I hear all this men are stronger in the thread. Women can carry a rifle and have endurance similar to men after training. This isn't the day and age of wearing full plate and swinging broadswords. Sorry, but if strength is going to be used as an excuse then better define it and post some research saying it has inhibited women's performance in the military. A military to look at would be women in the IDF.
Women in Frontline Combat?
- Thread starter Zenode
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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 ?
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 ?
They don't have female front line soldiers, also they don't get hand to hand combat training anywhere near as good as what the males get.Kuhkren said:
Getting guard duty in towns is not the same as front line combat.
From a biological perspective, no. I don't like the idea of putting the only half of the species capable of propagation in a knowingly hazardous situation. Especially when we take a look at this from a World War perspective which compounds the issue further. Others have already discussed the physical requirements of front line combat (although I haven?t seen anyone mention the requirement of pulling another solider off the field oddly) and the obvious physical differences between the genders.
From a sociological perspective, no. Unless I stop seeing the obvious examples of white-knighting on internet forums and the intuitive leaps in morale, both for the allied and enemy units, then it isn?t realistic. As much as it amuses me to think of an all female unit on PMS taking their rage out on enemy soldiers, the numerous examples of public reaction to female soldiers in various situations further muddies the overall idea. Jessica Lynch anyone?
From a progressive perspective, try it out. Just because something works for someone, doesn?t mean it will work for another. Try an all female unit and a mixed unit. Rate their performance based on current requirements. If after a few years (yes, years, because it requires that much time to gather the appropriate data) they perform well and don?t create any unforeseen issues, then expand.
I can?t really comment on the examples provided in the thread thus far though regarding women in these roles. Most of them have been statistical anomalies, and the military won?t hedge their bets on a long shot.
From a sociological perspective, no. Unless I stop seeing the obvious examples of white-knighting on internet forums and the intuitive leaps in morale, both for the allied and enemy units, then it isn?t realistic. As much as it amuses me to think of an all female unit on PMS taking their rage out on enemy soldiers, the numerous examples of public reaction to female soldiers in various situations further muddies the overall idea. Jessica Lynch anyone?
From a progressive perspective, try it out. Just because something works for someone, doesn?t mean it will work for another. Try an all female unit and a mixed unit. Rate their performance based on current requirements. If after a few years (yes, years, because it requires that much time to gather the appropriate data) they perform well and don?t create any unforeseen issues, then expand.
I can?t really comment on the examples provided in the thread thus far though regarding women in these roles. Most of them have been statistical anomalies, and the military won?t hedge their bets on a long shot.
It's a bad idea.
Getting women into the mix adds nothing, it just takes away from the effectiveness of the whole military. It would cause confusion in the field and a lot of unnecessary hassle in the base, and besides, women are not just designed for marching or combat anyway.
And if we're gonna have to have wars, then for gods sake don't drag any more unfortunate people in. This just wouldn't be necessary, and it would be stupid too, just to make a couple of feminist bitches feel valuated.
There are lines that you must cross, and lines that don't have to be crossed.
Getting women into the mix adds nothing, it just takes away from the effectiveness of the whole military. It would cause confusion in the field and a lot of unnecessary hassle in the base, and besides, women are not just designed for marching or combat anyway.
And if we're gonna have to have wars, then for gods sake don't drag any more unfortunate people in. This just wouldn't be necessary, and it would be stupid too, just to make a couple of feminist bitches feel valuated.
There are lines that you must cross, and lines that don't have to be crossed.
I believe everyone should be held to the same standard. If a female fits the bill, I'll fight beside them.
However, that is very unlikely. The current standards are lower and the expectations are also lower, and my unfortunate experience is this will continue until someone takes responsibility and makes it go by common sense rules.
However, that is very unlikely. The current standards are lower and the expectations are also lower, and my unfortunate experience is this will continue until someone takes responsibility and makes it go by common sense rules.
It's always been and still is. Only a fool would think that all it takes is to shoot with a rifle and you're all set, all enemies dead.meece said:
The best argument I've heard for excluding women is that men would tend to them too much and break cohesion. Otherwise, same requirements, same opportunities.
However, I can very well see a larger chunk of women in combat being sharpshooters than on the front lines. Nothing wrong with them in that regard, mind, any commander trying to minimize their casualties would want someone to deal with enemy soldiers from a distance.
However, I can very well see a larger chunk of women in combat being sharpshooters than on the front lines. Nothing wrong with them in that regard, mind, any commander trying to minimize their casualties would want someone to deal with enemy soldiers from a distance.
OP, "front line" is not really a very applicable term in the current setting of global terrorist networks and modern guerilla There is no "front line" in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.Zenode said:
America's official line is that we try to avoid situations wherein women see combat, but this differs quite a bit from reality. Women hold support positions such as medic, and medics see combat in any situation. It hasn't hurt the morale of US forces fighting in the current conflict.
Anyone who wants to put their life on the line for their country and has the focus and physical stamina to do so should be allowed.
First of all let me say that I find you generalization a bit infuriating. The country I live in, Sweden, has a volunteer only army, and as far as I'm aware no difference is made between men and women. Israel has had women serving at the frontlines for decades.Zenode said:
I'd go as far as to say,[footnote]This is an opinion, and thus in no way proven fact.[/footnote] that one's suitability for fronline combat depends to 99% on the person, not your number of X-chromosomes.
The problem isn't one of which sex you happen to be, but rather age-old societal views so deeply ingrained in our minds.
I see no reason to forbid someone from serving at the frontlines based on sex alone, and do find it infuriatingly stupid.
I'm sure it's been said before, but it bears repeating. In the immortal words of that cantankerous bastard Bill Hicks (though his was about gays in the military):Zenode said:
I can't completely agree with the anti-military sentiment (I'm anti-military myself, but it has no place in the discussion), but the gist is about right: If someone's willing to run off to get killed for you, if someone wants to do that, a) why does it matter if they're gay, straight, man, woman, or wiccan? And b) why are you going to prevent them to do that and force other people to?
In theory I'm all for it, seems fair for everyone for both genders to take the same risks but in practice....
Do you guys remember during the early stages of the iraq war(or was this in afghanistan? cant recall) when a group of US soldiers got ambushed and all got killed except for a female soldier who was presumably spared on account of her gender?
The US military ended up having to wage a major rescue operation which they would never have done for a male soldier (and in the process, endangering LOTS of other soldiers even if it turned out she was in a hospital that wasnt heavily guarded so they just walked out with her).
There was a slight fuss about this at the time, media tried to portray the female soldier as some kinda hero, remember at the time it was said there would be a movie about her "adventures" (seeing her entire squad killed, getting shot, being in hospital for a bit, then getting rescued by loads of men, GIRL POWER!). Suffice to say, were it a male soldier, there would never have been such an effort made to rescue him, nor would it have gathered particular media attention, and might have been treated differently by the enemy (that the iraquis didnt rape or torture the female soldier but bought her directly to hospital gives them a lot of credit, but its not like our media will ever say nice things about those we are currently fighting now will they? ¬¬)
So yeah.... In theory, males and females should be equal on the frontline, in practice they are treated differently by both friendly forces and enemy forces. Whether that is a good enough reason to prohibit women from the front lines, I know not however, it is not like humanity is so lacking in numbers it makes biological sense to keep women away from danger, humans are numerous enough as it is so we can certainly afford to risk both genders for a bit (as cold as that sounds).
Do you guys remember during the early stages of the iraq war(or was this in afghanistan? cant recall) when a group of US soldiers got ambushed and all got killed except for a female soldier who was presumably spared on account of her gender?
The US military ended up having to wage a major rescue operation which they would never have done for a male soldier (and in the process, endangering LOTS of other soldiers even if it turned out she was in a hospital that wasnt heavily guarded so they just walked out with her).
There was a slight fuss about this at the time, media tried to portray the female soldier as some kinda hero, remember at the time it was said there would be a movie about her "adventures" (seeing her entire squad killed, getting shot, being in hospital for a bit, then getting rescued by loads of men, GIRL POWER!). Suffice to say, were it a male soldier, there would never have been such an effort made to rescue him, nor would it have gathered particular media attention, and might have been treated differently by the enemy (that the iraquis didnt rape or torture the female soldier but bought her directly to hospital gives them a lot of credit, but its not like our media will ever say nice things about those we are currently fighting now will they? ¬¬)
So yeah.... In theory, males and females should be equal on the frontline, in practice they are treated differently by both friendly forces and enemy forces. Whether that is a good enough reason to prohibit women from the front lines, I know not however, it is not like humanity is so lacking in numbers it makes biological sense to keep women away from danger, humans are numerous enough as it is so we can certainly afford to risk both genders for a bit (as cold as that sounds).
By that logic, women should not be cops, either. Remember, this isnt that "live in a trench for a year" combat scenarios it used to be. Rushing machine guns nests while running off a boat is just in WWII movies, not in modern combat. They go do their job on a search checkpoint or go take out a building, and then they go back to headquarters.Zenode said:
Soldiers are well trained teams, the fact that they might drop their guns to go hold hands with a girl shouldnt really be an issue.
And as one woman soldier said "their ARE no front lines anymore. A suicide bomber can come at anytime, anyplace. We all need to be trained for that"
P.s. As for the "women cant pull a man into cover, or cant snipe, or blah blah blah" You know you have to pass tests BEFORE you can do a job, right? Its not like they just hand them a gun and say "have fun". If you DO NOT pass the snipers test, you are not a sniper. If you DO NOT pass the MEDIC tests, you are not a medic. That simple. If women cant, then they wont. The end.
It should be like this:
Have a certain standard for your soldiers. Test them all on the same grounds, and the ones that can live up to the standards, get to fight for your army.
If a woman can do a job as good as a man, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to fight for their country.
Have a certain standard for your soldiers. Test them all on the same grounds, and the ones that can live up to the standards, get to fight for your army.
If a woman can do a job as good as a man, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to fight for their country.
All soldiers should be women, that way there would be less of them here to nag me.
Seriously though, men are built for war, literally we evolved as warriors, we've been hitting each other with clubs and poking each other with spears for tens of thousands of years or longer. Men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and have more endurance. Not to say women are incapable of being frontline soldiers, just I'm not sure why we would want/need that or that it would even be practical in many circumstances.
Seriously though, men are built for war, literally we evolved as warriors, we've been hitting each other with clubs and poking each other with spears for tens of thousands of years or longer. Men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and have more endurance. Not to say women are incapable of being frontline soldiers, just I'm not sure why we would want/need that or that it would even be practical in many circumstances.
Thats all very well but men and women are not equal, sure they have equal rights etc but a man is not a woman and a woman is not a man. equality in an absolute sense is impossible, there are differences and where lives are at stake we cant afford to just ignore them.Lt Blasphemer said: