Poll: Women In Front Line Combat Role

[Midnight Crossroads]

I'm an infantryman. No, women shouldn't be on the front lines. That's an insane suggestion that puts soldiers in excessive danger for no quantifiable gains. There's no shortage of infantrymen or tankers or scouts, so it's not like we're hurting for warm bodies.

 

[Olas]

There are differences between men and women, biologically and mentally, but if a woman can pass the training I can't think of any other reason to object to her serving every position a man can.

 

[Panorama]

Hell yeah, if they want to go, and meet the same criteria as anyone else being sent out to the frontline, why not!

 

[getoffmycloud]

Well as someone who joins the military next week I would say no purely on the grounds of the fitness issue. Currently to get into the military the female fitness standards are lower than the males and when I did the fitness test I don't think any of the females there would have been able to reach the required standards for males. The standards also go up once you are a part of the military and are even higher for combat units so even if they were allowed to try I would think all of them would fail.

 

[flyer son of no one]

I'm fine with the idea, but ive heard an army officer who was in my college saying they are never going to allow it because, if a male soldier sees a female get blown to bits, it hurts the moral ALOT and men are more likely to do something stupid to save a female soldier or impress her.

 

[Dragoon]

Don't get me wrong, I'm usually all for equality, but it just isn't suitable in certain situations like this one. As you stated above there are many reasons why most women aren't suited for straight up combat but there are many other areas where these women can be of great help in the military.

On the other hand another part of me says that they should be allowed to do what they want. There would have to be a lot of adjustment in the current military to accommodate female front line troops which could cause a problem but I think it could be done with time. I'm still undecided.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

If the female soldier can pass the same test as the male soldier then yeah. The loudest argument I've heard is that men might try to act cool in front of the women in combat situations. Well if the guy gets shot acting like a moron then it's his own stupid fault.

 

[m19]

The best person available should get the job.

If they can pass the same fitness tests sure. But otherwise no. This is life and death. If someone you know dies because they replaced a man with a woman and she couldn't carry your friend's injured body of the field due to lower physical standards, I doubt 'equality' would suffice as an excuse.

 

[Stu35]

The trouble, as I see it, is that (in Britain at least), we're not allowed to "exclude" people based on gender (as well as height, race, and anything else you can think of).

Now, what I mean by this, is that if we were to allow women into the teeth arms, they would not be held to the same standard as the men - They already aren't in the UK armed forces, as it would be deemed to be excluding most women if they raised their standards to the same as the men.

For example, to pass the Personal Fitness Assessment, a Male in the British Army has to perform 44 press ups, 50 sit ups and under 10:30 1.5 mile run (2.4km). A female has to do 21 press ups, 50 sit ups and a 13 minute 1.5 mile run.

I know plenty of women who can beat the 10:30 and 44 press ups. So they can do it. However someone, somewhere, decided that to hold all of them to this standard is "exclusionary" - that is to say, to hold them to this standard would cause enough to fail that we may as well be excluding the whole gender.


On an odd side note, a similar rule applies to Drill teams - Many, many (and I mean many) moons ago, if you were forming a drill team you'd try to get everyone to be about 6 feet (180(ish?)cm) tall, however this was again deemed exclusionary - not because most PEOPLE aren't 6' tall, but because most Women and Ghurkhas are not 6' tall.

Now, I've bolded that wording, because to me that sums the whole situation up - Before, it was okay to exclude most of the army (who would not be in the range of 5'11" to 6'1" that would be acceptable for drill teams), but as soon as the issue became about gender and race, it became a problem. (Just to clarify, I think it's correct that drill teams now are no longer allowed to exclude people based on height, what I disagree with is the wording of the reasoning for doing it).

So... Do I think women should be allowed in the teeth arms?

Yes, I think they should be allowed to do any role provided that they are held to the same standards as their male colleagues. What I fear is that this would not be (and indeed, is not) the case.

I'd be all for Job Specific fitness tests - after all I know plenty of people less fit than myself who are better at my job, and if they were to lower the standards required of me then happy days.

Gender specific though, that's just political correctness gone mad! (tongue firmly in cheek there).




TL;DR:

Yeah, let 'em fight, just make sure you only take the ones who are as equal to the task as the men.

Well if the guy gets shot acting like a moron then it's his own stupid fault.

The problem arises when he gets himself shot being a moron, and it fucks everything up for everybody else.

The Army is a team effort - there's literally no such thing as being able to brush off someone elses fuck ups as "their own stupid fault", because the effects impact on everyone.

 

[Joccaren]

So long as a woman is healthy, fit and mentally stable enough to be on the front lines, let them be. Same tests as men, they have to get the same results. If they're too weak, its their own fault. If they're strong enough and want to be there, all you're doing by cutting them out is losing valuable battle assets because you have morality issues.
As for the psychological problems with men trying to protect women, there's an alright solution to this; psych tests. If a get the set of people who are least effected by having women teammates, and slot them in there. Additionally, if you have enough women front liners for a squad, make one up entirely of women.

So long as the woman in question can perform well enough to be on the front lines, there isn't a lot of reason to hold them back.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Around my neck of the world, this discussion usually comes up somewhat forcibly by people who despise warfare in general and (male) soldiers in particular. Namely, it's always the latest generation of commies, feminists, gender equality promoters and vegan pacifists. Beware of the pacifists, they bite!

My stance is this: If you are demanding equality, then equality should be what you get. No special deals, no adaptions, no changes in the theory and the lore.

Why? Well, not to be a gender nazi, but just due to the actual demands in the battlefield. Every individual absolutely has to be able to rely on the next individual, and they all have to function together as a group, a team, a unit. No problem there, you might say.

Well, when it comes to the physical bit, there are plenty of healthy young men that drop out because they don't fit the bill. Translated directly to the average female population, this can mean but one thing: We're talking a one-digit percentage of the female population that would fit the bill, and not all of them are interested in a frontline-experience military career. And then there's still the risk of having an unstable psycho or two amongst the chosen few, which would drop the number of prospects even lower.

If you lower the standards to fit the average physical condition of the average female soldier, you raise risks and willingly generate a higher probabilty of stressful situations going SNAFU just so you can live out your gender politics wet dreams. Not cool.

I can usually cut this short with uncensored frontline footage from any conflict since, say, WWI. That usually shuts them up.

I would like to sit down for a cup of tea and some serious talk with those 1% women, see what they're made of and see what their motivations are. They might be genuine, but you can't exlude 99% of women on paper. You need to set up tests, which costs time and money, both of which are finite resources. If those women actually passed those unadulterated, unmodified tests already, then, yes, don't archive that thought just yet. Just know that the frontlines are not the best place for social experiments.

 

[Subscriptism]

As long as they perform to the same standard as male soldiers are expected to, if they can't then it risks the lives of their comrades, simple as.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

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.

Aye, but here's the thing: War ain't hilarious much.

If the average non-gay, non-loving soldier watches his buddy get riddled with bullets, gets his head exploded by a well placed sniper rifle or AK-47 shot or explode in a puff of blood and gore, it's plenty traumatizing enough already. Same goes for gay soldiers that have their loved ones at home, mind you.

Now, if I were to imagine any of my gay couple friends go to war together, I can tell you this: The remaining half of the couple would absolutely stop functioning. There would be no heroic super sayan moment. Maybe a suicide run, yes, but that would last about half a second or so.

 

[Vault101]

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.

I see your point but I'm pretty sure biologically speaking men always will be stronger

 

[Findlebob]

There is an obvious solution, science needs to hurry up and make Amazons.

 

[Vault101]

Um... you think this is an issue of what society finds attractive in the respective genders? Yes, I'm sure once society deems physically fit women appealing

there is a difference between "fit" and "muscular". While there are different body types overall our society isnt too fond of "big" and "muscular" women

 

[Legion]

Men are more suited for active combat roles because only men are allowed in them. It's the way genders are treated in society as opposed to any natural law that makes men better at fighting. If women were allowed the same roles then perhaps at first you'd see differences, but eventually when it becomes the norm you wouldn't notice a thing.

Physical differences in regards to strength are irrelevant, there are standards that all soldiers must achieve for front-line combat, these would not be reduced to allow women in those roles, because they are at that level for a reason. So only women capable of meeting those physical standards would be allowed to serve in that role as it is.

So yes, as long as they pass the same tests as the guys do, then I see no reason that women should not be allowed to serve in front line combat roles.

Not that it matters what we think. It will happen eventually any way.

 

[Bertylicious]

Discrimination on the grounds of gender is illegal in most organisations. Religion gets a pass because they believe in magic.

There are plenty of physically demanding roles where women work just as well as men and, with the right physical training, I see no reason why women as a whole cannot reach the same physical requirements as men. Afterall, what have you got to do? Run 3 miles whilst lifting something heavy? Women can do that, no problem.

Also it could herald a golden age for the amputee porn industry.

 

[Varrdy]

Yes.

If a female soldier has proven herself to be capable then why not?

All this talk of testosterone is pretty irrelevant - a professional soldier can do the job and stay cool; all that Full Metal Jacket "War Face" stuff is just movie bollocks. In fact I'd go as far as testosterone kicking in and a solider losing his rag is a bad thing as a pissed off person doesn't have as good judgement as a not-pissed off person. Besides - I have encountered a female army officer delivering a bollocking and, even though it was not aimed at me (phew!), it was still pretty scary and the recipient (male and a foot taller) was actually leaning back a little as if trying to keep his distance while still standing to attention.

Strength? Give me a break...yes for the most part men are bigger than women but this is the army, where PT is pretty high on the agenda and if I, with my upper body strength of a dead chaffinch, can pick up and fire an assault rifle then I'm pretty sure a female soldier can handle it and all the other gear that a modern-day soldier has to lug around! Hand-to-hand? I've seen enough women take down men with martial arts or basic hand-hand training to know this wont be an issue either. When I used to do Taekwondo many years ago, one of the highest ranked in my Dojo was a woman and, despite being slender, could whup even the Sensei's arse! Nice lady too - very patient.

What I will say is that the bar should NOT be lowered. Admitting a sub-par female soldier for the sake of "equality" or "political correctness" would be just as dangerous as giving me a gun and a flak jacket and booting me onto the front line because not enough front line troops are lanky streaks of piss. It's dangerous for the woman in question and it's also dangerous for her colleagues.

However, as I said, if a female soldier can make the grade then she should be allowed to serve on the front line - simple as that.