Poll: Women In Front Line Combat Role

[lacktheknack]

All this is a consequence of arbitrary social mores. Men get stressed out or make risky decisions when women are in danger because society keeps insisting that women are helpless and fragile and need to be protected by men. This is patently false, but it shows up everywhere all the same.

Similarly, only 1% of women fit current male standards because we, as a society, insist that women must be thin, willowy and that anything that would give them physical strength (such as fat and muscle) are terribly undesirable. When it becomes socially desirable for women to have muscles (just like men), we'll start to see that 1% becoming 100%. And likewise, the bit about women needing more provocation and fearing the consequences of aggression have to do with the fact that women are socialised to be demure and quiet, and traits such as loudness, aggression and assertiveness are discouraged in them. Furthermore, women learn to avoid confrontational attitudes and play peacekeepers with men, something that wouldn't be necessary if they were socialised to be aggressive and value physical strength (just like men are socialised).

In short, change current societal mores and this problem disappears.

Four things:

1. I've grown up with the girls forever kicking my ass, standing up for themselves, helping out other people in trouble, and generally being the exact opposite of what I'm told is societal norm, and in the various entertainments I consume, there's far more emphasis on female badasses (Tomb Raider was a childhood staple, and pretty much every sitcom relies on incompetent men and patient, competent females, etc).

And yet, when I see a woman in a crisis of any kind, even when I know she's more than capable of dealing with it, I get a primal "Help her out" instinct, against all logic.

Consider that genetics might have a role.

2. It said 1% of female SOLDIERS. As in, NOT willowy wisps. In fact, they probably all could kick your ass so hard that you'd lose it, and they're probably proud of it. Yet it's not enough to reach the level needed for frontline combat, and that's due to a simple scientifically backed fact that women develop muscle more slowly than men and have a harder time shedding fat.

3. If you think that women with muscle isn't fashionable, you've clearly missed the boat. Health magazines are dropping "lose fat" articles and replacing them with "get stronger" articles left and right.

4. I've NEVER seen those social traits all bred into people with any consistency. If anything, "be aggressive" is pounded into women constantly (ever read a Women's World magazine or any self-help books?) and men are increasingly often being told to tone aggression down.

Overall, I find your post cliche and misguided.

 

[lacktheknack]

Simply, NO. I find it ironic that that vast majority answered yes but under the same requirements as male soldiers. I'm assuming most of those people aren't stupid and realize that only the tiniest, tiniest percentage of women would ever be able to meet the physical requirements that males do in order to qualify to be a front line infantryman. Following that logic, most of the people who voted yes, but under the same requirements as male soldiers, in their mind, are thinking no but I don't want to be viewed as sexist or politically incorrect. Seeing women being badly maimed and killed has a devastating psychological affect on male soldiers. It is biological, undeniable, and would compromise effective military decision making on the front lines. It would cause male soldiers to hesitate and cost lives. I'm all for equality of all peoples but ignoring the differences between them to entertain political correctness at the cost lives is wrong, no matter how you try to justify it.

I think you're overstating the effect that females have on men. Sure, it's there, and it is psychologically devastating, but then again, so is war.

http://www.milhist.net/images/2000YardStare.jpg

This painting is famous for powerfully (and off-puttingly) depicting the effect that war and death in general has on people. The picture is worth a thousand words, really. Sure, it's devastating to watch a woman die, but this guy didn't see that, and he STILL looks permanently shellshocked, BECAUSE HE IS. If you go to the front lines, you will be devastated psychologically, regardless of feminine presence.

Also, I never saw how "they will hesitate" is ever a bad thing. Hesitating is how you avoid getting shot or bombed. And if the biological push really is so strong, then they will never hesitate to come to the aid of a woman in crisis, which would SAVE lives, not end them...

 

[Strazdas]

yes with same requirements. sadly many woman are simply not physically capable to fit in those requirements. thats not their fault, its genetics. woman are a weaker sex, whether you like it or not, and therefore they would have much ahrder time in physical infantry needs. however if we start lowering the line for them, how does that make our army better?

 

[XX Y XY]

Simply, NO. I find it ironic that that vast majority answered yes but under the same requirements as male soldiers. I'm assuming most of those people aren't stupid and realize that only the tiniest, tiniest percentage of women would ever be able to meet the physical requirements that males do in order to qualify to be a front line infantryman. Following that logic, most of the people who voted yes, but under the same requirements as male soldiers, in their mind, are thinking no but I don't want to be viewed as sexist or politically incorrect. Seeing women being badly maimed and killed has a devastating psychological affect on male soldiers. It is biological, undeniable, and would compromise effective military decision making on the front lines. It would cause male soldiers to hesitate and cost lives. I'm all for equality of all peoples but ignoring the differences between them to entertain political correctness at the cost lives is wrong, no matter how you try to justify it.

I think you're overstating the effect that females have on men. Sure, it's there, and it is psychologically devastating, but then again, so is war.

http://www.milhist.net/images/2000YardStare.jpg

This painting is famous for powerfully (and off-puttingly) depicting the effect that war and death in general has on people. The picture is worth a thousand words, really. Sure, it's devastating to watch a woman die, but this guy didn't see that, and he STILL looks permanently shellshocked, BECAUSE HE IS. If you go to the front lines, you will be devastated psychologically, regardless of feminine presence.

Also, I never saw how "they will hesitate" is ever a bad thing. Hesitating is how you avoid getting shot or bombed. And if the biological push really is so strong, then they will never hesitate to come to the aid of a woman in crisis, which would SAVE lives, not end them...

I'm not overstating anything. I am a man and am extremely protective of women. If I were in a combat situation and I had to weigh the value of a woman's life against that of completing my mission objective, the woman's life would win hands down. It might not be politically correct or what-have-you but it's a fact of life today that men are raised to be protective of women and they value their lives more highly than those of men. Military conditioning may help with this but it certainly would not eliminate it. Perhaps someday in the future if social mores change this issue can be looked at again but things being what they are today absolutely, no.

And I don't mean to sound insulting, but saying that you don't see hesitating as a bad thing tells me you have no idea what it's like to be in a tense combat situation. Especially one where lives hang in the balance of choices that have to be made in fractions of seconds. Hesitation in front line combat is the quickest route to dying and causing the deaths of others.

 

[Darken12]

Consider that genetics might have a role.

As a scientist, that would be profoundly unethical of me. Genetic determinism is one of the most profoundly disgusting misuses of science I can possibly think of. A gene is a code that tells cells how to create a protein. While hormones and neurotransmitters have an effect in mood and emotional states, it is impossible for a protein (or several) to determine behaviour, impulses or anything that might be construed as a higher brain function.

2. It said 1% of female SOLDIERS. As in, NOT willowy wisps. In fact, they probably all could kick your ass so hard that you'd lose it, and they're probably proud of it. Yet it's not enough to reach the level needed for frontline combat, and that's due to a simple scientifically backed fact that women develop muscle more slowly than men and have a harder time shedding fat.

Nope. That's actually been debunked. Studies saying that testosterone was consistently responsible for muscle accretion were done in rats, and a new study (this one [http://jap.physiology.org/content/105/6/1754.long]) proved that there are no differences in testosterone serum levels between men and women after resistance exercise, which has led to the conclusion that men and rats have different muscle steroidogenesis. From the study:

"No differences were found for muscle testosterone or steroidogenic enzyme (17β-HSD type 3 and 3β-HSD types 1 and 2) concentrations between sexes or in response to resistance exercise. These findings are in contrast to those of some studies in rats."

Testosterone does have an effect in muscle development, but it's related to power/strength. Men have an easier time gaining maximum voluntary strength and developing muscle hypertrophy when their testosterone serum levels are higher than normal (that is, due to hypersecretion or the use of anabolic steroids), but that can easily happen with women as well (you can give women anabolic steroids as well, after all). Women secrete androstenedione (which inter-converts with testosterone, and women transform into estradiol with the aromatase enzyme), and from this link [http://www.healthcare.uiowa.edu/path_handbook/handbook/test151.html], we see that there is very little difference between the serum levels of androstenedione between males and females. The main difference between male and female testosterone levels is due to women aromatising most of their androstenedione. Women with PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome), a very common endocrine disorder, have increased testosterone levels (often matching average male levels) at the expense of hirsutism, acne, infertility and increased risk of cardiac disease (that is, symptoms of masculinisation), so many women could end up with testosterone hypersecretion, just like men.

However, even if men have it easier developing muscular hypertrophy and maximum voluntary strength, no study has proven that such benchmarks are unreachable by women (in fact, a percentage of them do in fact reach it). The evidence so far is inconclusive. It's possible that with a wider cultural change, more women will spend their childhood and adolescence engaging in physical activities that stimulate their GH levels during those critical years, obtaining a muscle-oriented (high protein) nutrition and developing a routine and endurance for intense physical training that would put them closer to the military's standards. This could end up steadily increasing that percentage.

3. If you think that women with muscle isn't fashionable, you've clearly missed the boat. Health magazines are dropping "lose fat" articles and replacing them with "get stronger" articles left and right.

I admit I might be out of touch with fashion trends, but that is a very good thing. However, I wager it will take several years before we start to see the effects on a cultural level.

4. I've NEVER seen those social traits all bred into people with any consistency. If anything, "be aggressive" is pounded into women constantly (ever read a Women's World magazine or any self-help books?) and men are increasingly often being told to tone aggression down.

...

They're being told that precisely because they are the product of centuries of cultural inertia. If women weren't socialised to be non-aggressive, why would they have magazines or self-help books saying "be aggressive"? If men weren't socialised to be aggressive, why would they need to be told to be less aggressive?

 

[Not Matt]

women!?! in war!?! as LEADERS!?!........................Sure. why not. go get them girls. I have no problem with it

 

[Jacco]

I don't have a problem with female tank crew, artillery gunners, fighter pilots or in surface ships. I think the physiological differences are to great for women to operate as infantry. 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.

Agreed. There is also the problem of women being potentially incapable of helping a fallen male soldier in infantry units. She may simply not be strong or big enough to haul 350lbs (say 250 for the guy and another 80-100lbs of gear) of dead weight out of the line of fire.

 

[Faraja]

Until recently, the US Marine Corps had very different judgement lines for men and women seeking to enlist, and to pass the CFT and PFT. One of the big differences was that male Marines had to perform actual pull-ups, while female Marines had to do a flexed arm hang. I learned recently that the Corp is actually changing this so that both sexes have to do full pull-ups, but I haven't looked to see if it's the same amount.

I say, if they can keep with the men, let 'em sit on the front lines. That just means we'll have more people shooting at the other people.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Russia's been doing it for about a century.
At this point it doesn't matter too much who's physically stronger. This is a world of automatic weapons and body armor. It's very simple: just accept whoever passes the training on the same standard. It might end up being biased against women, but it's also already biased against the short, the scrawny, the slow, regardless of gender.

 

[NoeL]

"lovers and their favorites" Literally makes it sound like a troop of possible sexual abusers. How did they fight the spartans? lol

The Spartans were actually very into man-boy love too. A lot of soldiers would have a young squire they'd have their way with - it was far from uncommon. Same thing with Japanese samurais.

 

[adamsaccount]

Women in the infantry? Don't care, but what we need brought back is a <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes>gay lover regiment. Seemed to work very well for the Thebans. And it would be hilarious for internet comedy writers.

I dont want to seem like im stereotyping, but the thought of Louie Spence with an m60 is a beautiful one

 

[Jenvas1306]

If a man cant meet certain physical requirements he cant serve in infantry. those requirements have nothing todo with gender. So in my opinion everyone who meets those requirements should be allowed to serve in infantry, no matter if man, woman or something else.

 

[Yopaz]

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.

While I would assume that war would cause psychological problems for any of those involved, both soldiers and survivors, I don't see a reason for a gender split because of this. Men are believed to get psychological issues afterwards, thus women shouldn't be allowed to be in front line combat is not an example of solid reasoning. If they can be trusted to tackle both the physical and psychological pressure of front line combat I believe they should be allowed to do so. We don't send men that we don't tackle either, why should we restrict women we believe can handle both?

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I would think men would treat woman differently on the frontline than they would other men. Not talking about sexual or sexist way. But as in combat. Would a man take more risks if a woman was pinned down by fire than if a male soldier was pinned down by fire? Or if a woman is screaming after being shot? But then soldiers are highly trained professionals so this may not even be an issue.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

The next question you need to ask yourself, however, is if that difference in strength matters to front line combat. Maybe 500 years ago, when soldiers needed to be able to stab each other with pikes, it mattered. Nowadays, as long as the soldier has the strength to carry their gear, it strikes me that there are much more important factors to consider- things like endurance, ability to follow orders, hand-eye coordination, and ability to make snap judgements in line with combat doctrines.

Putting aside the ridiculously rude tone of your response, I think you're underestimating the relevance of physical fitness to a modern infantry role. It's still a pretty gruelling job.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

An it's an undeniable fact that men and women are different. denying that on average males have greater strength is like denying that on average women live longer lives.

And this right here is where you made the fallacy.

First of all, while yes, it is an undeniable fact that women and men are different, the question that should be asked is, "are the differences that are undeniable relevant to combat?" For example, men usually have penises. Since we do not carry rifles with our penises (spunk-gargle-wee-wee games notwithstanding) the distinction is irrelevant.

Also, I am not going to accept your claim that average males have greater strength without serious evidence as back up. I know a lot of males who have no appreciable upper body strength. I know a lot of males whose life revolves around a dull job sitting at a desk, lots of beer/chips/cola consumption, and then late night video game sessions. They are not stronger than most women I know, especially since most women I know routinely work out.

So you respond to a percieved logical fallacy [http://www.livestrong.com/article/416410-what-are-the-differences-between-muscle-size-strength-in-men-women/] with an actual logical fallacy [http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal]. Sounds legit, yeah, carry on, I'm certainly going to respect your opinions on this now.

OT: Given that soldiers are predominantly known for following orders, if they suddenly stop because of the addition of women soldiers that's less a problem with the women and more a problem with a subset of male soldiers (who I also assume would do the same for their male counterparts). If they meet the fitness/mental requirements to do be in the balls-out insane-o divisions (since that 1% bit comes from the SAS) then yeah, they're qualified so they should get the job. I don't know how accurate that 1% is though since it's presumably only from applicants.

Basically, yeah, as they are able to fill any other role they meet the requirements for in the military this is no different.