Women in Frontline Combat?

[DanDeFool]

The media is semi behind the idea at the moment, but i wonder what will happen when the first female combatant to get killed is announced or one is captured an tortured?

The link above says that it would be "symbolic" if the men and women fought together, but i don't believe the enemy will think that way, I believe that they would try and target the women more than men KNOWING that it will damage morale more.

Don't know about this. It might even improve morale for all I know. Like, "Hey, did you see what those assholes did to Private Stevens (said Private being a woman)." and "Yeah, I can't wait to get back on the field and teach those assholes a lesson!"

If anything hurts morale in the military, it's maimed soldiers and lack of financial compensation for disabled veterans and their families.

If this were the 1400's and we were still fighting with heavy broadswords and iron flails, then yeah, I can see how women (being IN GENERAL less physically strong then men) might be a hindrance on the front lines, but nowadays we fight with guns. Anyone who isn't disabled can fire a gun, and it's not hard to train someone to fire an assault weapon.

If women want to be front-line fighters, and their superiors believe they have the ability to perform in that role, I don't see why we can't leave it to their best judgment.

 

[alimination602]

I believe that generally women should be free to enter frontline service if they chose.

So long as they are able to complete the same training as their male counterparts I see little reason why they should be restricted. Women should not be assigned their own training regime which cuts out half the content to make it ?easier on them because they?re women? or be treated any differently from their male counterparts- if you can?t complete the training you should not become part of the military regardless of gender. The training is brutal because being in battle is brutal- the difference between training and combat is in combat is if you make a mistake you don?t flunk out, you die!

In terms of morale and interaction between male and female soldiers I don?t see how that should be any different from current operations- your personal life is your own concern as long as it does not undermine the operation or affect your ability to fight.

 

[Autofaux]

Women have had to work twice as hard to be respected half as much in times past, especially in male dominated industries, which includes the military. Unfortunately, its the way it goes. It's an uphill battle, but despite the fact that women in the ADF, for the moment, do not have a frontline combat role, they all end up getting shot at in the end. Which, when you think about it, is what frontline combat is all about.

Men may have denser musculature, but women are plucky folk. If Gaddafi's private army of deadly virgins is any indication, plucky beats denser musculature in the end.

 

[Superhyperactiveman]

Honestly, as long as the standard for them being there is just as rigorous as it is for men, why not? The ones who don't belong there won't be there, and there you go.

 

[DarkSpectre]

The argument against females in combat roles is a matter of military necessity and pragmatism. Unity in a fighting unit is absolutely vital to success. Any tension and disagreements can be deadly and have disastrous results. Under no circumstance do you want any of your soldiers, airmen, sailors, or marines to have interpersonal tensions and conflicts that could spill into the battlefield. The stakes are far to high. You need to absolutely 100% comfortable hiding in a tiny foxhole snuggled up next to your comrade for warmth. On the battlefield everyone must be equal. What guy out there can honestly say they could be in a spooning position with a female and not begin to have sexually oriented thoughts? Those thoughts are a distraction that could get real people killed. This isn't a matter of idealistic sentiment. Real people could have their real lives endangered by this. Sexual, relationship, or other tension is far too dangerous a risk to allow inside a combat unit. Anything that could distract a soldier's mind from the battlefield must be removed. Women are a distraction to men and vice versa. It is a risk that cannot be afforded if it goes bad. Since more men want to join combat and are fit too the military must choose them over women. If it hurts the feelings of a women. I am sorry but too bad. The mission and the soldier's lives are far far more valuable than any single person's feelings. War is the nastiest and cruellest of things and we cannot afford to muck about with the well being of the people fighting it.

I am all in favour of having women in noncom units and roles. They bring a different and valuable way of thinking to the situation that balances things, but in combat we must always take the pragmatic option or risk loosing lives and mission.

On a less sombre and serious reason, the issue of battlefield hygiene is an issue. It is a lot harder for a female to relieve themselves in the field. Also to avoid lawsuits privacy would then have to be managed for both genders further complicating things. Lastly their is the issue of a lady's period. The hygiene requires extra supplies and care. This is a burden that a combat team cannot afford. Being on the pill would not help as you are not to go into combat if you need to be taking any steady medication as those are useless supplies making you a liability to the team. Anything that might make you a burden on those around precludes you from combat.

 

[funguy2121]

Oookay.
And to actually answer Treblaine's question: I assume the front line qualifies as anywhere in which direct combat is ensuing between the army and opposing forces.

You didn't catch the whole quote. His/her point was that the "front line" is an entirely different beast in today's war than in yesterday's, and so women will be involved in combat regardless of their being posted to "front line" or not.

 

[funguy2121]

I don't see why not, it's worked perfectly fine here in America.

American women aren't allowed to be combat troops, they can only participate in support roles that may or may not (most likely not) see combat if the circumstances are out of control.

WRONG!

(sorry for that)

The official Pentagon line is to avoid putting them in a position where they could see combat, but the reality in Afghanistan and Iraq is far from this. Women see combat every day, regardless of their "support" position. A medic in Afghanistan is going to see combat. When the troops are clearing out a building full of civilians and looking for a warlord or enemy soldiers, the situation is far removed from two massive lines approaching each other.

Everyone else: sorry to repeat myself. I just hear things like this everyday and I don't like leaving people misinformed.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_11_139/ai_n27171285/

From the first source: "The Marine Corps awarded twenty-three women the Combat Action Ribbon for service in the Persian Gulf War because they were engaged by Iraqi troops.

 

[Wolf-AUS]

This isn't a matter of equality, it's a matter of how effective a change would render a Rifle company if women were aloud to enlist in combat roles.

If she wants to and can hang sure why not.Though its not like theres a Bunch of women chopping at the bit ready to be grunts. I don't see the Infrantry ever being more then 5 percent female at best.

In 2009, only 9.7% of recruits were female into the army, there is no way the RAR would reach 5% female.

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?

Fair point, genetically, take an average female and an average male, the male is more physically strong, not taking pain tolerance or anything like that, I mean capacity for physical activities.

Let's say that you have a woman who is fit enough to be infantry, she would probably be that fit because of going to the gym and working out a lot. For the first 3 months of your training, you're not aloud to do any of your own training, which leads to a decline of physical fitness, so by the time said woman would come into Infantry basic training less fit than when she originally joined the army.

The physical effect of the field environment on the human body is intense,during a 10 day exercise, I lost 10kg, yes, I lost 1kg of body weight per day. How would a woman who is already physically more slender cope with losing 10kg of body weight, would she still be able to carry her 10-20kg webbing, 5-10kg rifle or gun (if they gave her the Mag58 it would be insane) and then go patrolling for 3 or 4 hours after having lost that weight? If she can still do that, how about when she has to carry to 30-40kg pack when we move positions? We actually did this, combined with the 90 hour sleep deprivation we had, it was physically intense.

If a woman can keep up this level of fitness, sure, why not let her join? From my experience, none of the women I went through basic training could have done this, during an 8km pack march, with roughly 25kg of weight, we lost half of the women in the platoon and then the ones who completed it were commenting on how difficult it was. In infantry, we do upwards of 40km pack marches carrying 50-60 of extra weight.

Even from the males during my infantry training, we lost a 1/4 of the platoon. This isn't a game regardless of what everyone would like to think.

 

[funguy2121]

Even though someone has already provided the accurate information, people are still propagating their ignorance... women do NOT have a higher pain threshold...

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51160
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-04/cfta-hpt040903.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705004113.htm

...need I continue?

No sir, I'll do it for you.

From the second paragraph of your first source:


"There are [so many] overlays of societal and cultural norms and other factors that go into the reporting of pain that it may not have a biological basis at all," says Robert Gear, an assistant professor of oral and maxillofacial surgery at the University of California, in San Francisco. "It certainly could have a biological basis, but there is no way to test it so far."

This has been bothering me all day, so I looked a little deeper into the sources. It would appear that the sexy new trend in the medical/scientific community is to turn the men-are-sissies-when-it-comes-to-pain myth on its head. Since we are talking about the sciences, I'd say there is some credibility to the claim that men have a higher threshold for pain then women. But since even these sources say things like the above, it's clear that WE
DON'T
KNOW
FOR
SURE
EITHER
WAY.

Now everyone on both sides of this debate stop condescending each other.

 

[Uncreation]

Hey, as long as they want to and can handle it, sure, why not?

 

[Drago-Morph]

I don't see why not, it's worked perfectly fine here in America.

American women aren't allowed to be combat troops, they can only participate in support roles that may or may not (most likely not) see combat if the circumstances are out of control.

WRONG!

(sorry for that)

The official Pentagon line is to avoid putting them in a position where they could see combat, but the reality in Afghanistan and Iraq is far from this. Women see combat every day, regardless of their "support" position. A medic in Afghanistan is going to see combat. When the troops are clearing out a building full of civilians and looking for a warlord or enemy soldiers, the situation is far removed from two massive lines approaching each other.

Everyone else: sorry to repeat myself. I just hear things like this everyday and I don't like leaving people misinformed.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_11_139/ai_n27171285/

From the first source: "The Marine Corps awarded twenty-three women the Combat Action Ribbon for service in the Persian Gulf War because they were engaged by Iraqi troops.

I understand that women do see combat, but it is not intentional, and the numbers are laughably small. It's hard enough for a combat troop to see fighting, let alone a support troop people are actively trying to keep out of the fight. It happens, but rarely.

 

[Kryzantine]

I'm sorry, I do remember women are better at certain aspects of frontline combat than men are, especially concerning aerobic activity. I would absolutely not mind opening up, say, sniper positions to female combatants. Russia has a history of putting their women through brutal war and using them to great success, not to mention certain bodyguard groups that are all-female. Ironically, mostly in non-Western countries.

Our old sentiment against having women in the army is that women are responsible for giving birth and keeping the human race alive - males simply don't put women in harm's way. Some cultures have put their women in harms way, however, and essentially gotten over that hump. It's about time the West abandons that rationale, too. Fact is, the Western world is at the point where the loss of women due to combat will not hinder our population growth. If they are capable, then we should use them.

 

[chiefohara]

No offence, but you are breaking your own rule here. Violent psychopaths are not the norm so its unfair to typify violent psycohsis as a generic male trait, when its an exception in itself.

Okay, how? The military is a large group of people. Therefore examining the traits present in large groups of people applies. I see nothing wrong when I say that that men are more likely than women to be violent psychopaths.

As I said, if you want to start running a list of examples and expect me to counter with another example it would take weeks and we'd get nowhere.

Far more effective to say "A male is many times more likely to have violent psychopathy than a female ... and a violent psychopath with a rifle and military training in a warzone isn't a good thing to have."

I already explained how.

You inferred that if women were more present in the frontline then warcrimes would be less frequent. I made the point that its the abuse of power over someone that leads to war crimes, not a psycopathic tendancy. It doesnt matter if you are male or female. If power goes to your head, your in trouble.

Also your average soldier isn't a violent psycopath and to paint 99% of the male population as having psychopathic tendencies when only 1% of the total population (both male and female)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#cite_note-neumann1-10 (see footnote 11) are actually psycotic is a crazy, unfair and wildly innaccurate assumption to make. The pressence of women would have little to no bearing on the committing of war crimes, Abu Gharib being a perfect example.

As I said, if you want to start running a list of examples and expect me to counter with another example it would take weeks and we'd get nowhere.

I didn't ask you to ..... all i did was provide examples that women can be as bad as men when it comes to violent behaviour in order to back up the point i was making.

I've no interest in having a tit for tat contest with you.

 

[DefunctTheory]

WRONG!

(sorry for that)

The official Pentagon line is to avoid putting them in a position where they could see combat, but the reality in Afghanistan and Iraq is far from this. Women see combat every day, regardless of their "support" position. A medic in Afghanistan is going to see combat. When the troops are clearing out a building full of civilians and looking for a warlord or enemy soldiers, the situation is far removed from two massive lines approaching each other.

Everyone else: sorry to repeat myself. I just hear things like this everyday and I don't like leaving people misinformed.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_11_139/ai_n27171285/

From the first source: "The Marine Corps awarded twenty-three women the Combat Action Ribbon for service in the Persian Gulf War because they were engaged by Iraqi troops.

Seeing combat as a support soldier and being a combat soldier are two COMPLETELY different things.

One stumbles into battle against all hope, and runs like hell as fast as they can. The other actively seeks it.

The differences go on, but that's the basic one.

 

[funguy2121]

I understand that women do see combat, but it is not intentional, and the numbers are laughably small. It's hard enough for a combat troop to see fighting, let alone a support troop people are actively trying to keep out of the fight. It happens, but rarely.

No, they are not "laughably small." It happens every day. It is not "hard" at all for combat troops or support troops to see fighting. Why do you think we're still over there? The fighting is still going on.

Seeing combat as a support soldier and being a combat soldier are two COMPLETELY different things.

One runs into battle against all hope, and runs like hell as fast as they can. The other actively seeks it.

The differences go on, but that's the basic one.

No. A medic doesn't hear a mortar and run like Hell. He (or she) runs to wherever a soldier is down, and I think we can agree where a soldier has just been shot is usually a battlefield.

There's no point in nitpicking this. Women are being shot at and firing back in our Armed Forces every day. If we end up putting troops on the ground in Libya it will be the same, particularly if the anti-Qadaffi forces become anti-US forces as happened in Iraq.

By the way, I met a guy last weekend who was in the unit that found Saddam. Just wanted to share.

Edit: sorry AT, I appear to have misread your post. My point is that, 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.

 

[Bigsmith]

Nothing like some healthy cross gender competition. I would see that the presence of women on the front line along side men won't only just increase the combat abilities of the men, but of the females as well due to competition.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I understand that women do see combat, but it is not intentional, and the numbers are laughably small. It's hard enough for a combat troop to see fighting, let alone a support troop people are actively trying to keep out of the fight. It happens, but rarely.

No, they are not "laughably small." It happens every day. It is not "hard" at all for combat troops or support troops to see fighting. Why do you think we're still over there? The fighting is still going on.

Seeing combat as a support soldier and being a combat soldier are two COMPLETELY different things.

One runs into battle against all hope, and runs like hell as fast as they can. The other actively seeks it.

The differences go on, but that's the basic one.

No. A medic doesn't hear a mortar and run like Hell. He (or she) runs to wherever a soldier is down, and I think we can agree where a soldier has just been shot is usually a battlefield.

There's no point in nitpicking this. Women are being shot at and firing back in our Armed Forces every day. If we end up putting troops on the ground in Libya it will be the same, particularly if the anti-Qadaffi forces become anti-US forces as happened in Iraq.

By the way, I met a guy last weekend who was in the unit that found Saddam. Just wanted to share.

Edit: sorry AT, I appear to have misread your post. My point is that, 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.

EDIT: And yes, Medics do run like hell. With injured soldiers in their hands or on their backs. Basic combat first aid is to put on a tourniquet, a quick splint if time allows, and if their spine is broken... well, then someones going to have one hell of a bad day.

 

[captaincabbage]

I don't really by the whole "It'd injure the male soldier's mental state, etc. etc." thing. I just don't think they should serve of the front lines because strictly speaking, women are physically weaker than men. This isn't not some sexist debate about women not being the same as men, it just is how it is. A physically fit male will be physically stronger than a female of the same fitness level, simply because they have more upper body muscle.

I don't remember how it went, but it was something like "women have higher pain thresholds, but men won't complain about the pain as much" Not my words, it was just something I heard.

There's many little factors in the differences on male/female anatomy, but all in all I just don't see the point in this, for the sake of equality. In a strictly strategic view, having a male soldier in the place where a female soldier would be, could make the difference by a hair's length in all out combat.

 

[captaincabbage]

On a notably unrelated note, this thread reminded me of this XD

 

[Squeaky]

I think its more the matter of weather men could handel wemon on the frontlines rather than if wemon could handel the battle and training. The psycolgical effects of war arnt good, and desensitize men to women being in a violent situation you have to think of the negative effects/repercutions it could have in the civillian world men beating the hell out of average wemon because they assume they can take it.