Women in Frontline Combat?

[Seydaman]

What are your thoughts on women in frontline combat situations?

Women should be allowed in front line combat.

Our strength no longer matters - we have guns now.

And it has been proven that, given the same training, women are better shots than men. Sorry guys, we are just dexier than you. Like elves with bows.

Pretty much
It's not like we're running out into fields and hacking at each other with swords any more.
I think

I'm sure there will be some adjustment training, as there is with anything, but better start now rather than later.

Moar equality is never a bad thing, usually.

 

[bubba145]

There are some logistical problems that need to be overcome. For example, current Army regulations state that females must have access to bathing facilities every three days. You really can't provide that if you're a front-line unit. Since you're the first in, you're living off what you can carry, and it ain't much.

Even if you're stationed in a forward operating base, any combat unit are operating out of patrol bases for a month at a time (for the uninitiated, it's a spot that's way out of the way of major routes of travel, major terrain features, and close to some sort of water sources usually, occupied for no more than 24 hours) because the enemy needs to be found and killed, or the population needs a sense of security way out in the boondocks.

Personally, if they can work out stuff like that, and if the female in question can pass the male version of a pt test (currently, the female max score is failing or barely passing the male minimum score, and the new pt test they're coming up with is supposedly unisex, but I doubt it'll turn out that way) then why not ?

i just got ninjad in this debate. i also believe one of the reasons for this requirement is due to health reasons. woman are normally more prone to infections due to uncleanliness then men.

 

[Seydaman]

A'le huge snip

It always takes me back when I look at my thinking and realize how sexist/racist ect it was. That's probably a problem with me accepting arguments without thinking them through tho, need to work on that.
Great post, agree with you 100%
Internet high five?

 

[Kortney]

The front line, even the military in general but especially the front line is a masculine, male-dominated area. There are about 20 people sleeping in a room, sharing about three showers between them, and that's in the best of conditions. Operations are carried out with male intuitiveness, the operation of the entire group is through a male mindset because that's the way it works. Bringing a female in would not only make everything extremely uncomfortable, tense, etc. but would cause the operation of the unit as a whole to degredate severely.

People said the same thing about letting females on construction sites.

My brother has actually fought with females before, in front line combat. The girls were Afghani translators and ended up being ambushed several times and very quickly their position became a front line. They shared a hole in the ground for a toilet. One of the girls was given a medal.

How is this a problem? Does the concept of sharing go out the window when a female is involved?

And even if privacy is broken, as it was in the case of my brother's situation - so what? Sometimes war is like that. Females understand this just as well as you do. What's the matter in seeing the body of the sex you are attracted to? Gay men are in the military. Gay men are in environments where there is only one shower between 20 people - does that make it inappropriate?

As someone who went to an all boys boarding school, I can tell you that the male group mindset exists in full swing. And I can tell you that's the way the military wants their front-line groups to work.

Once again, you've not listed a single example of how. All this stuff you are saying could have come out of the mouth of a construction worker in the 40s.

And I'll also tell you the Australian Prime Minister is goddamn retarded and uses sweeping statements like "Men and woman are equal" which are utterly fucking meaningless. Because you know what? We're not. We're not equal, because we're not the same. An apple and an orange are not equal. They share many characteristics, but they're not the same and you're a fool if you pretend they are.

Sorry, but bucket loads of scientific research seems to continue to confirm that females and males are incredibly alike. The common belief at the moment is that society is the main factor in separating the two. There is a lot of truth in Gillard saying "males and females are equal". She does have a lot of science on her side.

We're more alike than you think. Most of our differences are purely societal.

A'le huge snip

It always takes me back when I look at my thinking and realize how sexist/racist ect it was. That's probably a problem with me accepting arguments without thinking them through tho, need to work on that.
Great post, agree with you 100%
Internet high five?

Sure! *puts hand on screen*

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Um, women are already a part of frontline combat. Granted, there aren't many women, and a lot of the jobs given to women are PR missions where they try and turn a town against the terrorists, but they're still there.

 

[Liudeius]

Wars use guns. CQC is something you really shouldn't get into, but when well trained, muscle is not as important. If anything women have an advantage as they would be smaller targets and have less body weight to move around (therefore more agile and perhaps better endurance).

 

[joshuaayt]

If they pass the same physical examinations, why the hell not? I will say that most women probably would find the physical stresses more difficult to handle, but we cannot do this by gender any more- I've met women who are more than a match for even well built males. Why don't we, instead, base entry level on those compulsory physical exams? That way, we'd allow capable women, and disallow the men who can't take it.

Mixing women and men in the same combat units is simply asking for trouble. Maybe the average male would not take on extra risk to save the average female and vice versa, but what happens when two soldiers become romantically attached or sexually involved?

Relations already do exist in the military, without input from women. A homosexual couple will take the same risks you just mentioned.

 

[Kamaitachi]

For this, I refer to Terry Schappert when I say that the military in not a place for political hanky panky. It's a death machine. It should only be changed if the changes make it deadlier and more resilient. Otherwise, fuck you and your politically correct bullshit.

Should women serve on the frontlines? Doubtful. Unless their physical fitness requirements are brought up to equal those of the men, fuck no. Even then, there is no personal space between soldiers on the frontlines, which means there will most likely be some sexual tension (regardless of most military women being very not-pretty). Sexual tension may reduce the military's deadliness.

I support everything this guy just said, why on earth would anyone make compromises and reduce combat effectiveness just so around, what? 3% of the female population can act all butch and boost their own ego's.

what is the world coming to, we're compromising our own protection from possible invasion (although unlikely in this current world state) just so we can be all FUCK YEAH, IT'S COOL TO BE A WOMAN.

 

[Liudeius]

Quote

To put it in the strictest military terms: *Boom* Headshot

 

[DefunctTheory]

actually we do, many women are over in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting with men

Not in combat arms, not in combat MOSs, and not, by any measure, in a planned fashion.

Like I've stated before. There is a vast difference between support personal getting into fire fights, and combat teams.

 

[Kortney]

snip

Forgive for not replying to the first part of your post. It's just you haven't said anything other than "atmosphere" and ...."just because!".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/womens-brains-uareu-different-from-mens-ndash-and-heres-scientific-proof-870849.html and http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2910040/scientific_differences_between_male.html?cat=5

"Men and women show differences in behaviour because their brains are physically distinct organs, new research suggests... these differences were often explained by the action of adult sex hormones, or by social pressures that encouraged males and females to behave in a certain way. Increasingly, however, these assumptions are being challenged"

So that "common belief" seems to be, well, incorrect.

I'm well aware there a differences between the two brains. I am talking more about fundamentals. The difference is really, really small.

Also, there are differences in brains between one guy to another. It means nothing. If someone wants to be a soldier, passes all the tests, performs fine under pressure and does their job - what does it matter? Should we start scanning men's brains to see if they have a big enough Dorsal Premammillary Nucleus to act as a soldier? Or should we just acknowledge the fact that his performance record is just as good as everyone else's?

---

But really (and this is my main point), I have reality on my side. Hundreds and hundreds of women from all over the world have been involved in direct combat over the last few years and there has been no incident that confirms anything you are saying.

If women shouldn't be in direct combat - how come they have functioned so well in it so far? How come there hasn't been a report of a female fucking up because of her female brain?

Hmm interesting.

To be frank, this is one of those discussions where if you had a point - we would have seen it by now and you would be able to cite recent, real life examples where a female hasn't performed in combat. Good luck finding that example - because everything I've read and heard from both official sources and anecdotal evidence from my brothers says they are just as good a soldier as they are and they do their jobs just as professionally.

 

[Aur0ra145]

No. In my experiences women do not preform as well as men on a physical scale (in most cases.) Therefore, allowing women to serve in ground combat units would only have a negative effect on the effectiveness of a given unit.

With that being said. If a women could meet EVERY SINGLE REQUIREMENT a male must perform to be deemed ready for combat, then fine, let them serve. This is not on the current APFT standards, there wouldn't be a bracket for women. Do the exact same as men in every respect. That means everything, shitting in holes, humping a pack, standing watch, knocking out bunkers, Security, all of it. Oh, do I even need to mention the psychological effect it will have on the women? Not about combat, but from their peers in the unit. Let's be completely honest, a chick in a combat unit will have to deal with a LOT of shit from other soldiers for merely being there.

 

[Kortney]

snip

Christ you're thick. Like, I thought this discussion was going pretty well, but honestly, if you just want to pretend I'm saying things, or that I need to have some proof that woman can't serve, an argument entirely unrelated, or something, then fuck, there's no point saying anything further.

I mean shit, you're asking for proof to do with arguments I'm not making. I'd have to say you're just making shit up and replying to that by this point.

And I also like the way you think there's something more fundamental to a human than the brain. That was pretty funny.

Everything you've said is totally unrelated

Your claim: Women shouldn't serve in the military.

You've not given me one reason as to why other than because you think so.

You've not listed one example where a woman has failed to perform under combat (there aren't any that I have seen).

Everything points to the fact that women perform just fine under combat.

What's wrong with me bringing these points up? Because you can't answer them?

If your claim had any weight then there would be lots of real life evidence to support it. Women have been involved in combat quite heavily, especially in the last few years, and yet there aren't any reports of a woman not functioning well under combat. This is a very valid criticism of your mentality - because reality contradicts what you are saying.

And yes, minute differences in the human brain shouldn't and don't dictate your job profession. Males have different brains to other males. It is entirely possible for a male to be born with a differently wired brain to another male and it happens every day. That isn't a problem for them.

Also, lay off the ad hominem .

 

[LewsTherin]

If they want to be in the army, let them. If there's a draft, I expect them to be bleeding in the trenches beside me as well.

 

[DefunctTheory]

---

But really (and this is my main point), I have reality on my side. Hundreds and hundreds of women from all over the world have been involved in direct combat over the last few years and there has been no incident that confirms anything you are saying.

If women shouldn't be in direct combat - how come they have functioned so well in it so far? How come there hasn't been a report of a female fucking up because of her female brain?

Jessica Lynch.

Just playing devil's advocate. You said there was none, but there's one.

 

[Zenode]

Women have a more difficult time keeping their physical fitness compared to men, sure they may pass the original tests but whats to say that they wont decrease in fitness level. I said they in MOST cases they arent as physically adept not strong, what i mean is that they are unable to stay as fit for the same amount of time as males, leading to them having to do more training to keep that fitness up.

Males and Female are INTELLECTUAL equals, Not PHYSICAL equals, otherwise evolution would have just made us all hermaphrodites and called it a day.

 

[Cazza]

my major concern is the words capture & rape spring to mind. Other then that I believe women can pass the same standards as men do.

 

[Kortney]

Because they're meaningless.

Well I apologise. You said:

but disagree overall and say that they shouldn't.

So you can see how I thought that. English is my third language so I struggle seeing the difference between shouldn't and couldn't and context is hard for me. I clearly don't possess amazing literacy. My bad.

Besides, I misinterpreted you, so what? I don't really see why you had to act like a three year old and insult my intelligence. A simple explanation without curse words and insults would have been nice. But I'm sure you have never misinterpreted anyone and I apologise for being such an idiot. Because I totally am. You know me well enough to judge that.

I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.

I am talking about the group. About the unit. About a group of men who think and act like men. You bring a woman in, and the ENTIRE DYNAMIC is fucked. Either she will suffer, parts of the group will suffer, or the group as a whole will suffer. The way the Australian military operates, and especially at the front line, is through masculinity..

It's all opinion. Leave it there.

From every soldier I know and talk to they tell me their dynamic is run on professionalism, a hard work ethic, following orders and training/preparation. Maybe soldiers in Australia are different and their masculinity and their large testicles is what gets them out of hot water.

snip

I don't know much about Jessica Lynch, but from what I heard she was knocked out, had her weapon jam and was taken prisoner - then later rescued by special forces. Doesn't sound like she could have done much - but like I said I don't know the story.

But it does highlight another point I needed to make: letting females serve alongside males in direct combat would prevent this because it would ensure female soldiers have had the same amount of training as male soldiers. I'm fairly certain that today, as it stands, US male soldiers are trained and trialled harder than females. This is wrong.

 

[Hader]

Your claim: Women shouldn't serve in the military.

You've not given me one reason as to why other than because you think so.

You've not listen one example where a woman has failed to perform under combat (there aren't any that I have seen).

Everything points to the fact that women perform just fine under combat.

What's wrong with me bringing these points up? Because you can't answer them?

Because they're meaningless. You should run for Australian Prime Minister, you seem fit for it. I've never said they can't perform. I've never once said they couldn't. Yet you keep asking me to tell you why they can't, and it's doing my head in. Christ, I told you at the start I agreed with everything you said.

I am talking about the group. About the unit. About a group of men who think and act like men. You bring a woman in, and the ENTIRE DYNAMIC is fucked. Either she will suffer, parts of the group will suffer, or the group as a whole will suffer. The way the Australian military operates, and especially at the front line, is through masculinity. For the love of God, please tell me you at least understand what I'm saying and will stop asking me useless questions.

ALSO WAIT. You got my claim wrong as well. I'm talking about the front line, not the whole thing.

You assume that the dynamics of an all male squad would be fucked. Can you even show this claim to be true, and consistent?

 

[DefunctTheory]

snip

I don't know much about Jessica Lynch, but from what I heard she was knocked out, had her weapon jam and was taken prisoner - then later rescued by special forces. Doesn't sound like she could have done much - but like I said I don't know the story.

Jessica Lynch had her weapon jam. Instead of clearing the weapon (Which takes all of 5 seconds), she threw down her fire arm and gave up. This was early on in the engagement, when most of her convo was still alive.

To make matters worse, she has, on an occasion or two, said she see's nothing wrong with her actions. She apparently see's no problem with letting her fellow soldier's die fighting while she cowered in the sand.

Oh, which brings up a second female: the driver that took a wrong turn and screwed the convo over was a women. Fun fun.

Like I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, even though I do find this women to be a sorry, sorry excuse for a veteran.

But it does highlight another point I needed to make: letting females serve alongside males in direct combat would prevent this because it would ensure female soldiers have had the same amount of training as male soldiers. I'm fairly certain that today, as it stands, US male soldiers are trained and trialled harder than females. This is wrong.

Actually, female soldier receive the same exact training most support male soldiers get (With the exception of those who are lucky enough to go to Benning, the last basic Training site to refuse to fuck around).

I went to Benning, so there were no females, but if my friends can be believed, 75% of the female soldiers in Basic spent more time fucking then training. Probably an exaggeration. More like 40% is my guess.

Which brings up another point: If you can't even make it through a 2 month training course without boning around with COMPLETE strangers (This is both males and females), how can you make it a YEAR in a combat tour?