Women in Frontline Combat?

[Hader]

Anyone who can fight and is willing to should be given the chance to do so. Once people get past the traditional views of gender roles regarding war/combat, any differences between a male and female in combat will be just superficial and physical.

 

[Xixikal]

Do you round up the wildlife and airdrop it on your enemies?

Oh no. We have a legion of intensely trained combat koalas, equipped with euykalyptus spray and very sharp rocks that ride into battle astride a platoon of armored kangaroos possessed of RPGs and AK47s. We also have a naval unit comprised of carefully selected platypuses, who are trained to wait under the water's surface for hours until the opportune moment to strike presents itself - at which point they launch themselves, horizontally, 100 meters out of the water and peck out the eyes of their stunned victims.

Do not mess with the Australians...

 

[Xixikal]

No it is still a risk. Envisage a major, now in love with a lowly private, she is new in the force but they have agreed to marry after the war is over. However from higher up a command is given, a force is locked down in a HEAVY firefight, and will definately be destroyed unless support is given, if possible he is to help. Losses WILL be heavy, but many more people will be saved. Would he give the order? Maybe. Would his love for the private he is likely sending to their death influence him? Damn right it will.

You make a fair enough point. But people with relationships such as that would not be placed near each other in such a circumstance, senior officers would be well aware of such relationships and the way it would affect a soldier's performance. Having said that, the same thing could easily happen between two homosexual men in a combat situation.

 

[Xixikal]

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.

You're right on every account.

 

[feauxx]

lots of bullshit

do you honestly think you can really make a point when you take someones words completely apart and then put them in a different context?
you ignored my points so why even bother to merge me into your quotes anyway?

 

[justnotcricket]

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.

So would those men who 'take unnecessary risks' to protect the women be the same ones who are raping them then?

I'm sorry this makes no sense. This isn't about appeasing egos. And why should women be excluded from frontline combat, because they might get raped in the military? There is so much wrong with that! Why don't the men learn that raping women is, let me think, not appropriate under any circumstances, then not do it, and everyone can serve if they want to, secure in the knowledge that the opposing force will be the ones out to get them, not their own ranks?

But if they're drafted it's different? If you have to be involved in the fighting then suddenly you don't mind if they get raped, or if men take these mythical unnecessary risks and die because of them?

I think you're grossly underestimating what women could contribute to frontline combat. In the case of your own gender, I think you're simultaneously giving them too much credit for chivalry, while at the same time unfairly condemning them as rapists?

The only reason men are ever resistant to women joining in is that they're afraid that they'll be shown up somehow, that the girls will turn out to be better or something. All the 'physical inferiority' stuff is crap chauvinists hide behind (note I say chauvinists, not *all* men) to avoid having their own inadequacies brought out into the light.

/quasifeministrant

It's not about egos. It's about equality, and choice. I personally would not want to be a frontline soldier, but that has nothing to do with my extra X chromosome. It has more to do with the fact that I despise war. But it would be nice if I was not barred from doing so, should I wish to. It's like before women were allowed to vote. Not every woman necessarily wants to participate in the election process (just like not every man necessarily does), but it is important that they have the option do do so, should they wish. I also think drafting is stupid, for both genders, but that's a whole other argument.

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

Recently Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard recently announced that Women should be allowed in frontline combat
as it is >>>"realistic"<<<

wait....what? Its relistic!? No shit JG THIS IS REAL LIFE.

 

[Vault101]

what Im saying is isnt it kind of hypocritical to say "nope! women cant serve" and then turn around and say "well if theres a draft then women should be conscripted too!"

unless of coarse your saying women would be drafted into suport roles

also I would have thourght rape in military was because of the culture, Im no expert but it seems its all too easy to get away with it

 

[Vault101]

so basically what you are saying there is that men cannot stick to their job and will fuss over the female soldiers serving next to them. they will be afraid the women will get hurt and so the men can't do their own job properly because of that. and then you call that a 'hassle'.

Pretty much. Men generally are more protective of women. Like it or not it is just how shit is. And god forbid they start fucking, that will pretty much guarantee trouble. It has a whole pile of downsides and not many upsides.

~~~

anyway as it said on the news there were women serving in israel army, so why not here in aus? if women are willing and capable I say sure

Cost vs benefit. Lot of hassle, not enough reward.

~~~

as for the whole rape int he military...well isnt it better to take steps to stop that then to just say "well it is what it" and do nothing?

Yeah... You are just going to stop rapists from raping with a few classes on respecting others. Good luck with that. XD

~~~

even though they were denied proper training before and wouldn't stand a chance.

Implying people (men or women) who are drafted are not given proper training or differing amounts of training based on their gender...

~~~

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?

~~~

but, when a war breaks out and shit get's real those women better be right there at the front line, fighting and dying equal to men.

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? This makes no sense to me.

whats the different between now and a world war? if fact it would be better, if what you say did happen could you imagine the fuss it would cause i the army was suddenly flooded with women when it was previously a no-womans land?

I am going to direct you to a post by another user.

-Zen-

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.

Says all it needs to really. And the difference between the military now and in a world war is that now its not about survival. Most of the wars now are minor conflicts or in the case of the middle east, ***** slapping a entire country in retaliation for what a few nutjobs did.
And you can afford to have highly trained, specialised squads.
Full world wars are about survival. So yes, currently there is not enough benefit to warrant putting women on the front lines. But in a war of survival the most important thing is churning out troops. Politics, fairness, equality, all that bullshit takes a back seat and the only thing that is important is trying to wipe out as many of the enemy as possible so you make use of every able body you possible can.

Edit:

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.

Thats never been a popular myth. Men have always been considered to handle pain better than chicks.
The popular myth is that men handle sickness worse.
And for my part, thats true. I get so much as a clogged nose and I go all whiney. But cuts and burns I shrug off.

what Im saying is isnt it kind of hypocritical to say "nope! women cant serve" and then turn around and say "well if theres a draft then women should be conscripted too!"

unless of coarse your saying women would be drafted into suport roles

also I would have thourght rape in military was because of the culture, Im no expert but it seems its all too easy to get away with it

 

[BlumiereBleck]

You do realize that almost all European countries such as Germany and britland have women in frontline combat....even the U.S.A. has them. I mean in the Afghanistan Invasion women were fighting with men in the German Army

 

[SteewpidZombie]

Dude, women already fight on the frontlines in the Canadian Armed Forces, United States Military, and Russian Military, heck they are even in special ops in South and North Korea. Russia had women corps in WWII and they killed a HUGE number of Germans (One AAgun unit of the female corps held off a entire German tank division, they took out like 22 tanks using several AAguns when Germany attempted to invade Russia and they fought to the death as they eventually were killed by the Germans in a forward push).

Most countries have female soldiers, and even rebel/terrorist groups in various countries have female soldiers. Get wit the times dude, it doesn't matter if your a chick or a dude anymore. If your pointing a gun at the enemy you'll still shoot them down if they attempt to kill you, regardless of their or your own gender.

Plus in the Military you are TAUGHT to not get attached to teammates (Relationships can have you discharged, and in life or death situations you are taught that you can't stress over losses till the fighting is over) or to panic in any situation regardless of gender. Any soldier who is dumb enough to mourn more over a female teammate more than a male teammate is a soldier who isn't fit to even be fighting on the frontlines. Personal feelings aren't supposed to be factored into your actions, any soldier who can't act rational is the type of soldier who is likely to screw up and get people killed.

Most soldiers will even say they don't care, the only people who have a issue are the people who aren't fighting. Unless you're in the military and fighting beside someone of opposite gender...YOUR OPINION IS INVALID! (It'd be like saying you hate Pepsi when you've never drank pop in your entire life). So evidently I believe personally that everyone has the right to fight on the frontlines, it's your own choice and nobody should stop you from doing so unless it is PROVEN as a FACT by fellow soldiers that it creates problems. Till then we should all shut up, cry a river, build a boat, and get OVER IT.

 

[Kortney]

Of course women should be allowed to fight on the front.

There are a few misconceptions about why they shouldn't. Here are the arguments and I'll post my response below. Note I've had three brothers fight in the front lines as well as a Father, so I come from a very combat orientated family.

"Most women are weaker than most men and they aren't up to the test of front line combat".

This is probably the worst argument of the lot. First of all, if women were to join an infantry platoon then the standards of training would be exactly the same. Otherwise the unit would suffer. If the tests are the same, then the weak ones of either sex are kicked out.

The ones that are up to the test, whether they be male or female, are accepted.

It is also assuming that all men on the front lines are like the hulk. This isn't true at all. I know plenty of soldiers who are no more muscly than the average guy. They are incredibly fit yes, but sheer strength? It's not a requirement. Obviously they have to be strong, but you don't have to be immensely strong.

Also, it is forgetting the type of girls who would fight in the military. People think "females in front line combat" and they picture the girls from the O.C. Most girls I know who have served in the military could kick some serious backside.

"Men would act dangerously and risk their squad's safety unnecessarily to save a female member of the squad".

Bullshit. This is blatant sexism.

First of all, soldiers already act incredibly dangerously to save a squad member. All you need to do is talk to a soldier who has seen their friend go down and they would crawl across hell to get them. Making this person a female changes nothing.

Secondly, it is assuming that men would automatically care more about a female - this is nonsense. Friendship is friendship. They all spend a part of their lives together and in most squads, they all love each other (of course they would never admit this).

"Females would get raped"

This is barely an argument. Do you honestly think that lowly of your soldiers that they would rape a female squad member on the front line? Really?. So, if you were in combat and you had a female friend fighting with you, you'd rape her?

That's quite a leap. In fact, that's a huge fucking leap.

Realise here I am not trying to claim rape in the military doesn't happen. We all know it does and it's horrible. However the cause of this is having unstable, aggressive and probably mentally ill soldiers. The solution to this problem is not too pull all of the females off the line. That's like saying the solution to the rape problem in society is to ban females from walking around after 7pm.

"The enemy would target the females"

How, exactly?

You think they would mass co-ordinate a huge plan just to hurt a female? Bullshit. The people we are fighting are just as scared and disorientated by combat as we are. In small arms firefights, they kill people who are about to kill them and it is purely instinctual.

But, let's suppose they were targeting females.

So what?

You do realise that targeting certain types of your enemy has been happening for thousands of years? What's next, should we stop sending Lieutenants out on patrols because the enemy would rather kill them than a private? Of course not.

However, the main point I want to make is females are already fighting in direct combat. Just because they aren't sent out on combat patrols doesn't mean they aren't fighting. Ambushes are common place in Afghanistan. And yes, females have been involved in small arms firefights in Afghanistan and so far, they have acted outstandingly in combat situations. There have been no real life incidents that have occurred in battle that suggest women shouldn't be fighting. None.

---

To be completely honest, I believe people who are against having female serve in the front line are acting sexist. Whether it is sub-conscious or not, a part of their brain is saying "THIS IS WEIRD. THIS IS WRONG". There are no logical, valid reasons as to why females shouldn't be in the front lines right now.

I agree with the Australian Prime Minister.

 

[feauxx]

lots of bullshit

do you honestly think you can really make a point when you take someones words completely apart and then put them in a different context?
you ignored my points so why even bother to merge me into your quotes anyway?

First off, by labelling my post as "bullshit" you have just invalidated anything you could ever possibly say to me. If you are not mature enough to argue points without such childish tactics then you can go sit in the corner until you decide to grow up.

As for your "points", I did address them. If you actually read the post you would see that quite clearly. You simply choose to bicker about the format since I did not decide to address your "oh so special" pov directly and instead lumped them in with others who were making the same point.

Good day sir.

sir?
anyway all i did was snip the quote to avoid clutter because all i wanted to do was notify you that our discussion ends here. not because i'm special but you really went off in another direction and i have very little to say if you rip my point into little shreds.

 

[justnotcricket]

*snip*

All the points you have brought up have been clarified here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.276760.10762792].

No they weren't, which is presumably why you chose to 'snip' my post. Your idea of 'clarification' is...an interesting one. I've said what I wanted to say, and frankly have already strayed too far down the pointless path of arguing with a fool on the internet.

 

[The Night Shade]

Snip

Perfect,I personally agree with everything you just wrote

 

[The Long Road]

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? There's simply no way to say it wouldn't happen, because it's impossible for that to never happen. I've personally seen boyfriends run out in front of a city bus to get their girlfriends out of the way. I've seen girlfriends get beaten by drunken idiots while trying to get their boyfriends to leave parties. If you take that kind of attachment and put it in a warzone, things get ugly very quickly.

While this word is charged with extraneous and irrelevant connotations mostly originating in the Jim Crow laws, I could see women fighting in "segregated" infantry units. They'd have to have the same physical qualifications as a male unit, same readiness, blah blah blah... However, the logistics of creating separate units, facilities, and command chains specifically for female combat units are currently not worth the extra combat ability that more frontline units would bring. Logistics are already a pain in the ass; making it even harder for the dubious worth of a few extra combat units is simply not worth it. People are already complaining about military budgets (especially in the US), so why put extra money towards a goal that is strictly political?

The idea I'm trying to convey is not that females are inferior to males in a combat situation. That has never been proven and would be difficult to conclusively prove in any situation. My point is that the mixing of men and women in combat is a bad idea, and men just happen to already be 100% of our combat units. I guess history just kinda made this a "first come, first serve" situation.

 

[Midnyte]

When i was in the millitary, we had 7 girls in our company at boot camp. These girls were all in good shape, and seemed to be strong-minded individuals with the will to do anything. And then when we had our first march through the woods, 5 of the girls gave up 4 hours in and the rest of us had to split their packs between us, while they carried no weight whatsoever except for their rifle and basic combat gear. That march suddenly became 10 times worse for the remaining guys and girls.

However, the two girls that didnt give up their packs turned out to be two of the hardest working and impressive soldiers our lieutenant had seen, and years later became officers themselves. So yeah, im agreeing with a lot of people here saying that women should absolutely be let into the frontlines, but they have to be able to perform on the same level as the guys.

Just saying, that also counts towards other things than physical strength, such as getting undressed in front of the opposite gender.

The majority of our bootcamp was during winter, and during one of our marches we had to cross a big river. I.E swim. Now, obviously, you have to take your clothes off before you start swimming, but one of the girls simply refused to take her clothes off in front of the others. Apparently, her bra had a malfunction, and she didnt want to flash her breasts at everyone. Leaving everyone standing on the other side of the river, freezing cold, while she walked upstream to a shallower point.

It took her 10 minutes. 10 f***ing minutes.

 

[InnerRebellion]

I don't like the idea, because, if I saw a woman get hurt, I'd probably act more blindly in trying to make up for her pain. But if I saw another man go down, I admit it wouldn't phase me as much.

 

[DefunctTheory]

You do realize that almost all European countries such as Germany and britland have women in frontline combat....even the U.S.A. has them. I mean in the Afghanistan Invasion women were fighting with men in the German Army

Dude, women already fight on the frontlines in the Canadian Armed Forces, United States Military, and Russian Military, heck they are even in special ops in South and North Korea. Russia had women corps in WWII and they killed a HUGE number of Germans (One AAgun unit of the female corps held off a entire German tank division, they took out like 22 tanks using several AAguns when Germany attempted to invade Russia and they fought to the death as they eventually were killed by the Germans in a forward push).

Most countries have female soldiers, and even rebel/terrorist groups in various countries have female soldiers. Get wit the times dude, it doesn't matter if your a chick or a dude anymore. If your pointing a gun at the enemy you'll still shoot them down if they attempt to kill you, regardless of their or your own gender.

Plus in the Military you are TAUGHT to not get attached to teammates (Relationships can have you discharged, and in life or death situations you are taught that you can't stress over losses till the fighting is over) or to panic in any situation regardless of gender. Any soldier who is dumb enough to mourn more over a female teammate more than a male teammate is a soldier who isn't fit to even be fighting on the frontlines. Personal feelings aren't supposed to be factored into your actions, any soldier who can't act rational is the type of soldier who is likely to screw up and get people killed.

Most soldiers will even say they don't care, the only people who have a issue are the people who aren't fighting. Unless you're in the military and fighting beside someone of opposite gender...YOUR OPINION IS INVALID! (It'd be like saying you hate Pepsi when you've never drank pop in your entire life). So evidently I believe personally that everyone has the right to fight on the frontlines, it's your own choice and nobody should stop you from doing so unless it is PROVEN as a FACT by fellow soldiers that it creates problems. Till then we should all shut up, cry a river, build a boat, and get OVER IT.

No, we don't.

Well, in a hot minute we will. But not yet.

EDIT: Unless your talking about front line support, which is another ball game.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

n

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