Poll: Women In Front Line Combat Role

[Vivi22]

It may be true that men are more...predisposed...to a combat role due to what little physical differences there are in the genders AND our gender roles/programming, but since those female soldiers are (im guessing) volunteers...as long as they know the risks, it is their life to risk.

Thing is though, if they're not up to the task of being in the sort of front lines combat infantry have to engage in, they aren't just risking their lives. It puts their unit at risk, their mission, and potentially more soldiers beyond that who may have to risk their lives based on the success or failure of an individual and their unit. Not to mention civilian lives in the war zone may be put at risk as well.

Now I'm not saying they can't handle it, and there are almost certainly women who are physically and mentally as capable as your typical male soldier when it comes to being in combat, but great care should be taken in determining if it's a good idea, and how to best screen for those who can do it and those who can't.

 

[bz316]

In a realistic non-overly politically correct world, we are all equal opportunity but we are not all the same neither physically or mentally. 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.

Therein lies the weakness of the "against" argument. Yes, men tend to be stronger than women ON AVERAGE. They also tend to be taller than women ON AVERAGE. That doesn't change the fact that on an individual level, some women are more than 6 feet tall and some men are barely 5 feet tall. Likewise with physical fitness. Yes, ON AVERAGE, men are more physically capable than women. It doesn't change the fact that on an individual level, some men are total wimps, and some women are so bad-ass they can kick someone's ass without breaking a sweat. Keep the physical requirements in place, certainly, but if there are women who can meet these requirements, what justification is there for keeping the individual women out just because ON AVERAGE most women would not meet the requirements?

 

[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.

 

[Kathinka]

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.

I know some israeli women who served in the IDF who would argue the point with you.

israel doesn't emply females in combat roles though, just support roles (of course, due to the nature of their ware their support personel gets into combat situations on a few occasions too)
just throwing that out there because it caught my eye, i'm still on your side, haha. girls in combat roles do work, it has been done, it went fine, no real discussion neccessary in my oppinion.

 

[Auron]

I don't see any issue blocking Women from infantry positions other than stupid baseless tradition. Yes they should be allowed in and yes they should suffer every last same requirement.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Firstly, the fact that it's the women getting pregnant and rebuilding the population isn't an issue. Front-line soldiers are a tiny part of the population, if the war is so bloody that you're suffering demographic failure solely due to casualties amongst your front line soldiers, you are fucked and can't not recruit women.

Secondly, yeah, averages, blah blah blah. Asians are on average smaller than caucasians, they should be banned too blah.

Thirdly, psychological factors, upsetting the men. Well, I'm a truly horrible racist person, and letting...um...Kalahari bushmen sign up in my army offends me, they should be banned, not me change my ways. It's biological, my dislike of Kalahari bushmen, you see, nothing I can do about it. Anyway, soldiers might be psychologically hardened to fight and die for their country, but, ew, girls are icky, can't have that.

Seriously, I predict it's going to become the norm. The usual objections will be raised in much the same way that they were for letting black troops intergrate with white in the US forces, or getting rid of DADT, but will be forgotten.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

With the whole 'women make dudes go cray-cray' situation, I can kind of see this kind of thing happening if women are allowed to serve on the frontline, but I would like to see a study first.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

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?

 

[Thaluikhain]

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?

Not sure about the armour, and presumably if this is an issue it exists already...even not front line personnel have to be ready to fight, sorta rendering the whole discussion a bit pointless. Every US marine is a rifleperson, some US marines are female...

I do remember reading an ADF thing about this, in which it was mentioned that shoes and backpacks needed to be different for women than men, and that giving women stuff optimised for male builds had caused problems.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

Not sure about the armour, and presumably if this is an issue it exists already...even not front line personnel have to be ready to fight, sorta rendering the whole discussion a bit pointless. Every US marine is a rifleperson, some US marines are female...

I do remember reading an ADF thing about this, in which it was mentioned that shoes and backpacks needed to be different for women than men, and that giving women stuff optimised for male builds had caused problems.

I think I remember reading somewhere that they are trying to experiment with more form-fitting body armour for female marines, as the current body armour is designed for men and is kinda uncomfortable for women, apparently.

 

[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.