally cannot screw up with this thing.

I remember in basic, our Drill Sergeants showed us how to make a make shift tourniquet out of Israeli bandages. And then told us to never, ever, ever use it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It should be noted that make shift tourniquets are basically no-nos now a days. At best, its ineffective , or you put too much pressure on too small and area and end up actually cutting the guy up some more. At worst, you only partially cut off blood flow, which is actually worse then just letting it bleed. Which is why the US Army uses this awesome contraption, that you can actually apply to your self with one hand.

You literally cannot screw up with this thing.

I remember in basic, our Drill Sergeants showed us how to make a make shift tourniquet out of Israeli bandages. And then told us to never, ever, ever use it.

Ah, that would make sense...as an aside, I really should do my first aid course again, my qualifications have expired.

 

[SerithVC]

Women should be allowed into any unit where they meet the requirements. If they meet the requirements that are set for the men, then there's no reason whatsoever to keep them from whatever roles they want to fulfill.

i agree fully, and would like to say that if it's more of a problem that the guys are distracted by the presence of a woman, then they need to go and grow the fuck up.

 

[Knife]

snip

Ah, the wonders of modern medicine. Back in the day if you left it for over 2 hours, you would be missing a limb. Then again we used a scrap of fabric and a piece of wood - make your own tourniquet, which I imagine would be inferior.

Kind of like this:

 

[Machine Man 1992]

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

Because it's discriminatory?

Creating societal barriers based on gender is simply wrong.

So I was just imagining those women's only fitness clubs, women's health centers, domestic abuse shelters that service only women, charities that serve only victimized women, and the entire month of October being devoted to Breast Cancer Awareness?

Aren't those discriminatory?

 

[Machine Man 1992]

snip

Ah, the wonders of modern medicine. Back in the day if you left it for over 2 hours, you would be missing a limb. Then again we used a scrap of fabric and a piece of wood - make your own tourniquet, which I imagine would be inferior.

Kind of like this:

That looks hardcore.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I don't really care one way or the other. If the military says women can serve in combat-specific roles, I'm cool with it. The only places where I think integration would be tricky business is special forces and submarines. Special Forces because it's just fucking grueling and unit cohesiveness is life or death for those guys, and subs because... well, let's face it: a bunch of guys and girls in a tiny cramped space for months at a time... yeesh. All kinds of problems I can see with that. Female sub commanders is one thing; they get their own bunk and most people aren't stupid enough to mess around with someone well above their paygrade, but full integration I just don't see going smoothly.

At the same time, if we can't trust our own men and women not to fuck around why the hell are we trusting them at all to defend the country?

 

[GonvilleBromhead]

There have always been three reasons for preventing women for joining, and all have been related to combat effectiveness:

1) Physical. This reason is now dead in the water, but an understandable reason in the past. We now know that women can do the job, physically (and emotionally) as well as men. This is why pretty much all civilised armies permit women in a wide variety of support arms and non-front line combatant arms (such as combat pilots, on ships, etc.)

2) Small unit cohesion. This was the reason for segregation in the US army until the 50s, "don't ask, don't tell", etc. Without such cohesion, a unit cannot be an effective fighting force, and is a reasonable concern regarding military effectiveness - to use an example from the past, a platoon or section composed of white guys from Mississippi with a black NCO in the 1940s would not have been any use in a fight, and as far as the military is concerned, they quite rightly think that "using unfair discrimination to ensure that the army can do its job" is better than "we must be just, the fact that our troops are lynching one another for looking at them funny is an acceptable consequence". In fact, in the cases of black serviceman, segregation was probably the best solution at the time, ensuring small unit cohesion whilst ensuring that all Americans could serve their country. Similarly, don't ask don't tell was a surprisingly pragmatic approach allow gay men and women to serve without it affecting the combat efficiency of the unit - in both cases the only practical alternative was "no blacks" and "no homosexuals".

Regarding women in the military in the 21st century, this is of course trickier, but I think we're certainly getting to the stage where this is becoming less and less of an issue due to societal shift. There may be a couple of things that could cause problems, such as a CMT prioritising a female for casualty evacuation over male, or an infantryman forgetting that evacuation of casualties comes from the rear when faced with an injured servicewoman, but these are things that can be sorted. All in all, I'd say we're on the cusp of this not being a problem any more.

3) How the enemy treat women. This is where it gets tricky, and not wishing to go into too much detail...well, how well do you think some of the chaps we're fighting today, or are likely to face, are going to treat a captured woman? This, for me, is the main issue holding us back at the moment. Though, of course, it becomes less of an issue if our likely enemies have a somewhat more enlightened view of women.

In summary, I can see it happening in the future, but the reasons it hasn't happened yet are reasonably sound, and I wouldn't raise a particular hue and cry if it were changed.

 

[Ollybol8]

I think as long as it's a equal playing field then sure why not?

 

[LordLundar]

Here's the thing, the only difference at this point is being in combat roles They are already being trained for combat duty and put in combat zones, but they're not assigned to actively fight.

It's honestly depressing as because of this they are ineligible for awards and commendations related to combat actions. A female soldier fending off an assault single handed(which would ordinarily merit a gold star at minimum) would be ineligible because it was a combat engagement. And yes, situations like that have happened in the past. The excuse was that while they're not meant to be in combat, it doesn't mean they don't wind up in combat.

 

[Breccia]

Let's say that we had two groups of people:

A) A group of fit, able-bodied women under 30 willing to take up arms to defend their country
B) A mixed group of whoever who insist that women NOT go into combat

If you asked most armed-force recruiters which group they'd give guns to, 90%-plus would choose Group A.