Women in Frontline Combat?

[Captain Pirate]

As you already pointed out, they are generally not as strong as males. Men would take more risks to protect them thus putting their own lives on the line.
Plus they would need separate facilities not to mention the prevalence of rape of women in the military.
Basically its just a huge hassle and creates a lot of unnecessary risks just for the sake of appeasing a few chicks egos.

However, if another world war broke out, another draft introduced, then yeah, women had better have their asses on the front line. If my ass is forced into service then theirs had damn well better be too.

Practically ninja'd my thoughts on this one.
Literally everything I was gonna say; most men'd go "[chivalry] Shit, the lady's in danger! [/chivalry]" and rush in to protect them more so than a fellow male. I know I would.
That coupled with the fact that a very small % of infantry would be female, it really is just too much hassle.

But then again, I agree with the World War statement too. If a woman wants to protect her country, then she should be able to at the drop of a hat. If it were a World War it would be a different matter; right now my country (England) isn't exactly in immediate and terrible danger, but if it were, and we needed everyone available, sure let them all in.

 

[ten.to.ten]

wow, i didn't think women were still being denied the same rights as men in australia...
that's fucked up

Uhh, the USA still doesn't allow women in some combat roles. America was also one of the last developed (and for that matter, well behind tons of developing) countries to allow gay people to serve, and it's still technically not over yet, so I'd be more concerned with the inequalities in your own country.

As for the OP, of course they should be able to serve. So men might react differently to a woman dying than a man dying? That's their problem, a group of people shouldn't be excluded from an institution because another group of people would be uncomfortable, and it could easily be fixed with training anyway.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Israel learned the hard way not to put women on the front, it would be sad to see that experience go to waste.

Sorry to bother you but could you elaborate a bit on that please? it sounds like you're one of the few people here who isn't preaching from an abstract viewpoint and I'd be interested in seeing what actually happened in practice.

Also: brushie brushie brushie!

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23886

"The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield"

This is the closest thing I could find.

 

[Lineoutt]

snip

First off I want to say gratz on the MM score, havnt seen anything that high yet

Secondly, as a female who has played lazer tag and paintball I can confidently say that I'm glad women arent put on the front lines. I say this purely because if I was ever drafted I wouldnt want to die instantly. Also I agree with your idea that women might affect the psyche of men as well as the other way around. If you want to be a soldier you have to be ready to ditch the idea of humanity and detach yourself from the enemy and your allies. If you develop connections than you have the potential to be more emotionally fucked than you thought possible.

Men and women are all about connections because we have an instinct to reproduce and we have a need for sex. I have heard of many rapes going on in the army when there are both girls and guys there and I really think there is no way around drama when you have both girls and guys. Have you ever been to camp?

snip snip

Hey you, yes you. How would you like it if a women constantly got favored in the work force, always made more money, got more respect as a leader, and was safer in the streets and just in general. I bet you would feel mad because there is no way of expressing your frustration with out people saying "Lol your a masculinazi, boo throw things at him"

People need to understand that women and men are intellectual equals, not physical equals. For the love of christ don't get so deluded that you switch up facts. I think women who say otherwise are lying to themselves. But I respect the fact that they want to be as good and are willing to work to get it (see million dollar baby). All the anti-feminists and feminist extremists need to understand this; because as long as we can't separate those two we will never have equality.

Women aren't men! We are made for babies, not for hunting. But we're just as smart as men and we don't have to prove ourselves as hunters for that to be an accepted fact. And guess what men, it sucks that you have the double responsibility of being adroit physically and mentally. But shelter yourself in the fact that you will have a much lower chance of being raped after the age of 18, and you don't have to worry about having babies.

END RANT

...

 

[Smooth Operator]

On first thought it seem like it should be ok, but if you get into it a little more:
- frontline soldiers are prone to hand to hand combat, smaller combatants are at a huge disadvantage there
- likelihood of capture/torture, yes soldiers aren't supposed to be tortured anymore but war is war and noone gives a rats ass about rules, and if a female is captured you can take a wild guess what the most likely form of abuse will be...
- sexual tension, frontline soldiers will spend alot of time together relying on eachother, now while a bromance between two guys wont go anywhere there is a high possibility that opposite sexes get infatuated (really bad idea for soldiers)
- endurance, without equipment this is no issue at all(half size requires only half the power) but fully packed weaker soldiers will have problems keeping up

And why would you even want to go to the front lines, cannon fodder isn't exactly the most prestigious job you can get.

 

[Xixikal]

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.

My earlier post was saying exactly what you are now. I was commenting on the hypocrisy that can be feminism, whilst promoting equality of men and women on the frontlines.

 

[ten.to.ten]

Also, everyone here should remember this thread next time someone posts another thread about dating or virginity, truly, the amount of sexism exhibited here answers any questions anyone might have about why it's so hard to get laid.

 

[Baalthazaq]

Suggested methodology:

Work out how many troops it would be worth having to compensate for the cost of inclusion.

Lets say, Y troops would be worth the cost of modifying the military to include them. Any less means the costs outweigh the benefit.

See how many recruits you get total. If under Y, abort.
Take maximum number of them at random for training.

See how many pass.
If X% pass, assume X% of total will pass.
If X% of total < Y, don't include them.
If X% of total > Y, include them.

 

[JAWZxZ]

I say yes. As much as I dislike Gillard, I like her opinion on this.
There really is no reason women shouldn't be on the frontline.

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 cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires pysichal skill that most women just have.

What you're referring to is called "Nightingale Syndrome", and if soldiers are properly trained it wouldn't be a risk.
Also, you're assuming that ALL females are physically weaker then ALL males. Which is not the case. If a woman is apt and able, why shouldn't she serve?

Sorry, I just wanted to point out, that the OP did say "in most cases" which is the truth. He never said anything about all...

OT: I think if a woman goes through the same tests as a male and does well enough to qualify as anyone else would there should be no issue, though the point about if she got wounded is valid.

 

[Grospoliner]

Actually women a perfectly able to perform in front-line combat roles.

They can command: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica

They can fight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military#World_War_II

They can conduct special operations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/707th_Special_Mission_Battalion

The fact of the matter is they CAN do everything a man can including combat. So all of your arguments against women serving in battle are invalid. It is childish and insecure in this day and age to think of women as fragile or somehow inferior. With proper training and determination it makes no difference. If you're concerned about rape? Then execute soldiers who commit those crimes like we're supposed to.

 

[Sicram]

Women would at least serve better as scouts and snipers. To begin with they have a slower (genrally) metabolism and procentually more skin fat than men. All in all it makes females to go on for longer. While men have the strength women have the stamina. Generally.

While the psychological kinks can be ironed out to a grat extent there's still a biological matter. Periods, I think this monthly cycle can mess shit up really, really bad. Then again it varies, some suffer from PMS and go bananas and some aren't too affected. This could be fixed with hormonal drugs, I think.

At any rate, I don't think it's too bad if women would be at the frontlines. Hell, I read somewhere that in general it's more likely that a person listens to a womans voice than a mans voice. Don't remember all the details.

And if I'd for some reason be in any army, get shot and yell "medic" I wouldn't mind the medic being female. (not because of skill or anything like that, it's equal, I just like girls )

 

[Lineoutt]

On first thought it seem like it should be ok, but if you get into it a little more:
- frontline soldiers are prone to hand to hand combat, smaller combatants are at a huge disadvantage there
- likelihood of capture/torture, yes soldiers aren't supposed to be tortured anymore but war is war and noone gives a rats ass about rules, and if a female is captured you can take a wild guess what the most likely form of abuse will be...
- sexual tension, frontline soldiers will spend alot of time together relying on eachother, now while a bromance between two guys wont go anywhere there is a high possibility that opposite sexes get infatuated (really bad idea for soldiers)
- endurance, without equipment this is no issue at all(half size requires only half the power) but fully packed weaker soldiers will have problems keeping up

And why would you even want to go to the front lines, cannon fodder isn't exactly the most prestigious job you can get.

Thank you!

I totally agree with everything here.
+10 internets

 

[The Mapper]

Of course women should be allowed to serve.

And please, have you actually seen guys in the military? They're not all muscle-bound fucking Terminators. As long as the women pass the same required fitness tests then go nuts. If it means there are less women in the military then so be it, but actually banning them because they are generally not as strong (strong =/= fit/conditioned) is ludicrous.

I think the idea that men will suddenly become illogical apes at the sight of a woman in trouble (any more so then seeing a friend they've served with for years in trouble) is also a little bit of cock slap to the face of the guys who have been trained to deal with such situations.

well said

 

[Xixikal]

However: I say let them take all the same tests as the men, and if they pass them all, and enough pass them all that it is worth investing in any changes required to accommodate them, I take it all back.

Yes, that is what many are saying. If she is able, then why not?

 

[thecoreyhlltt]

wow, i didn't think women were still being denied the same rights as men in australia...
that's fucked up

Uhh, the USA still doesn't allow women in some combat roles. America was also one of the last developed (and for that matter, well behind tons of developing) countries to allow gay people to serve, and it's still technically not over yet, so I'd be more concerned with the inequalities in your own country.

As for the OP, of course they should be able to serve. So men might react differently to a woman dying than a man dying? That's their problem, a group of people shouldn't be excluded from an institution because another group of people would be uncomfortable, and it could easily be fixed with training anyway.

starting this summer openly gay people will be serving their first, probably not really their first, tour. i never said america was perfect, i just thought we were we were one of the stragglers. i would'nt have guessed australia was so behind as well... that's all i really meant

 

[Zenode]

snip

First off I want to say gratz on the MM score, havnt seen anything that high yet

Thanks for that, although i got nothing

From the rest of what you said i completely agree, the difference between being intellectual equals and physical equals is a big one that most people cant understand.

This isnt about equality as much being able to fight in a combat situation/operate properly in training.

 

[Xixikal]

Sorry, I just wanted to point out, that the OP did say "in most cases" which is the truth. He never said anything about all...
.

Yeah, I realised. I was just pointing out my POV, not trying to negate his - we were both saying pretty much the same thing.

 

[zehydra]

There's something funny about people fighting for their right to kill

 

[Baalthazaq]

Sorry, can I also just say... this isn't about women in the Army. It is women as frontline fighters.

Women in the airforce is a great idea. It boosts their number 20%. They are capable and in many cases better than their male counterparts on many fronts. I have no problems with a woman even as a general.

This is, should we be using them to fight toe to toe with males of equivalent training, and minimal technology shift in a situation where physical might rules?

We don't do it in tennis for chrissakes.

 

[Gudrests]

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY mean equal responsibility as well.....or else how can you hold a male and female n the same light if...hurr durr one can get shot and and one cant. What it boils down to is if they are told no front line, then they cannot complain if passed over for a promotion. It is a key part of the job, and you say you cannot do it? im sorry thats called no qualified for the position.