Poll: Women In Front Line Combat Role

[Schadrach]

Yes, but with adjusted requirements. Take advantage of the increased dexterity, otherwise, there is little problem.

I've heard tale of men not being able to work with women, but the thing about the military is, that it breaks you down and makes you into a soldier, and if being a soldier means being gender blind, then soldiers will be gender blind.

"adjusted requirements for gender" essentially always mean "reduced requirements for women" -- to the point where I can't think of an example of a requirement "adjusted" for gender in any field ever meaning that women are held to higher standards, or even equal ones.

The existing physical fitness tests in the US military literally have reduced requirements for any test that, on average, men will outperform women at, and similar or equal requirements for tests where either no gender has an advantage on average or women do. It's actually rather extreme, the scores on those tests effect promotion, and their adjusted downward for women because not enough women passed under the men's standards, slowing their promotion and making it a "misogynistic old boys' club" because opportunity somehow equals outcome...probably in the same universe that has those perfectly spherical cows engineers like so much.

 

[Filiecs]

It doesn't matter what is generally true. What matters is that there is a possibility that a women can meet the requirements for front line combat.
As long as it is possible for a women to meet the physical requirements, they should not be restricted.

If I was a women who wanted to be on the front line and met the physical requirements I would be pretty upset if they told me I couldn't serve on the front line just because most women aren't as strong as men.

Also, genetics don't factor into it nearly as much as you'd think. All humans can produce testosterone, the main hormone behind the difference. Men produce more because spermatogenesis requires large amounts of testosterone. The increased muscle mass, facial hair, and deep voice is simply a side effect. Testosterone can also be given to women who want it, though it will disrupt their menstrual cycle.
While testosterone certainly makes it easier to increase one's muscle mass, the most important factor will always be weight lifting. Finally, weight lifting will only give a person stronger short term energy, there is not nearly as much of a limiting factor with women gaining long term stamina.

 

[Scipio1770]

The only issue I see is that if female soldiers were ever captured, well... yeah. Obviously it wouldn't be the first time troops were tortured, but it would definitely hit harder.

 

[Delicious Anathema]

They want equal rights, give them. No reason to have distinction between male and female in combat.

Thought we were over this.

 

[Bertylicious]

I don't think women should be in front line combat units. One reason I can think of that no-one has pointed out yet happened recently in the British Army.

Lets say that women are allowed on the front line, you have mixed squads, units and regiments. Now you and your squad are being deployed to a warzone when you find out two of your squad members are pregnant. They obviously can't fight while pregnant and a deployment lasts about 6 months so they are told to stay behind. Suddenly you are missing two members from your squad and they are going to be away for the pregnancy and the maternity leave as well so they're going to be gone for about 18 months. That is not a reasonable amount of time to be away from your squad. Also if a female soldier is killed and she is found to be pregnant it would have a massive drain on morale and a media backlash at home asking why a pregnant soldier was on deployment.

So simply put, women should not be front line soldiers because the if they get pregnant, that is a massive drain on man power and resources. One pregnant soldier is one less soldier to deploy.

You could say that about all jobs, military and civilian.

I mean don't get me wrong; if you're saying women are inferior because they get pregnant then I can understand where you're coming from. I'd disagree with the assertion, obviously, but I could see why you'd think that. Afterall it is a little bit like saying that men make lousy soldiers because they can die.

 

[BristolBerserker]

I don't think women should be in front line combat units. One reason I can think of that no-one has pointed out yet happened recently in the British Army.

Lets say that women are allowed on the front line, you have mixed squads, units and regiments. Now you and your squad are being deployed to a warzone when you find out two of your squad members are pregnant. They obviously can't fight while pregnant and a deployment lasts about 6 months so they are told to stay behind. Suddenly you are missing two members from your squad and they are going to be away for the pregnancy and the maternity leave as well so they're going to be gone for about 18 months. That is not a reasonable amount of time to be away from your squad. Also if a female soldier is killed and she is found to be pregnant it would have a massive drain on morale and a media backlash at home asking why a pregnant soldier was on deployment.

So simply put, women should not be front line soldiers because the if they get pregnant, that is a massive drain on man power and resources. One pregnant soldier is one less soldier to deploy.

You could say that about all jobs, military and civilian.

I mean don't get me wrong; if you're saying women are inferior because they get pregnant then I can understand where you're coming from. I'd disagree with the assertion, obviously, but I could see why you'd think that. Afterall it is a little bit like saying that men make lousy soldiers because they can die.

I'm not saying women are inferior it's just that you need front line soldiers to be deployable at any time, so being away for however many months it takes for the female soldier to have the baby, ween it off breast milk and then get back into acceptable military fitness is in my opinion too long. I have no problem with women being in the military but I don't think they should be in the front lines. Also women being on maternity leave in a civilian role is not similar to if they were in the military because in civilian companies you can just hire someone to take over while they are away. In the military they would have to transfer someone in from a different unit because the time it would take someone to be trained to take over is longer than the woman would probably spend on maternity leave.

 

[dvd_72]

The simple truth is that you need to put a soldier into the role they are best suited for physically and mentally. This rule does not differ between men and women. While women may not be as physically capable as men they have many other advantages over men that must be put to use if one intends to maximise their potential in the military.

Which are?

I mean, you cannot simply "cus it's so!@" and not be expected to elaborate.

I swear to god if you say some shit about dexterity .

Well that was going to be one of them, but alright then...

Women are less reckless and more aware of their surroundings as evidenced by the difference in the number of driving accidents. This can be used in an administrative role where one must keep several situations in mind and manage communications between several groups, or perhaps as the pilots of various military vehicles.

And I'm sure there are many other psychological and physiological differences between men and women that we don't know about or fully understand yet. True, they may be physically weaker than men when it comes to brute strength, but that isn't the only thing that one needs to be useful in war.

 

[SeanSeanston]

I think you kind of have to say yes or you make a mockery of the whole "gender equality" basis of modern society.

I mean, fine, if we don't want to have women allowed on the front lines then that's fine, do that. Just don't go around pretending that society is aiming toward anything remotely approaching "gender equality" because then it's just not.

People may retort with "but women X, Y, Z more/less than men" and that is clearly irrelevant when we are talking about whether or not people should be exempt from something based PURELY on gender.
Following on:

If a woman meets the physical requirements needed for front line combat, then yes, let them do it. If they don't, then no.

This.

I mean, you find out whatever is necessary/practical to be a frontline soldier and then you judge people based on that.

If that means that in the real world, no woman will ever be able to qualify as a frontline soldier, then so be it. That's not sexist either way as long as it's a realistic appraisal of what's needed to be a soldier.

Now, following on from that similarly...

A women has lower levels of testerone which builds muscle and promotes aggression. The odds are that a woman in an infantry role is at great risk of dying than a male counterpart. There are very few sports in which men and women compete on equal terms. As great a sprinter as Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce is there is no way she will ever beat Usain Bolt.

Yet, while strength is good as a soldier... that doesn't mean that to be a soldier, one must be Magnús Ver Magnússon. Yes, men are potentially stronger than women, but I fail to see what relevance this has to real-life applications, especially something that isn't focused around strength such as being a soldier.
Look at the kind of weights that are routinely lifted by female powerlifters. No soldier is ever going to be required to be as strong as that. Nor is it ever likely to provide a massive advantage.
Being fast would be good as a soldier... but nobody needs to be Usain Bolt either. Soldiers are never going to be the strongest or fastest people in the world and don't need to be. They're not planning on fighting their wars hand-to-hand either.
To go back to your example... there's no way Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce is going to beat Usain Bolt... but then... there's no way ANYONE is going to beat Usain Bolt in the near future. It's really not about gender in that case, it's about Usain Bolt being the best there is, which is not a requirement to fight wars. It doesn't have to be about being the best, just about being good enough.

Women have less aggression... well I'm sure some do. How much aggression do you need though? They'll get training anyway. That'll probably be the source of most of their psychological state in battle, once they have the prerequisite type of personality for war.
It's not like you can just take a random man and plop him onto a battlefield and expect him not to crack. Too much aggression may even be detrimental and lead to poor decisions.

That's just IMO...

 

[Albino Boo]

A women has lower levels of testerone which builds muscle and promotes aggression. The odds are that a woman in an infantry role is at great risk of dying than a male counterpart. There are very few sports in which men and women compete on equal terms. As great a sprinter as Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce is there is no way she will ever beat Usain Bolt.

Yet, while strength is good as a soldier... that doesn't mean that to be a soldier, one must be Magnús Ver Magnússon. Yes, men are potentially stronger than women, but I fail to see what relevance this has to real-life applications, especially something that isn't focused around strength such as being a soldier.
Look at the kind of weights that are routinely lifted by female powerlifters. No soldier is ever going to be required to be as strong as that. Nor is it ever likely to provide a massive advantage.
Being fast would be good as a soldier... but nobody needs to be Usain Bolt either. Soldiers are never going to be the strongest or fastest people in the world and don't need to be. They're not planning on fighting their wars hand-to-hand either.
To go back to your example... there's no way Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce is going to beat Usain Bolt... but then... there's no way ANYONE is going to beat Usain Bolt in the near future. It's really not about gender in that case, it's about Usain Bolt being the best there is, which is not a requirement to fight wars. It doesn't have to be about being the best, just about being good enough.

Women have less aggression... well I'm sure some do. How much aggression do you need though? They'll get training anyway. That'll probably be the source of most of their psychological state in battle, once they have the prerequisite type of personality for war.
It's not like you can just take a random man and plop him onto a battlefield and expect him not to crack. Too much aggression may even be detrimental and lead to poor decisions.

That's just IMO...

In all athelic events, from the 100m to the marthon men have better times then women. http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/sports/track-records-men-vs-women.htm

Testosterone is an Anabolic steroid, the overuse of which creates uncontrollable aggression. Seeing that testosterone is the male sex hormone, men have naturally higher levels. Hence men being more aggressive than women. If a women had the same levels of testosterone as the average man, she would rapidly cease being a woman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Krieger

Close combat means sticking a bayonet in someone's gut, I would think that is aggressive act.

 

[SeanSeanston]

In all athelic events, from the 100m to the marthon men have better times then women. http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/sports/track-records-men-vs-women.htm

I don't see the relevance.

You don't need to be the best sprinter in the world to be a soldier, or even a reasonable competitive sprinter.

Testosterone is an Anabolic steroid, the overuse of which creates uncontrollable aggression. Seeing that testosterone is the male sex hormone, men have naturally higher levels. Hence men being more aggressive than women.

Testosterone also affects women more, which is worth noting.

Roid rage is also controversial.

Close combat means sticking a bayonet in someone's gut, I would think that is aggressive act.

But how much aggression do you need?
I mean, as it is... they go around only accepting the most aggressive men in the world. In fact, such men are probably unsuited for the military.

And women can be plenty aggressive. Especially if their lives are in danger. How many men could stick a bayonet in someone without hesitating after being picked off the street? Not many I suspect.

Some women are clearly going to be more aggressive than some men, what's more. Just like plenty of women are stronger than even most men.

And women are usually smaller targets

 

[SeanSeanston]

Women are less reckless and more aware of their surroundings as evidenced by the difference in the number of driving accidents.

They're worse at parking though, aren't they?

This gender difference with spatial awareness business is complicated though...

Apparently, men have a larger area of the brain for spatial awareness, but then there was something else... like one gender tended to use landmarks more whereas the other did it more on the fly or something...

Not arsed finding it again, but here's something from Wikipedia kinda interesting:

Men on average have a standard deviation higher spatial intelligence quotient than women.[1] This domain is one of the few where clear sex differences in cognition appear. It has also been found that spatial ability correlates with verbal ability in women but not in men, suggesting that women may use different strategies for spatial visualization tasks than men do. However, spatial ability is correlated with video games and other such activities, and thus gender difference in spatial ability may be linked to a difference in spatial experience, rather than actual difference in innate spatial ability. Indeed, University of Toronto researchers have discovered that differences between men and women on some tasks that require spatial skills are largely eliminated after both groups play a video game for only a few hours. This research was published in the October 2007 issue of Psychological Science.[2] Although some have claimed women are more "visually dependent" than men,[3] this has recently been disputed.[4]

Interesting!

But anyway, I dunno, I don't think gender equality can be taken seriously when you have blatant contradictions of that all over the place. Society needs to choose one or the other. Either we decide people should be treated exactly equally regardless of gender, or we come out and say this gender is good for this and that gender is good for that.
And then we're basically back here again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU



I don't think you can do this in half measures.

 

[Kuredan]

Has anyone in this thread ever served in the military? Do they do so now? Anyone been deployed? I would like to hear their point of view. It's very easy to "armchair general" the situation or to deal in egalitarian ideals removed from a combat environment, but unless you've lived it, it all rings a bit hollow.


I still serve and from what I have seen, my female co-workers fulfill a wide variety of roles and jobs and perform and can outperform men in many of them. Physical qualifications are generally not one of them. In a deployed environment, things are not ideal, they are not fair, and there isn't room for ideals and fairness; survival and success supersede them. Everyone carries their own gear (often 80+ lbs), literally carrying their own weight in a front line situation. If you can't do that, you can't be there. You can't get a waiver or give it to someone else. There also has to be an implicit trust that you can count on everyone around you to not only have their stuff together, but be able to handle anything else that comes up. Even if you're a male, if you haven't been tested and shown worthy, you can't be on a team.

I think women could fill that role only if they've proved they've consistently met the standards expected of the very best of the best males with no modifications and if they have the ability to live in an environment of compromised hygiene safely and without expectation of relief: no exceptions. If they can do that, let them join. At least let them try and see if effectiveness, morale, or mission success are affected. If there are other factors not addressed in the physical requirements alone, they should be evaluated.

Ultimately I'm not against it, but neither am I for it as a matter of general policy; they would need to look at it case by case. If you have the qualities desired and can make the cut, go for it. I do not think however, that the policy should be widened to allow in those who otherwise would not be qualified.

 

[Artemis923]

I'm curious how many posters who replied to this have actual combat or military experience.

Navy chicks were ALWAYS looking to get out of work, whether it was at Nuke school or on the boat.

True, there were many who were motivated, hard working, and a hell of a lot smarter and more capable than me. However, there were many more who were just there to coast by and pick up a paycheck.

 

[Ryotknife]

The simple truth is that you need to put a soldier into the role they are best suited for physically and mentally. This rule does not differ between men and women. While women may not be as physically capable as men they have many other advantages over men that must be put to use if one intends to maximise their potential in the military.

Which are?

I mean, you cannot simply "cus it's so!@" and not be expected to elaborate.

I swear to god if you say some shit about dexterity .

Well that was going to be one of them, but alright then...

Women are less reckless and more aware of their surroundings as evidenced by the difference in the number of driving accidents. This can be used in an administrative role where one must keep several situations in mind and manage communications between several groups, or perhaps as the pilots of various military vehicles.

And I'm sure there are many other psychological and physiological differences between men and women that we don't know about or fully understand yet. True, they may be physically weaker than men when it comes to brute strength, but that isn't the only thing that one needs to be useful in war.

uh...im not so sure on that part. Ill agree that on a whole men tend to be willfully reckless and deliberate A-holes on the road moreso than women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12962125
There is one about the genders and recklessness.

Basically anything that can inflate self esteem and ego like recklessness and speeding is definetely more of a male problem than a female one.

However, women seem to be distracted more on the road. Phone, texting, or not paying attention to where cars are. On the flip side, women drivers seem to be more likely to be considerate to other drivers, like letting someone in or out in a congested area or pulling over to the side of the road when there is only enough room for one car pass.

generalizations, i know.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Has anyone in this thread ever served in the military? Do they do so now? Anyone been deployed? I would like to hear their point of view. It's very easy to "armchair general" the situation or to deal in egalitarian ideals removed from a combat environment, but unless you've lived it, it all rings a bit hollow.

Then I

I'm curious how many posters who replied to this have actual combat or military experience.

Navy chicks were ALWAYS looking to get out of work, whether it was at Nuke school or on the boat.

True, there were many who were motivated, hard working, and a hell of a lot smarter and more capable than me. However, there were many more who were just there to coast by and pick up a paycheck.

Are you saying that women in the military are lazier than men on average? I was trained on a joint service base and my MOS was about 35% women, and my experience was absolutely nothing like that with other people. The only thing that struck me as a bit retarded was the superiority complex that came from some of the Air Force people, and the smugness that came from some of them about having easier PT standards, "being more intelligent", and the fact that drill sergeants could force PT on us army people in AIT but that was considered hazing by Air Force standards. A lot of them were more concerned about how shiny their boots were than how many push-ups they could do.

 

[AwesomeWunderbar]

If they fit the requirements, yes. If not, no. It's really that simple.

If the "men" act differently around them tell them to grow some balls and realize that some women CAN take care of themselves. Why should the women be prevented from doing something they want and can do just because a man can't handle it?

 

[AwesomeWunderbar]

If a woman meets the physical requirements needed for front line combat, then yes, let them do it. If they don't, then no.

It's that fucking simple.

its not though, because as I said there's research that's been done which suggests it can have very negative effects psychologically on male soldiers that are totally involuntary and at the current time (possibly due to lack of research) seemingly unavoidable. Which is the point I was trying to make freedom of equality & opportunity could cost someone their life. An there are those that seem to think this is justified. which I'm inclined to disagree with.

But that their problem, not the women's. Why should they be prevented from doing something the want and can do just because the men can't handle it. Tell them to grow up and deal with it.

 

[Kuredan]

Has anyone in this thread ever served in the military? Do they do so now? Anyone been deployed? I would like to hear their point of view. It's very easy to "armchair general" the situation or to deal in egalitarian ideals removed from a combat environment, but unless you've lived it, it all rings a bit hollow.

Are you saying that women in the military are lazier than men on average? I was trained on a joint service base and my MOS was about 35% women, and my experience was absolutely nothing like that with other people. The only thing that struck me as a bit retarded was the superiority complex that came from some of the Air Force people, and the smugness that came from some of them about having easier PT standards, "being more intelligent", and the fact that drill sergeants could force PT on us army people in AIT but that was considered hazing by Air Force standards. A lot of them were more concerned about how shiny their boots were than how many push-ups they could do.

I can't tell if you thought my post was intending to portray military women as lazy or if you wanted to point out that you've had military experience in reference to my request. I would like it stated for the record I did not and do not think military women are in any way lazier than military men. I have met dirtbags in both genders and I have met people who put my skills and service to shame. I will say however that the physical standards regarding the PT test are different between the genders and in the case of front line combat, they should not be. That's what my long-winded post was trying to say.

As for the different cultures between the services, I've served in two different branches and it's a very different world. I would not go back to one if you paid me. They treated me like a child and never got off my back. They also, blissfully were the cause of some of my long term medical problems. Where I am now is very different and much better: for myself and for my family. I am treated with respect and my skills are valued and not wasted doing something that wasn't what I was trained for. I haven't seen a appreciable difference in my physical shape and yet I am doing half the PT I was expected to do in the other branch, and while the PT standards are different, they are not easier. The difference between a mile and half run at a faster time and two mile run at a slower time and the difference between 1 minute for pushups and sit ups and 2 minutes when you compare the desired scores match up pretty accurately, if anything it's harder with less time. The one thing I will say is that promotions are a hell of a lot slower, but I digress.

 

[alexwbyrd]

If a woman meets the physical requirements needed for front line combat, then yes, let them do it. If they don't, then no.

It's that fucking simple.

Quoted for truth. This person said everything I wanted to say and said it in a nutshell. Envious Alex is envious -____-.

Hope you like it in your perfectly encapsulated nutshell .

 

[Linakrbcs]

Concerning the purely physical aspects of close combat, if a woman can pass the same fitness and endurance tests as a man, why shouldn't she be able to do the job equally well?
On the emotional / traumatic side, women are generally more open and willing to talk about their problems because they tend to have less baggage from the macho, "men don't cry" culture. Although that may become a problem, isnce women placed in a tradionally male-dominated enviroment can feel that they have to prove themselves more manly than the men to be accepted.
But in this specific case, it's women actively WANTING to be placed in that situation, which may in itself make them more resilient to the associated trauma, since they choose to walk that path