Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

[rorychief]

A few people have mentioned women being brutalized more well, brutally, as captives than men as a reason why they ought not be put at risk of capture, and therefore limited to support roles. If you read the material amnesty international has online on the subject you can see that while women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual torture men are vastly more likely to recieve what was referred to as common torture (interrogation) and sadistic torture (disfigurement and crippling. So both genders face the possibility of extremely traumatic treatment at the hands of the enemy, and as long as the inherent risks that accompany being taken alive is deemed acceptable (read necessary) for men than it ought to be for women too.

 

[Kyrdra]

Yeah why not?
As long they are good enough.
But I know that it won't be many. My country allows women in all roles but if I remember right then there are no women in the KSK or even the GSG9 which is "just" the counter-terrorism part of the police.

 

[carnex]

Set requirements, whoever meets them goes in.

Only reserve i would have is for that fact that roughly 1/3 of women have really harsh periods which reduce their physical capabilities during first 2-3 days of ovulation. But I will leave that to others and people who would be in combat with them.

In push comes to shove, i would like to have reliable people by my side, no matter which sex, nationality, religion or whatever they are.

 

[Jandau]

Yes, if they can meet the same standards as men.

There are two fundamental reasons why historically women were for the most part kept out of combat:

1. Physical strength - not quite as big of an issue as before. We're not swinging axes around anymore. A bullet is a bullet, no matter who fires it. Overall physical fitness is more of a factor now, and there is less of a disparity between the sexes in that regard, as opposed to raw, brute force. However, what should NOT be done is instituting separate standards for women. This isn't sports, it's not about fair play. If it comes to war, the other side isn't likely to go easy on them because they are female.

2. Replenishing numbers - put simply, women were too valuable a commodity to risk in wars since losing them meant a lower capacity to replenish your numbers between conflicts. A hyperbole to illustrate: a village of 200 people, all in their 20ies, 50/50 male/female split. If they send 100 women out to fight and only 10 come back alive, they can pop out 10 kids a year, meaning it would take them 9 years to reach the previous population levels. If they send out 100 men and 10 come back alive, some polygamy ensues and you're getting 100 kids a year, reaching old population levels in a year. Considering the whole overpopulation thing we're starting to have to deal with, I don't think this is much of a concern anymore...

 

[MrFalconfly]

Well I don't see why not.

If she can shoot, carry her own gear, and function within the group then I don't see why she shouldn't be a combat unit just like any other.

When I was in the Danish Royal Life Guards we had three women in our company (but that was mostly because they were the only ones who'd voluntered) and they were just as good both in the field and on guard duty as the rest of us.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There are two fundamental reasons why historically women were for the most part kept out of combat:

Not true, actually. This was more of a cultural thing, you have had cultures were women fought.

1. Physical strength - not quite as big of an issue as before. We're not swinging axes around anymore.

Even when we were, strength wasn't the main thing. The Romans, for example, could defeat ethnicities that tended to be larger on average with discipline. Fighting as a coherent unit is much more important than bigger muscles.

2. Replenishing numbers - put simply, women were too valuable a commodity to risk in wars since losing them meant a lower capacity to replenish your numbers between conflicts. A hyperbole to illustrate: a village of 200 people, all in their 20ies, 50/50 male/female split. If they send 100 women out to fight and only 10 come back alive, they can pop out 10 kids a year, meaning it would take them 9 years to reach the previous population levels. If they send out 100 men and 10 come back alive, some polygamy ensues and you're getting 100 kids a year, reaching old population levels in a year. Considering the whole overpopulation thing we're starting to have to deal with, I don't think this is much of a concern anymore...

In theory that is possible, yes, but really, most societies didn't introduce polygamy as a response to war.

 

[Kennetic]

I'm one of the few people here who is actually in a combat unit in the the US military. There are several factors that leave women at a disadvantage in combat. 1, they are generally less athletic than men and they don't currently use the same fitness standards that men do. 2, they have hygiene requirements that men don't. We have often been without proper hygiene for weeks or even months at a time but males can handle that, whereas females need proper hygiene on a regular basis and being in combat that is not something that cam be provided right away. Support roles allow for this which is why women are in support roles. 3, Combat units are mostly filled with alpha male types and women simply don't fit there. Honestly, it's not safe for them unfortunately. EO training doesn't work. Sexual harassment training doesn't work. However, women have been approved for combat roles as of this year but I have yet to see any. Makes sense, combat roles generally aren't appealing to women or homosexuals for that matter. Open homosexuals have been allowed for over 2 years now amd I've yet to see one in a combat unit.

Edit: I apologize ahead of time if you quote me and I don't reply right away. I'm currently in the field and don't have time to get on my phone often.

 

[Maldark]

Where's the "Why is this even a question?" option?

 

[Jandau]

In theory that is possible, yes, but really, most societies didn't introduce polygamy as a response to war.

My example was oversimplified to illustrate the basic principle. The changes to the societal structure were likely over time, and even more likely, there was a sort of natural selection, where societies that kept women out of combat fared better over a longer period than those who allowed them to fight, resulting in higher survival rate for the society in question.

 

[Tomeran]

It 2013 and we still can't get over the equal rights thing?

Pretty much this.

Its a bit disgraceful that we still as a human species have to discuss this issue at 2013.

The obvious answer to the poll should be the top choice.

 

[Thaluikhain]

In theory that is possible, yes, but really, most societies didn't introduce polygamy as a response to war.

My example was oversimplified to illustrate the basic principle. The changes to the societal structure were likely over time, and even more likely, there was a sort of natural selection, where societies that kept women out of combat fared better over a longer period than those who allowed them to fight, resulting in higher survival rate for the society in question.

I don't agree with that, though I can't prove it's not the case. However, I've seen lots of people taking your oversimplified example or something like it as gospel.

 

[Jandau]

In theory that is possible, yes, but really, most societies didn't introduce polygamy as a response to war.

My example was oversimplified to illustrate the basic principle. The changes to the societal structure were likely over time, and even more likely, there was a sort of natural selection, where societies that kept women out of combat fared better over a longer period than those who allowed them to fight, resulting in higher survival rate for the society in question.

I don't agree with that, though I can't prove it's not the case. However, I've seen lots of people taking your oversimplified example or something like it as gospel.

I was making a short comment in a thread in the off-topic section of a gaming forum. I apologize for not writing a 20-page thesis on the subject complete with cited sources and footnotes. I forgot that Internet is serious business...

 

[dementis]

All roles but only if they meet the same requirements as men, all that giving women lower requirements does is ensure a continuing gender bias and a weaker fighting force. None of this helps anyone in the slightest.

 

[AuronFtw]

Kind of a silly poll. As long as they are combat ready, in fit shape and don't have hair that will interfere with equipment/gasmasks/bodysuits, there's nothing wrong with them running into fight.

That said, the "problem" with allowing women in those combat roles is that they often don't meet those requirements, and then they ***** and moan about them, making the requirements less stringent and allowing combat unfit people into combat. See also: boot camp in the 70s compared to boot camp today.

 

[Doclector]

Why the fuck not? If they can fight, they can fight. And I'm sure that soldiers are disciplined enough not to jump into each other's pants on duty, so that absurd argument goes right out the window.

 

[PatrickXD]

Women can work wherever they want, as long as training standards and entry requirements don't move ground in order to allow less able individuals in. If a woman can throw a grenade far enough to be outside of the danger zone, pick up a full grown male soldier and run them 100 yards, pull back the lever on an M16, keep up the pace and distance of a male soldier when running and maintain any other standard requirement of a male soldier then sure. Let them in. Otherwise, you're just a liability in combat - male or female.
Just keep in mind that equal opportunity does not mean an equal outcome.

 

[Griffolion]

If they meet the requirements, yes. The requirements should not be changed, lowered, or have exemptions given in any way.

Massive tangent:

It's not just armed forces that have this issue, it's also the fire service. A number of years ago, a feminist group made a massive furor in Britain because there are no female fire fighters. The fire services responded by saying it's got nothing to do with the fact they are women, it's just that the female form cannot (generally) achieve the muscle mass and level of fitness required of a fire fighter. The feminist group then responded by saying the requirements should be lowered to accommodate females. The reason why that is both an utterly stupid, and wholly dangerous, idea should be obvious by now.

In recent years, the fire service, under massive public pressure, has been made to relax fitness standards for the sake of letting women (and less strong men) into the service. One example is that, previously, a recruit was required to be able to set up a 100KG ladder within 20 seconds. Now, the recruit only needs to set up a 30KG ladder.

I'm all for women being in the fire service, I'm just not all for competency standards being lowered just for the sake of them being let into the fire service. Gender has nothing to do with when the chips are down in the middle of a fire, and you need to get someone out of a building.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

The only issues with women in combat is the opposite side. Correct me if im wrong, but i've seen some documentories about people who fought against women in certain wars. And many combatants were devastated, because to them it was much harder to shoot a woman than shooting another guy.

But besides that and the fact i'd rather have nobody would be joining the military, sure go ahead. As long as they fit the same requirements the men get for certain positions, why not. If you're qualified for a job that's all that matters.. and if a schniedel is dangling between your legs.

 

[Dizeazedkiller]

As long as they meet the requirements, anywhere. Unless I'm just being ignorant we don't live in a world where we need women to constantly bring new life into this world to replace massive losses at the hands of a war or something of its like.

However higher ups seem to have a bit of a problem with women meeting equal requirements. I remember a bit of a hubbub a while back about women in the fire service meeting lesser requirements than men to do the same job. I don't find that particular fair or safe but if they don't pander to extremists and just leave the requirements as uni-sex then its fine.

Edit.

If they meet the requirements, yes. The requirements should not be changed, lowered, or have exemptions given in any way.

Massive tangent:

It's not just armed forces that have this issue, it's also the fire service. A number of years ago, a feminist group made a massive furor in Britain because there are no female fire fighters. The fire services responded by saying it's got nothing to do with the fact they are women, it's just that the female form cannot (generally) achieve the muscle mass and level of fitness required of a fire fighter. The feminist group then responded by saying the requirements should be lowered to accommodate females. The reason why that is both an utterly stupid, and wholly dangerous, idea should be obvious by now.

In recent years, the fire service, under massive public pressure, has been made to relax fitness standards for the sake of letting women (and less strong men) into the service. One example is that, previously, a recruit was required to be able to set up a 100KG ladder within 20 seconds. Now, the recruit only needs to set up a 30KG ladder.

I'm all for women being in the fire service, I'm just not all for competency standards being lowered just for the sake of them being let into the fire service. Gender has nothing to do with when the chips are down in the middle of a fire, and you need to get someone out of a building.

This is what i was referring to. Beat me to it and with a much better explanation, too.