Women in Frontline Combat?

[KalosCast]

I don't think sex or gender should matter as long as they're physically able to do what the job requires.

 

[Drago-Morph]

There is no doubt you're right. Feminists will call for 'equality' until the first female soldier is killed. A women deserves to serve if she is able, just as a man deserve to not be the only one sacrificing his life.

Wow. Anyone who does that isn't actually a feminist, in my opinion. I also don't believe you. I'd be as equally encouraging of women who are willing to die for their country as men. If a woman feels that she can go defuse the bomb, at risk of blowing herself into tiny bits all over the landscape, then she should be trained and let to do it. If she dies, she knew what she was getting into, just like the man that could have been in her place.

I say that anyone who won't let women in combat should also not let women do other physically taxing things, and then they become a sexist jerk. Women can climb Mount Everest, swim the English Channel, all that...but they can't hold a gun and keep up with the men on the front lines?

Men who can't take the sight of a woman getting hurt are old-school and need to get over themselves. The next time America ever has a draft, if it does, they should draft women also. Not because I particularly _want_ to go out and get killed, but because it's fair. Women, with suitable physical training, are comparable to men until you get to ridiculous proportions, so long as they train hard enough.

Also, think about this: many extremely skilled Russian snipers were female. If you want to go with physical advantage, we have a higher pain tolerance and greater dexterity. We're smaller and thus can hide under things more easily, get through smaller spaces, and not be giant bullseyes.

Many countries have used women in the military, even in front combat -- Russia, I believe Israel requires service for both men and women, etc.

So do it. If she can keep up, she can fight. Jeez. It's not like having a vagina and a pair of boobs prevents you from doing any of this stuff.

This. A thousand times this.

I mean, there will be people who argue to pain tolerance thing, but you were right on the dexterity and size, so your point stands. There's a huge variety of things that women are more physically capable at than men.

So I applaud you for saying what most of the supporters have been trying to say.

 

[xdiesp]

What else is to understand, that all they need is meatshields to fill bodybags? If they could, they would send in children to conquer a little more oil.

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

im fine with females serving in combat but what i dont agree with is when they offer a handicap for women. combat doesnt get easier just because your a woman and the training is meant to train them for combat, so why make it easier for women? if women wish to enlist they must be held to the same standards as everyone else. the point of training is to weed out those who would not be able to handle direct combat and when you put a double standard in place it defeats the entire purpose

 

[Treblaine]

Honestly I'm sick of debating this with people who don't know what the army needs, I find it telling that the soldiers who've posted here seem to have experience of working with women and it hasn't been all that good.

Consider this, you appeared to have missed a very important detail when debating with me:

I'm not a Yank.

The American numbers mean absolutely nothing to me, my country's army is considerably smaller and worse funded. I think the army gets to discriminate however the hell they want to get the job done, simple as.

Neither am I, but this IS an American forum. I've always taken the American perspective because of the demographics of these here forums.

What should it matter anyway about who is yank or which country we talk about, we are talking principals here, and UK and USA are not that different. Remember, this is not a PM conversation, this is for the benefit of the whole forum. Also since American forces are still the largest single country running military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan the decisions on this issue are far more pertinent to the wars of today.

As to our Great Britain, well women are already in front-line rolls, most notably flying close air support missions in Libya. I frankly find it frustrating to debate British military policy as there is just so little information and all to often what is decided and what is done is not followed through as British activity is so limited in Iraq and Afghanistan.


"I think the army gets to discriminate however the hell they want to get the job done, simple as."

If the military establishment had their own way then the Armed forces would be very different. They pushed for women in the military but they want to have their cake and eat it, they seem to just want them to sure up logistics but are strangely reluctant to admit they could take on an aggressive role.

FYI women who have been put on the front line in a non-aggressive role as field-medics, dog-handlers and bomb-disposal specialists. This put them under HUGE risk from enemy action, especially considering the enemy's tactics.

This shows the British Army's concern is not the increased concern of women being killed in combat, they seem to be concerned about them doing the killing.

Which is interesting as historically women have proven to be adept at war, society seem to accept he idea of them killing the enemy on the battlefield. Do they think they somehow cannot do it within the army as it is?

This is why it cannot be left entirely down to the Army or Navy or Air Force but ultimately with the wider ministry of Defence, a democratically elected and appointed body to determine this matter.

"I find it telling that the soldiers who've posted here seem to have experience of working with women and it hasn't been all that good."

Can't you see the obvious reason women have a poor reputation on manoeuvres: it is all in vain. When a male infantryman trains he knows he is training for the real deal, very likely one day he will be dropped into a bullet hell and he will NEED his training and competency to survive and succeed. Women always know they will never be asked to go toe to toe with the enemy.

It's like saying some reservist is performing poorly when he knows he will only have to fight an enemy that physically invades his homeland, and extremely unlikely possibility.

I do hope you read the link I gave to you, about how women CAN fight, especially in all-female units where they can be particularly aggressive. It demonstrates how outside western Europe (and by extension outside former European colonies) women warriors are quite common and expected. Hell even in France and Britain many women tried damn hard to fight in the ensuing wars but were constantly denied.

I know from personal experience how tough women can be, how well they can perform under extreme circumstances and how they can even be uniquely adept.

 

[D0WNT0WN]

Let women do it.

They want equality lets give it to them.

 

[Chemical Alia]

I have absolutely no idea what kind of bra she was wearing, but i can confirm that she was less than intelligent.... And the reason we were all forced to carry their packs was because our officers believed in a very subtle but effective punishment: make them feel like everyone of their friends were suffering because of them. Guilt can be a powerful motivator.

Sounds like bad laundry management, lmao. I remember that punishment, and it's when I saw the most people break down and cry. Whether it was because someone couldn't finish their water canteen or a fatty took a doughnut from the DFAC, they'd almost always break down after a few minutes of seeing the rest of us in front leaning rest 6" off the ground.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Absolutely. As a Canadian, I am aware that we have one of the most integrated Armed Forces, with a very high number of women operating in combat. I hope that Australia follows suit.

 

[Treblaine]

What else is to understand, that all they need is meatshields to fill bodybags? If they could, they would send in children to conquer a little more oil.

Nope. THIS is how you get your mits on a load of oil:

Bombing Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc was for something far far more valuable to politicians than oil: votes.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc has been the precise antithesis to an oil-grabbing agenda.

 

[Sun Flash]

I'm all for equality and everything, but unless WW3 breaks out and conscription is mandatory, wouldn't it just be easier to keep men on the front line?

For me, it has nothing to do with men being stronger or turning into blithering apes at the sight of a damsel in distress. But when it's that time of the month, women change. Hell, it usually KOs me for a few days when it comes around. It sounds stupid but seriously, periods fucking hurt to the point every single thing you do only makes it worse. Add to that the hormonal imbalances that happen and a woman in heat is dangerous shit. Not to mention that due to regulations, you would have several women sharing barrack and when they synchronise, it's not pretty. Then to put these women in a highly dangerous and stressful environment? The problems that would cause would far outweigh what we gain from equality.

Plus the hygiene, having lady parts is freakin' gross. Men are much easier to keep sanitary.


TL;DR it causes ore problems than it solves, so... nyeh.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

As long as they conform to the same standards, I'm all for it. The way we do things now is just a disgraceful waste of resources.

 

[Luke Merriman]

i reckon women should be aloud to serve but think about if a wormen gets captured there is not going be women interrogating another women its going to be man and most of those times they will probley rape

 

[funguy2121]

when everything goes tits up, a servicemember with a gun is a servicemember with a gun. They have the same function, be it providing cover fire or simply taking out the enemy.

Females are not serving as Front Line Combat Medics. Sorry.

Reading comprehension. There is no front line. Women experience combat in Afghanistan on a regular basis. You are forgiven.

There is a difference between being in combat as a support soldier, and being a front line combat soldier. A huge difference.

But if you want to keep arguing with a soldier, go for it.

I won't. Instead I'll inquire as to the nature of the difference. Are the bullets whizzing overhead any different?

I'm not arguing that their jobs aren't different on paper. I'm stating that women see combat on a regular basis. And once again: THERE IS NO FRONT LINE.

 

[Xisin]

But if there's a war, I should be forced onto to the front lines against my will, even if I was a cheerful anti-violent housewife?

Men are drafted regardless if they are cheerful and anti-violent. Why would women be any different?

That's my point. If in an emergency both men and women should be treated the same, why is there a huge difference when freedom of choice is involved.

My example was to point out the double standard. If a woman "shouldn't" fight on the frontlines, why was it it ok to draft them? It didn't make sense to me.

 

[hortez the champion of the frozen wastes]

The amount of blatant sexism in this thread is appalling. Absolutely appalling. even from people supporting women on the front lines.

Feminists will call for 'equality' until the first female soldier is killed.

Feminists. They whine on about equality and then when they get it, still they're unsatisfied.
Don't get me wrong,"I'm not anti-women but" equality is a goal that humankind should strive towards. And that includes both men and women sacrificing themselves on the frontline. So feminists should probably shut up.

Personally I don't believe that females should serve on the frontline of combat. If a woman is in a combat scenario and gets injured it will more than likely affect the male soldiers psyche differently then if another male soldier was wounded and may cause them to make more rash decisions than they normally would.. In MOST, YES MOST NOT ALL cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires physical skill that MOST women just dont have especially if they came up against another male in a CQC scenario the physically larger male will have an advantage straight up.

I forgot to add earlier:

It's also completely unfair that men risk their lives while women are holed up, safe and sound. It's as much about rights for women as it is as rights for men.

Actually the really fanatical feminists who want to kill men et cetera are a tiny minority. Most of them are pushing for EQUALITY, for both men and women.

To Mackheath's last quote, yes I suppose that would be unfair. If it actually happened.

To the OP, you are a very sexist person with little understanding of the way the military, men, and women act.

And Xixikal, see my above paragraph. You may just be ignorant about feminism and not actually sexist, which isn't nearly as bad. But really, we're not all bad.

 

[Zenode]

To the OP, you are a very sexist person with little understanding of the way the military, men, and women act.

Sexist? How? Women ARE physically weaker then men, that's not being sexist, that's just straight fact.

How do I not know how men and women act? I don't hide away in a basement i do understand humans and how they act.

 

[satanic kitty]

here is what will happen:

soldier: hey baby whats your name?
woman: Sarah. Your cute.
soldier: hey maybe when this war is over, we can go out for some coffee and maybe, you know*...(head shot)

 

[chowderface]

This has probably already been said in such a long thread, but I probably missed it. They've actually done studies, and not (officially*) putting women in front-line combat is actually for the benefit of squad efficiency...on the part of the MEN. When men and women are in a squad together, the men take unreasonable risks and go out of their way to protect the women above all else. Leaving women out of direct combat situations keeps the men on task and in general gets more of them home alive.

That said I'm all for equality, so as soon as we buck that particular hang-up, I don't see why anything except maybe physiology (particularly small women? Maybe shouldn't be carrying around sixty pounds of combat gear. Do we let really small guys do that? I don't think we should let tiny men do that either) should keep women off the front lines.

*Not officially because what constitutes not being on the front lines is a little blurry at times these days.

 

[hortez the champion of the frozen wastes]

To the OP, you are a very sexist person with little understanding of the way the military, men, and women act.

Sexist? How? Women ARE physically weaker then men, that's not being sexist, that's just straight fact.

How do I not know how men and women act? I don't hide away in a basement i do understand humans and how they act.

That wasn't what I was referring to. What I was referring to was the fact that you used the same argument used to keep black people and gay people out of the army: they might cause a problem with their differentness. Black people might cause people to have less faith in the team, gay people might cause sexual discomfort, women might not be as strong.
None of that matters because, to quote Kierkegaard, "when you label me, you negate me." When you put all women under the same stereotype, you are being sexist. Period. That's what, in a nutshell, sexism is.
When you say that women are weaker than men, you may be right. However women are PROVEN to be more dextrous, are more flexible, and have higher pain tolerance, which evens it out quite a bit. Both men and women have their pros and cons, for example, you could argue that men shouldn't be allowed on the front lines because they have a LOWER pain tolerance.
Another thing, when you argue Florence Nightengale effect, you insult soldiers by saying they would be more likely to risk their lives for a girl they might not know very well, but you see nothing wrong with someone risking their life to save a someone who they have BONDED WITH THROUGH WAR.

 

[WolfThomas]

Ah, okay, I misunderstood you. Yes, I would imagine male infantrymen will remain a majority for the foreseeable future, though I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the line it goes right about 50/50. Particularly with warfare getting lighter, faster, more remote, and more digitized all the time, brute strength isn't as important as it once was. Or we could just make exosuits more practical and less bulky, and problem solved.

I don't think it would ever be truly 50/50. There will probably always be more men enlisting, wanting to be infantry and passing the training course. But I think that in time something like 10-20% could be achievable.

For me, it has nothing to do with men being stronger or turning into blithering apes at the sight of a damsel in distress. But when it's that time of the month, women change. Hell, it usually KOs me for a few days when it comes around. It sounds stupid but seriously, periods fucking hurt to the point every single thing you do only makes it worse. Add to that the hormonal imbalances that happen and a woman in heat is dangerous shit. Not to mention that due to regulations, you would have several women sharing barrack and when they synchronise, it's not pretty. Then to put these women in a highly dangerous and stressful environment? The problems that would cause would far outweigh what we gain from equality.

Plus the hygiene, having lady parts is freakin' gross. Men are much easier to keep sanitary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirena

I think if you were going to train female infantry, you'd probably have to make these mandatory or at least strongly suggested. They have next to no negative side effects, provide contraception and prevent periods.

But a lot of the problems you suggested female soliders in support roles already have to deal with.