Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

Recommended Videos

Wedgetail122

New member
Jul 13, 2011
97
0
0
Hey ladies and gents, i'm conducting research for history on the topic of women in the armed forces. Whilst its not anything to do with gaming, I thought I might use all you wonderful mature people of the escapist to give me a pretty even snapshot into general opinion. Any Comments or thoughts on the topics would be most appreciated.

So Women in Combat Duties? Do you agree with it?
 

wintercoat

New member
Nov 26, 2011
1,691
0
0
Women should be allowed into any unit where they meet the requirements. If they meet the requirements that are set for the men, then there's no reason whatsoever to keep them from whatever roles they want to fulfill.
 

Kolby Jack

Come at me scrublord, I'm ripped
Apr 29, 2011
2,519
0
0
I don't really care one way or the other. If the military says women can serve in combat-specific roles, I'm cool with it. The only places where I think integration would be tricky business is special forces and submarines. Special Forces because it's just fucking grueling and unit cohesiveness is life or death for those guys, and subs because... well, let's face it: a bunch of guys and girls in a tiny cramped space for months at a time... yeesh. All kinds of problems I can see with that. Female sub commanders is one thing; they get their own bunk and most people aren't stupid enough to mess around with someone well above their paygrade, but full integration I just don't see going smoothly.
 

White Lightning

New member
Feb 9, 2012
797
0
0
If they meet the same physical, mental, and emotional requirement than yes, there's no reason they shouldn't be able two.
 

Hazy992

Why does this place still exist
Aug 1, 2010
5,265
0
0
Absolutely. If they can meet the same requirements then I honestly don't see what the problem is.
 

Korolev

No Time Like the Present
Jul 4, 2008
1,853
0
0
If they can meet the requirements, sure. BUT - they should not relax physical requirements to let more women into front-line combat. I have no doubt that women could pass the same physical tests as most men could, if they were given the incentive to do so.

Women can fight. During WWII, there were quite a few women soldiers (hundreds of thousands of them at the very least) fighting for the Russians. They went into some of the fiercest battles like the Battle of Kursk or the Battle of Berlin. The Russian women proved that women could drive tanks, use sniper rifles effectively, use AAA guns and perform admirably well as combat medics. There are too many stories of russian women running onto fields, picking up wounded men and literally hauling them back to the field hospital for these stories to have been made up. Women are capable - but they're often told that they aren't.

Now, there are going to be some differences between men and women. I doubt most women will be able to attain the very peak physical fitness required for the special forces such as the SEALs or the British SAS. I'm sure some could... but women are, like it or not, on average, weaker physically than men. That's not to say that they are weak - and if a women exercised enough, a woman could be as strong or stronger than an average man - but when you start getting to the extremes of physical fitness, women don't reach quite the same level as the men do. Look at weightlifting in the Olympics - the women weightlifters are very strong - far stronger than the vast majority of men, but the male weightlifters can lift more than them. On average, men have more physical strength than women..... it's why women have been kicked around so much during history. We could hit them, they often couldn't hit back - and that was horrible. It still is horrible (it is still occurring).

But for your average soldiering duties, women can do what men do. They can load a rifle. They can aim. They can set up and use a Mortar. They can drive a tank, operate a radio, storm a building. The Russian women proved that they could do that stuff. I see no reason why other women from other nations couldn't. And if women want to kill, bleed and die for their country, they should be granted the opportunity. I know for a fact that many women in the US army desperately WANT to be on the front-line.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Same requirements...with a few caveats. I've heard that some of the entry requirements (for some things at least) aren't about seeing how well you do them, it's about how well you cope with doing something hard. Being good at whatever it is isn't what they are looking for.

I'm also led to believe that some militaries have a whole stack of different requirements, they separate by gender and also by a bunch of other things, it's not just a separate men/women thing.

Also...nowdays, there's no front line. Anywhere could be a combat zone, everyone in the military is potentially a front line soldier. (As an aside, the USMC has had "Every marine is a rifleman" for ages, and they are female USMC personnel)

As well as this...what happens when you need to have a female local searched at a checkpoint? You need female soldiers at the checkpoint. Likewise, when searching a building which has separate places for women, you need women searchers, which means women soldiers.
 

Link_to_Future

Good Dog. Best Friend.
Nov 19, 2009
4,107
0
0
I know more than a few women who would be far more capable in a combat situation than I could ever hope to be.

Special forces? I dunno. But they would have a far better crack at it than I ever would. >.<
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
Yes, if they meet the requirements and they're not alone.

With that I mean that I don't think it's smart to always simply insert a single woman in say the special forces or the submarine example mentioned above. Perhaps when gender equality in the army has come much farther, but right now I'd say only put them on a sub if you can get a good number of them all on the same shift. Likewise only the in special forces if they can make up for, say, almost half a unit ( or however those people are organised ).

I realize that's not completely fair, which is certainly regrettable, but I think right now it's the practical solution.
 

Bat Vader

Elite Member
Mar 11, 2009
4,997
2
41
I fully support women serving in combat duties as long as they are fully capable and are able to handle themselves during a firefight.
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
If female can meet all requirements I don't see any reason to prevent females from military
BUT
Gender segregation is the key here
Male squads and female squads shouldn't mix.
EVER!
 

SonicWaffle

New member
Oct 14, 2009
3,019
0
0
Kolby Jack said:
let's face it: a bunch of guys and girls in a tiny cramped space for months at a time... yeesh. All kinds of problems I can see with that. Female sub commanders is one thing; they get their own bunk and most people aren't stupid enough to mess around with someone well above their paygrade, but full integration I just don't see going smoothly.
A (female) friend of mine is actually an officer in the Navy, floating about the briny sea on big ol' warships, and according to her the other female officer she shares a cabin with is basically the ship's bicycle. Apparently nobody really sees a problem with it, the guys just take their turn and the woman in question isn't bothered, but it would certainly bother me if I were the commanding officer.
 

Malisteen

New member
Mar 1, 2010
86
0
0
Sometimes physical standards are lowered if they are, in fact, far in excess of the actual job required, which is fine.

Following is from a US perspective, and assuming the policy applied to US combat personnel:

Yeah, if women meet the standards, then they should be allowed in, and those men who have a problem with it need to get over themselves, and need to be held accountable if they can't see the uniform before the person wearing it, and respect that uniform regardless of who wears it, same as soldiers who had a problem with black servicemen in the past, same with soldiers who have problems with gay servicemen now.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Hagi said:
Yes, if they meet the requirements and they're not alone.

With that I mean that I don't think it's smart to always simply insert a single woman in say the special forces or the submarine example mentioned above. Perhaps when gender equality in the army has come much farther, but right now I'd say only put them on a sub if you can get a good number of them all on the same shift.
Various navies have had women on submarines for years, though there's a difference between SSBNs (nuclear poweres submarines armed with ballistic missiles, stay underwater for months on end), and conventional submarines that only stay submerged for a few days.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
The only argument against it I can see is that some people are unusually brutal to women prisoners because they are women. Would you join the armed forces if you knew you had a higher chance of being brutalized if taken prisoner?