Poll: Women In Front Line Combat Role

[Commissar Sae]

I actually read up on this in the context of the second world war. Russian female soldiers were just as ready to kill the enemy as their male counterparts, and just as able. In some cases they were in fact better at their jobs than some of their male counterparts, such as the bomber pilot who survived being shot down twice behind enemy lines and flew well over 800 missions (can't remember her name at the moment) or the various snipers and machinegunners that became famous during the war for their kill counts. Meanwhile in England women were allowed to load and aim anti-aircraft guns but were not allowed to fire them on the pretext that women would not have the fortitude to take another human life, so one man ran back and forth between the batteries pulling the trigger. It's a weird world sometimes.

As long as they are able to pass the physical and mental requirements I see no reason why women shouldn't be fully admitted into the armed forces.

 

[Lucane]

Yes, Women should be allowed on the front lines.

I assume there are tests of sorts to check if a soldier is capable of handling the rigors of front line combat and service
either they should have to pass the same challenges or a modified one (maybe consider placing gear on female soldiers differently or utilizing different strengths slightly.) Men and Women are genetically different so maybe a better way to check if women can handle the same job in the field (outside of sexual harassment issues) would be to find a way to better optimize the test for them.

You'd have to make specialised combat armour for women though, because women are shaped differently to dudes. Also, I'd say that they should have the same fitness test, but I think I read somewhere that men usually have greater upper body strength and women greater lower body strength (something to do with women having to shart out babies), so maybe the tests could be optimised around those?

Well yeah, the same test as in: start at A and end at C in X amount of time : A ~~ B ~~ C

Maybe the tools used to get there however, can be modified to better benefit women/men together/separately. Like Left-handed scissors I can use right-handed ones but Left-handed ones work So! much better for me and of course better than (neutral) handed scissors not catering to either hand.

 

[Brutal Peanut]

As long as she performs to the physical and mental expectations of the guidelines set in place, I don't see why not.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

The absolutely only reason to ever add anything to an army is that it will make the army more effective. Shit like this is understandable in common workplaces but in the army people's lives are at risk. Equality can go right ahead and fuck itself in this matter.

If at the moment adding women to front line squads would make front line squads less effective than you don't fucking do it. If in the future common attitudes about women change and it becomes effective to allow women into front line squads then and ONLY then do you do it. You fucked up the MOMENT you decided to add equality to the equation.

If it is effective to add women to roles where they don't risk the coherency of a combat squad then you do that as long as the women are physically capable of the role.

 

[robot slipper]

I actually read up on this in the context of the second world war. Russian female soldiers were just as ready to kill the enemy as their male counterparts, and just as able. In some cases they were in fact better at their jobs than some of their male counterparts, such as the bomber pilot who survived being shot down twice behind enemy lines and flew well over 800 missions (can't remember her name at the moment) or the various snipers and machinegunners that became famous during the war for their kill counts. Meanwhile in England women were allowed to load and aim anti-aircraft guns but were not allowed to fire them on the pretext that women would not have the fortitude to take another human life, so one man ran back and forth between the batteries pulling the trigger. It's a weird world sometimes.

As long as they are able to pass the physical and mental requirements I see no reason why women shouldn't be fully admitted into the armed forces.

I have read quite an interesting book on the subject called Corsets to Camouflage by Kate Adie. They had that bit about the anti-aircraft guns - hilariously, the women were allowed to calculate the angle to set the guns, and give the order to start firing but weren't allowed to fire it themselves because obviously they weren't capable of dealing with the psychological impact of taking a human life! Even though they had lined up the gun and given the order. The book started from way back in history (I'm talking back from back in the day when swords were being used, right up to muskets) where women would actually infiltrate army units by disguising themselves as men (no, really and it worked). There have been many women throughout history who have certainly had the will and been capable of fighting, and like many others have said as long as they can physically do it, then they should be allowed to go right ahead.

As far as unit cohesion goes and dealing with female soldiers getting injured and killed? Male soldiers risk their lives all the time to save their injured male comrades (and indeed, to retrieve the bodies of KIA sodiers), I can't see that there would all of a sudden be a load more risk-taking if the downed soldier was a woman, i.e. that sort of risk-taking is happening all the time anyway.

Side-note: a female medic from the UK recently won the Military Cross in Afghanistan for crossing 70 metres of open ground under fire to reach a soldier who had been shot through the jaw, in order to administer live-saving treatment. She was treating him for 45 minutes while under intense small arms and rocket fire. So there are some exceptionally brave women out there as well.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I remember wondering about that a lot when I was little. A woman can fire a gun just as easily as a man, so why shouldn't they be allowed to serve on the front lines?

Then I learned that Russia actually used women for snipers because they tended to be better shots, so some countries used women as soldiers.

Then, one day when I was in college, my English teacher said something that I've always remembered: Women are needed to continue the population. If your fighting a war that threatens your very existence (whether it be total annihilation of the human race, or just your own way of life), you're going to need to keep your numbers up. A man is just needed for a few minutes and their job is done. Off they go to fight, but their work to continue the species is finished. A woman has to carry that baby for nine months, and then raise it. Out of combat for her. So there's that.

Ummm...Did you think about asking your math teacher about that?
Because less than 1% of the USA's population are soldiers. Meaning that if they all died we would still have 99% still alive. To be fair that 1% is worth at least 25-30%, but even that would still leave us with 70%. Also, there are still more men in the army than women. Plus, I don't think any women in the army who want to be in the front are going to get pregant for a good bit.

As for the "D: men act different around women" junk, no offence to you or your teacher, but I'll go with what this soldier says.

Spoiler: Damn. She has stealth camo. Use infrared to read.

4 years light infantry in the czech army here.

it works, and it works well. the germans do it. the czech army does it. the french army does it, one of the most powerful and probably one of the most underestimated fighting forces in the world, with the highest portion of women in any western military force.
all those issues go out of the window when it gets serious. you stop looking at the people with you as guys or girls, they are soldiers. you don't even think about it for a single second.

i think the resistance against it in the u.s. stems from the fact that less women are physicly capable. what do we do about that? do we set the same physical fitness standards for women and men, making it effectively extremely difficult for any girls to be admitted in a combat role (yes, girls are physicaly weaker than guys on average, get over it), or do we apply a lower standard to females, effectively reducing the overall quality of soldiers?

probably too much of such stuff that could cause a headache, hence they don't bother with it at all.

So if women show that they can do the work, and do it well I see no good reason not to let them fight.

 

[Hagi]

Voted yes with the same conditions as male soldiers, however I'd add one thing.

No mixed gender units either.

As long as we have a culture where the differences between genders are considered large enough to warrant different bathrooms they shouldn't be in mixed gender units either. I'd say there's just slightly too many problems with that in a culture where it's considered unacceptable for the genders to do their business in the same room even if it's in separate stalls.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Because only about 10% of the USA's population are soldiers. Meaning that if they all died we would still have 90% still alive. To be fair that 10% is worth at least 25-30%, but even that would still leave us with 70%. Also, there are still more men in the army than women. Plus, I don't think any women in the army who want to be in the front are going to get pregant for a good bit.

Um...the population of the US is over 300 million. There's about 1.5 million US military personnel.

That's much, much less than 10%, and the vast majority of those aren't front-line soldiers.

Your basic point isn't wrong, though, if those 1.5 million were all women front-line soldiers, and all suddenly died, the US would still have over 150 million women. Those 1.5 million would tend to be young adults, though, the general population would include the very young and very old, but the US is not facing extinction without them, the idea is laughable.

 

[Agayek]

I believe women should be able to be front-line combatants.

IF AND ONLY IF they are able to meet the exact same physical requirements as men. The infantry need to be able to trust that each and every one of them will be able to carry their own weight, or people are going to die.

In practical terms, that means the vast majority of women would not be capable of being front-line combatants. Women are just physically weaker than men. It's a biological fact no amount of bitching will get around. If you don't like it, too fucking bad.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Because only about 10% of the USA's population are soldiers. Meaning that if they all died we would still have 90% still alive. To be fair that 10% is worth at least 25-30%, but even that would still leave us with 70%. Also, there are still more men in the army than women. Plus, I don't think any women in the army who want to be in the front are going to get pregant for a good bit.

Um...the population of the US is over 300 million. There's about 1.5 million US military personnel.

That's much, much less than 10%, and the vast majority of those aren't front-line soldiers.

Your basic point isn't wrong, though, if those 1.5 million were all women front-line soldiers, and all suddenly died, the US would still have over 150 million women. Those 1.5 million would tend to be young adults, though, the general population would include the very young and very old, but the US is not facing extinction without them, the idea is laughable.

Damn. I thought so, but I got that answer when I was looking up the answer.

Thank you for correcting me. I will change that then.

 

[Generic4me]

If you're capable of performing to the physical and mental standards of the role, then I see no reason why your gender should have anything to do with being allowed to fill it.

As for "Men behave differently with women around", sure maybe we do under normal circumstances. War is not normal circumstances. Also, these are soldiers who have received military training, I would not automatically assume that they would make "risky decisions" because there's a girl in their regiment.

And if there is a problem with men and women being in the same units, then why not just make separate units for women? Problem solved.

Also, for the "Women aren't as strong as men debate", the infantry does not require you to be at your maximum possible physical ability. Yes, maybe women might have to work harder to be at the same physical level as the men, but it still doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to be in the military.

 

[Thanatos5150]

As long as the prospective soldier meets the current requirements to serve in a front-line combat role, I fail to see how I should give a shit about the gender, sexuality, race or religion of said soldier.

 

[Blow_Pop]

Yes with the same requirements. I'm still pissed that I am disqualified from joining the military because I was diagnosed with ADD and am a female. Our MEPS station out here if they send medical reasons down for any reason it is an automatic disqulaification. Yet we can have bi-polar men in the military?

My dream in high school was to be a SEAL. I wrote countless letters to congress to allow women at least the chance to be a SEAL and then to find out I can't join for some stupid inane bullshit reason that has no impact on me anymore(as I have it under control without medication and have for the past 14 years now)was crushing.

 

[Dense_Electric]

The issue here shouldn't be trying to make men and women equal, but just the opposite - we should remove the question of sex from the equation altogether. This viewpoint is not at all hard to understand, nor is there any logically sound reason that I can fathom to disagree with it: you have a universal set of requirements to meet to operate in front-line infantry roles. If you can meet those requirements, you're in. If you can't meet them, you're rejected. Simple.

As long as someone can meet those requirements, which would include, among other things, reaching a certain level of physical fitness, the ability to think calmly under pressure, and the ability to accurately fire a rifle, who the flying fuck cares what sort of crotch-luggage you're packing? What's next, are we going to start re-segregating units based on skin color? IT'S. NOT. RELEVANT.

That's the fundamental issue here: why is sex even considered? I here all the time things like, "women aren't as able as men to perform in combat situations," and while that may be true on average, it's still a generalization, and you're now excluding some qualified individuals, however few or numerous they may be, merely because they have the wrong genitalia. How fucking stupid is that?

EDIT:

But my problem is that, women cannot be conscripted.

Men can.

Until women can be conscripted as well and WILL be conscripted when needed then they shouldn't be able to join the Army as a career. It's not fair to the men who are forced to sign that little piece of paper saying the government can kidnap you and kill you/get you killed if they want, but women get a free pass, yet everyone constantly goes on about "equality blah blah blah women can be just as good as men blah blah blah."

Also this.

Now to be fair, I refused to sign that form (on moral and ethical objections, as well as refusing to bow down to Big Brother - I have yet to suffer any of the alleged consequences, and if I ever do, I will take it right up to the Supreme Court if I have to), but I agree with you completely. If men can be conscripted, so can women. Period. End of discussion.

That being said, NO ONE can be allowed to be conscripted, at least not if your government isn't run by evil psychopaths (which the United States government is). It's unmoral, unethical, a grave and unforgivable violation of personal freedom, and is also a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (which states that no mandatory servitude can be issued except as punishment for crime). It's also a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (which states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States enjoy equal protection under the law).

 

[Thaluikhain]

Until women can be conscripted as well and WILL be conscripted when needed then they shouldn't be able to join the Army as a career. It's not fair to the men who are forced to sign that little piece of paper saying the government can kidnap you and kill you/get you killed if they want, but women get a free pass, yet everyone constantly goes on about "equality blah blah blah women can be just as good as men blah blah blah."

Hey? You have to let them into the army before you can conscript them into the army. Once women become established in the military, conscription would follow naturally anyway.

but there is also the logistical side of things, where women keep the population going so if we did get in a massive war that didn't automatically go "LOL NUKE ZE SHIS!" I can see problems ....

As mentioned several times previously in this thread, that's rubbish. The vast majority of people in a nation simply aren't front-line troops. If a war is so bloody that you are taking so many casualties amongst your front-line troops that there won't be a next generation, your country is facing total destruction anyway, and gender issues will have bene forgotten long ago.

Not to mention, it's not just women that keep the population going, men are required as well. Yes, one man can impregnate several women simultaneously, but which modern war required polygamy due to a sudden, massive shortage of men?

 

[Souplex]

A fun scientific fact:
A bullet to the brain is consistently lethal, regardless of whether the shooter has a Y chromosome.

 

[Risingblade]

All woman units all men units, problem solved.

 

[Ryotknife]

I'm all for it just to shut up the MRAs whining about tough men have it by doing front line combat duty. It also doesn't exactly help how much soldiers are universally praised and held up on pedastals by our country only to deny even the shot at that glory to women.

im sure the billions of men who have died as soldiers throughout history are feeling really glorious right now >_>

 

[Senare]

If you employ soldiers who can not face women being blown to bits, how would they react if they have to kill women combatants? Are those people really mentally ready to be front-line soldiers at all?

Are all the social effects of mixed-gender units bad? If male soldiers behave differently in the presence of female soldiers, is that behavior always for the worse? For example, could it have a lowering effect on the number of war atrocities committed? And what effects does it have when you need to cooperate with civilians?

And as many have pointed out - statistical averages are not relevant in this discussion as the armies do not employ average people.

 

[Vuliev]

Honestly, while the ideal of "let anyone in that can meet the strenuous requirements" is a good one (and one I'm inclined to agree with), I haven't seen anyone bring up the subject of sexual abuse. I have no idea how other militaries deal with it, but the US military absolutely has to solve its existing issues of sexual abuse with the women it currently employs. Allowing women into front-line combat squads could quite conceivably make those issues worse, and as several posters have already pointed out, you don't do something unless it is only going to improve unit and overall effectiveness.