Women in Frontline Combat?

[Kumomaru]

You don't know what a devil's advocate is, do you?

I said I know what you were saying and why, but that it does little to aide the argument anyways.

Just in case he's right...

'Playing Devil's Advocate' means you argue the opposing point whether or not you actually believe it, often to see the reasoning another person has for a similar belief. IE, I believe women should serve on the front line, but bring up the fact that women have less strength in their muscles (according to genetics, anyway. Genetics is full of crap. Most women could kick my ass, and the rest don't need to. And ALL the women i know can kick my ass. Thank god most of them are nice enough not to...)

A response to this might be that physical strength doesn't really matter in an era of guns, or that men have less pain tolerance, etc etc.



I have a question though: Why does anybody WANT to serve on the front line? Military, i understand. Fighting and serving, etc etc, but the actual front line is being advocated as a woman's right by women? I'm sorry but it really seems like the MEN should be arguing that one.

... er, no offense intended =/ it just seems odd. Frontlines are the most dangerous part of a war, and while I understand that some soldiers need to go, I find it strange that people sign up for the job. =/

 

[The Gnome King]

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

Link to Story [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gillard-backs-women-in-combat-20110412-1dc1f.html]

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.

But on the other hand if they can keep up, why not?

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.

What are your thoughts on women in frontline combat situations?

1) Yes women should be allowed in frontline combat BUT - and this is a BIG BUT -

2) They should be held to the SAME physical standards as men; not reduced standards (like in some firefighting departments, etc.) because they are women.

If the person wanting to fight on the frontlines has to meet X, Y, and Z make it the same for all humans - I want to know that the person who is fighting for me or wants to rescue me from a burning building can lift 250lbs; not 250lbs if they're a man or 180lbs if they're a woman.

This is one area where I am completely against affirmative action; even though I see affirmative action as just fine in other areas of society.

Front line combat or physically-demanding jobs, though - just hold everyone to the same standards.

 

[jackpipsam]

they have the right to fight for there own freedom and to protect there loved ones as any man.

 

[Hader]

Just in case he's right...

'Playing Devil's Advocate' means you argue the opposing point whether or not you actually believe it, often to see the reasoning another person has for a similar belief. IE, I believe women should serve on the front line, but bring up the fact that women have less strength in their muscles (according to genetics, anyway. Genetics is full of crap. Most women could kick my ass, and the rest don't need to. And ALL the women i know can kick my ass. Thank god most of them are nice enough not to...)

A response to this might be that physical strength doesn't really matter in an era of guns, or that men have less pain tolerance, etc etc.

I know what it means, apologies to everyone for being one of few words to get my points across and not making myself clear. But I did say I understood his point, and playing devil's advocate.

Strength is not a factor in today's battlefield. It mattered slightly more in classical and medieval times where a stronger sword arm could benefit one. But pulling a trigger is a different story. Mental toughness will always go a longer way than brute strength these days.

 

[The_Eskimo]

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?

umm....no hes not...what does "in most cases" mean to you?

 

[The Gnome King]

Just in case he's right...

'Playing Devil's Advocate' means you argue the opposing point whether or not you actually believe it, often to see the reasoning another person has for a similar belief. IE, I believe women should serve on the front line, but bring up the fact that women have less strength in their muscles (according to genetics, anyway. Genetics is full of crap. Most women could kick my ass, and the rest don't need to. And ALL the women i know can kick my ass. Thank god most of them are nice enough not to...)

A response to this might be that physical strength doesn't really matter in an era of guns, or that men have less pain tolerance, etc etc.

I know what it means, apologies to everyone for being one of few words to get my points across and not making myself clear. But I did say I understood his point, and playing devil's advocate.

Strength is not a factor in today's battlefield. It mattered slightly more in classical and medieval times where a stronger sword arm could benefit one. But pulling a trigger is a different story. Mental toughness will always go a longer way than brute strength these days.

If it can be argued that strength isn't a factor on today's battlefield - and I for one am not willing to concede that - BUT if we did argue that, shouldn't we lower the physical aptitude tests for all potential frontline combatants; men included - and not just women?

IE., let's lower the bar for everyone as opposed to setting two different bars?

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

You realise the decision came with the proviso that they can do the same things that a male counterpart can. They're not just going to let any woman in.

 

[Canid117]

Not once did I see the word "Realistic" in that article.

 

[Hader]

If it can be argued that strength isn't a factor on today's battlefield - and I for one am not willing to concede that - BUT if we did argue that, shouldn't we lower the physical aptitude tests for all potential frontline combatants; men included - and not just women?

IE., let's lower the bar for everyone as opposed to setting two different bars?

I agree that two different standards should never be set. But most standards that do have to be met, ones that involve physical fitness, are just that. Fitness. Not necessarily strength. It definitely takes a certain level of fitness and a degree of good bodily health to be a soldier, regardless of gender. Standards reflect the need for that, not just strength.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Spoiler

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.

Anecdotally, when I was in basic, my company was about 25% female. The only people I ever saw drop out of a ruck march were the ones who passed out from heat exhaustion or a sprained ankle, and I can't recall anyone having to give their gear to another person, male or female. This story really surprises me.

Also, sports bras can't malfunction. If she was wearing a normal bra on a ruck march, she is retarded.

 

[Wolf-AUS]

Just in case he's right...

'Playing Devil's Advocate' means you argue the opposing point whether or not you actually believe it, often to see the reasoning another person has for a similar belief. IE, I believe women should serve on the front line, but bring up the fact that women have less strength in their muscles (according to genetics, anyway. Genetics is full of crap. Most women could kick my ass, and the rest don't need to. And ALL the women i know can kick my ass. Thank god most of them are nice enough not to...)

A response to this might be that physical strength doesn't really matter in an era of guns, or that men have less pain tolerance, etc etc.

I know what it means, apologies to everyone for being one of few words to get my points across and not making myself clear. But I did say I understood his point, and playing devil's advocate.

Strength is not a factor in today's battlefield. It mattered slightly more in classical and medieval times where a stronger sword arm could benefit one. But pulling a trigger is a different story. Mental toughness will always go a longer way than brute strength these days.

If it can be argued that strength isn't a factor on today's battlefield - and I for one am not willing to concede that - BUT if we did argue that, shouldn't we lower the physical aptitude tests for all potential frontline combatants; men included - and not just women?

IE., let's lower the bar for everyone as opposed to setting two different bars?

I sincerely hope you're joking about lowering the bar. Currently the bar for women to enter the ADF is 8 pushups, 45 situps (feet held) and 6.1 in the beep test. If you want to lower the bar to this, I have dire worries for the state of the ADF. If anything, we should raise the bar to the men (which is also piss weak), make the men's standard the rule, if women want to serve as a rifleman, I want to see them do 60 pushups, 100 situps and run 2.4km in under 10 minutes, which is our basic fitness in infantry.

 

[Dense_Electric]

It shouldn't be about letting women in the infantry per se, but about simply eliminating gender as a requirement. Do we not already have a system in place for weeding out who is mentally and physically competent and who isn't? Yeah, we do, it's called BASIC TRAINING. Just make the standards the same for everyone - whoever can do it can do it, and whoever can't can't.

 

[Tiger Sora]

Take a page from the Soviets in WW2, if you can fire a rifle your fit to serve the motherland.
And I forget where this is from but the question was posed can a woman pull a 250 pound man from a burning tank. Well I'm pretty sure no one can because it's on fire!And if he can't get out himself I'm pretty sure he's gona be on fire too.

 

[awesomeClaw]

What are your thoughts on women in frontline combat situations?

Women should be allowed in front line combat.

Our strength no longer matters - we have guns now.

And it has been proven that, given the same training, women are better shots than men. Sorry guys, we are just dexier than you. Like elves with bows.

Really? I would like to see that statistic.

Also, for me, it´s 50%-50%. On one hand, having only one gender has some pretty clear advantages. For one, there will be a lot less sexual tension (unless you´re a homosexual) which makes it easier for everyone involved. Sexual tension creates frustration. And being frustrated and angry in a place where you can get shoot if you make the wrong move is not good.

Also, women may have a lower pain tolerance then men because of GIRK 2: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proteins-may-be-key-to-pa

But on the other hand, you might have women that are really fit and just as strong as any guy. Why shouldn´t she be allowed to sign up? Ofcourse, they will be far and few between, but still.

I dunno. Do the pros outweigh the cons? I dunno.

Work in an OR and then tell me that women have a lower threshold for pain than we do. Or give birth. Most of us are babies compared to them.

I don´t know what an OR is, so...?

Also, the old excuse "Well they give birth!" Well, you see, under pregnancy, the woman´s body builds up a ton of "happy"-hormones that reduce pain. When labor comes, she then unleashes those, and therefor is able to tolerate the pain. So that argument is nullified. Or do you have a source for your claims, like i had? Or are you simply pulling them out of your arse?

Sorry, mate, but you´re gonna have to try a little harder then that.

Ladies and gentleman, directly from Funguy's arse...

I looked up some sources, and it appears that, on average, men do have a higher threshold for pain than women. An OR is an Operating Room. Have you ever seen a "happy" pregnancy? It's Hell. I'd never describe a woman as "tolerating" the pain.

As far as sexual tension is concerned, I'd ignore the paintballers and look at what the posters on here who have actually served have said regarding paternalistic instinct and fraternization.

Nope, i agree, it probably hurts like hell, but i describe "tolerating" pain as just not giving up and killing yourself. Which most women don´t do, i´ve heard.


Well, looks like i was right, huh? Well then, good sir, i offer to shake your hand at this intriguing debate. *offers to shake Funguy´s hand*

 

[The Gnome King]

I sincerely hope you're joking about lowering the bar. Currently the bar for women to enter the ADF is 8 pushups, 45 situps (feet held) and 6.1 in the beep test. If you want to lower the bar to this, I have dire worries for the state of the ADF. If anything, we should raise the bar to the men (which is also piss weak), make the men's standard the rule, if women want to serve as a rifleman, I want to see them do 60 pushups, 100 situps and run 2.4km in under 10 minutes, which is our basic fitness in infantry.

I am agreeing with you, my friend. My point is that the bar should either be raised for everyone, or lowered for everyone. Personally, I think it should be raised for the women.

That way, any woman who is as fit as a man can serve in front-line combat, as far as I'm concerned. Problem solved.

Why on Earth we would want an affirmative action program that REDUCES the effectiveness of some of our troops, I have no idea.

I have no doubt that there are SOME women out there who COULD meet the physical requirements currently set for men. Let them do so; and serve as infantrymen, with my blessing.

 

[Yokai]

I really don't see why not. Women are only weaker than men in that they can't get ridiculously beefed. They can run just as fast, work just as hard and probably have better average dexterity and motor control than men. I'm sure they're absolutely capable of serving on the front line, and it would be a huge step forward in combating the latent sexism that still exists in most cultures if female soldiers were treated the same as male ones.

 

[Wolf-AUS]

I am agreeing with you, my friend. My point is that the bar should either be raised for everyone, or lowered for everyone. Personally, I think it should be raised for the women.

That way, any woman who is as fit as a man can serve in front-line combat, as far as I'm concerned. Problem solved.

Why on Earth we would want an affirmative action program that REDUCES the effectiveness of some of our troops, I have no idea.

I have no doubt that there are SOME women out there who COULD meet the physical requirements currently set for men. Let them do so; and serve as infantrymen, with my blessing.

I somewhat agree, hygiene is a pretty big issue, I remember out field during basic, women had to shower after x amount of days, so I'm not sure how that would go, granted, I'm not expert on the matter. I mentioned in...

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.

...this post about my personal experiences of women and the infantry, and I'm not sure how compatible the two are, but, if they want to give women a go, I guess they could let them have a crack. Although, I'm 100% certain, if I were female, for more reasons than one, I would never go anywhere near the infantry. I'm guessing anyone else who has served in combat positions would know exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

I really don't see why not. Women are only weaker than men in that they can't get ridiculously beefed. They can run just as fast, work just as hard and probably have better average dexterity and motor control than men. I'm sure they're absolutely capable of serving on the front line, and it would be a huge step forward in combating the latent sexism that still exists in most cultures if female soldiers were treated the same as male ones.

If they can run just as fast, then why don't/can't they compete against each other in the olympics?