Poll: Women In Front Line Combat Role

Recommended Videos

Farther than stars

New member
Jun 19, 2011
1,228
0
0
MickDick said:
Well, yeah, of course it's shitty. But then a lot of things in the world are shitty, including the things we're fighting these conflicts for in the first place. Compared to some of the atrocities war aims to avoid, this is such an insignificant injustice in my opinion that I say: live and let live. I don't want to be the guy who stands in the way of people's career goals just because of current cultural constraints. After all, think of all the technological and scientific advancements we've missed out on by not letting women contribute in the past. That's not how I want our future to be. Just, live and let live is all I can say.
 

Easton Dark

New member
Jan 2, 2011
2,366
0
0
Heaven said:
Look, the research has been done, and thus far it's shown that male combatants get killed or injured at a much higher rate when women are in the squad, as the OP briefly mentioned. They start ignoring orders and using unsound battle tactics to protect female soldiers, and I don't see this changing; it's biologically innate. So there's no way I'd risk the lives of soldiers for "equality" reasons; the role of the army is to be the best fighting force possible with the lowest number of casualties, not a politically correct representation of societal standards. If the research changes, then opinions can change, but there's a reason this proposal usually gets little traction.
It's biological to want to eat and fuck too, but some people don't.

If the male soldiers decide that one life is worth more than the rest of the squad's, maybe they aren't fit for combat. Like, if there was a female they were fighting, what would they do then? That's their problem. Not a problem of the women soldiers.
 

Heaven's Guardian

New member
Oct 22, 2011
117
0
0
Easton Dark said:
Heaven said:
Look, the research has been done, and thus far it's shown that male combatants get killed or injured at a much higher rate when women are in the squad, as the OP briefly mentioned. They start ignoring orders and using unsound battle tactics to protect female soldiers, and I don't see this changing; it's biologically innate. So there's no way I'd risk the lives of soldiers for "equality" reasons; the role of the army is to be the best fighting force possible with the lowest number of casualties, not a politically correct representation of societal standards. If the research changes, then opinions can change, but there's a reason this proposal usually gets little traction.
It's biological to want to eat and fuck too, but some people don't.

If the male soldiers decide that one life is worth more than the rest of the squad's, maybe they aren't fit for combat. Like, if there was a female they were fighting, what would they do then? That's their problem. Not a problem of the women soldiers.
We're not talking about some random, small subset of soldiers here; this is a very significant percentage, so much so that you can't possibly remove them from an army and have a legitimate fighting force left. The sort of men who join the army for frontline combat generally have very powerful protective instincts towards their allies, and it manifests more strongly when trying to protect their female allies from harm. Enemies are enemies, so that part doesn't matter, but combat isn't about reasoned, "progressive" thought; when people are shooting at you, all but the mostly highly-drilled specialists are tapping into primal instincts, and that's what comes out. You can't tell them not to do it; they would have figured out a way already if you could.
 

m72_ar

New member
Oct 27, 2010
145
0
0
If they can pass the same requirement that the men have to pass sure.

But even then mixed sex unit is unacceptable.
Most guy has an instinct to protect the females hence will take more risks to protect them
Great movie material, bad for unit cohesion

Quaxar said:
Women in the infantry? Don't care, but what we need brought back is a <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes>gay lover regiment. Seemed to work very well for the Thebans. And it would be hilarious for internet comedy writers.
Nah wouldn't work in modern combat. Snipe 1 in the leg, the lover risk everything and rush to rescue him/her, snipe the lover in the head then finish the wounded one. Same reason why lovers (gay or otherwise) shouldn't serve in the same unit
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
Ok, 8+ years in the US Army, Ranger School graduate.

I'm not going to comment on the psychological aspects of it or even my opinion on the subject, but some of the comments on here are so ludicrous I just can't hold my tongue. Let me be perfectly clear: Men and Women are physically different, and it's not just that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. This whole "oh well women are only physically weaker because of societal mores" is so ludicrous I can't even call it pseudo-science. Yes I know, you know some guy who's lazy and some girl who's really fit, and therefore that proves your point: no it doesn't.

If men and women were able to develop strength as easily, then we would see comparable results at the highest levels of elite athletes, but we don't: they aren't even close. To give you an example, the world records for men in the Squat, benchpress, and deadlift are as follows (respectively): 1267, 1075, 1015 (in pounds). The women's world records? 854, 600, 683 (in pounds also). Not even close. This is because of the very simple fact that men have a lot more testosterone and are capable of developing much more muscle than women. This is science, and anyone who paid attention in biology should know this. To say that "no, it's only because of society!!" basically means you think you know better than every Doctor on the planet.
 

m72_ar

New member
Oct 27, 2010
145
0
0
Volan said:
m19 said:
Volan said:
so theories about women being weaker and the such-like are redundant. There's no way of knowing until we try.
Those are not theories. If physical standards matter (which military still thinks they do) then men have an advantage.
An advantage doesn't mean anything until it is put into practice. I can turn your argument around by saying that because an Asian man is smaller and theoretically weaker than a Caucasian man, then we shouldn't have Asians in the front line either. I mean, really? You see how stupid it sounds?

Physical statistics are so ranged across the population that it's not even worth considering.
The big question is this.
Can the Asian man pass the physical test for frontline? The standard one not the modified bullshit one?

If he can no problem.

And like you said physical capabilities varies across the board hence standard test is created as a cutoff line.

IF women can pass the same test that the men has to go through, they can go to the front
Whether they can serve in a mixed sex unit is a completely different debate
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
I've seen a lot of things derived from studies that basically amount to 'men act stupidly in combat when women are injured'. Also, procreation during war. So I'd say more research needed for frontline roles.

For everything else, there's Mastercard they're fine.
 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Comocat said:
Meaning of Karma said:
If a woman meets the physical requirements needed for front line combat, then yes, let them do it. If they don't, then no.

It's that fucking simple.
For the most part, this. However, we have an society built around the fact men protect women, so it might be difficult to ignore 20 years of social conditioning when you are in a life or death situation. I'm not saying this is fair or even right, but it exists. Of course, the army's thing is mental conditioning, so if they find they can build teams of men and women that get the job done, go for it.
It works both ways. Women aren't really conditioned by society to be muscle bound action heroes either. They're encouraged to be passive, and only "tough" in non-threatening, non-physical ways. Few girls see themselves as growing up to join the army, (at least to the extent that boys do), and that needs to changed if we want to see an increase in the physical standards of potential women.

PS Glad this thread hasn't gone off the rails and started ranting about how women aren't drafted, and so men are discriminated against/have it worse.
 

m19

New member
Jun 13, 2012
283
0
0
Farther than stars said:
An advantage doesn't mean anything until it is put into practice.
Front-line military service requires no small degree of physical fitness, it's been put into practice many times. Hence the existence of steep fitness standards.

I can turn your argument around by saying that because an Asian man is smaller and theoretically weaker than a Caucasian man, then we shouldn't have Asians in the front line either. I mean, really? You see how stupid it sounds?
An Asian man does not have lower physical standards because of his race and size. Women do have lower standards (in most cases anyway) because of their gender and what that means for their physical potential.

BTW I have no problem with women serving. Provided they are the best candidate for the job, regardless of gender. As in they can do what men do. No quotas or any such bullcrap.
 

Galletea

Inexplicably Awesome
Sep 27, 2008
2,877
0
0
I think that if they fulfil the requirements for the role then yes of course. I think more research would help, since we are different from men and think differently, whether people like to admit or not.
 

SushiJaguar

New member
Sep 12, 2010
130
0
0
Ihateregistering1 said:
Ok, 8+ years in the US Army, Ranger School graduate.

I'm not going to comment on the psychological aspects of it or even my opinion on the subject, but some of the comments on here are so ludicrous I just can't hold my tongue. Let me be perfectly clear: Men and Women are physically different, and it's not just that boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. This whole "oh well women are only physically weaker because of societal mores" is so ludicrous I can't even call it pseudo-science. Yes I know, you know some guy who's lazy and some girl who's really fit, and therefore that proves your point: no it doesn't.

If men and women were able to develop strength as easily, then we would see comparable results at the highest levels of elite athletes, but we don't: they aren't even close. To give you an example, the world records for men in the Squat, benchpress, and deadlift are as follows (respectively): 1267, 1075, 1015 (in pounds). The women's world records? 854, 600, 683 (in pounds also). Not even close. This is because of the very simple fact that men have a lot more testosterone and are capable of developing much more muscle than women. This is science, and anyone who paid attention in biology should know this. To say that "no, it's only because of society!!" basically means you think you know better than every Doctor on the planet.
Right, that's it, show's over. Everybody return to your homes, move along, etc. Some actual figures here (OP's post not included) that indicate proper research. Time to pack it in, I reckon.
 

Mr F.

New member
Jul 11, 2012
614
0
0
Darken12 said:
All this is a consequence of arbitrary social mores. Men get stressed out or make risky decisions when women are in danger because society keeps insisting that women are helpless and fragile and need to be protected by men. This is patently false, but it shows up everywhere all the same.

Similarly, only 1% of women fit current male standards because we, as a society, insist that women must be thin, willowy and that anything that would give them physical strength (such as fat and muscle) are terribly undesirable. When it becomes socially desirable for women to have muscles (just like men), we'll start to see that 1% becoming 100%. And likewise, the bit about women needing more provocation and fearing the consequences of aggression have to do with the fact that women are socialised to be demure and quiet, and traits such as loudness, aggression and assertiveness are discouraged in them. Furthermore, women learn to avoid confrontational attitudes and play peacekeepers with men, something that wouldn't be necessary if they were socialised to be aggressive and value physical strength (just like men are socialised).

In short, change current societal mores and this problem disappears.
Oh god, am I getting involved?

Yes, Yes I am getting involved.

Bull to the shit.

Sorry. I get this enough from my sister. I get this enough from some of my classmates. I get this enough from society in general. The most important thing humans need to remember is that we are animals. We are predisposed to be certain ways. There are differences in male and female biology, BAR WHAT FUCKING WEDDING TACKLE YOU HAPPEN TO BE ROCKING.

Now, on to your fitness point. To a degree I can see that, you are making a validish point. Yet... Nope. Sorry. Its the Military. It is a high stress environment. It is an environment where the strongest survive. Everyone is encouraged to put on the muscle, to beef up, to increase their general levels of fitness and stamina. Etc etc etc. This overrules your arguments that it is down to society that these differences are present. Its just reality. Sorry bro. Again, with the aggression and everything, the military fosters that kind of stuff...

Fuck it, why am I even bothering?

Look, Gender equality is a good thing. And it should be fostered. And hell, Women make fucking good killers, there are plenty of women who could kill me rather easily. And plenty of men. But we are biologically different. So let the women continue manning the big guns, let them keep working in tanks and choppers, let them keep blowing people into little meaty chunks with planes.

But do not, in the name of equality, put them in situations which will kill them. We are animals. Men are more suited for killing. We are built to be aggressive SOB's. Its in our nature.

Ok, I am starting to go in circles...

Just... Yeah. I think your argument does not apply. Certainly, it can apply. Bits of it are logical. But the fact of the matter is men are better suited to the kind of aggression that is needed in a frontline unit and adding women to that unit would complicate things. Not due to them being any less competent then men, just down to the differing levels of fitness and the fact that us men are hardwired to protect women.
 

Tropicaz

New member
Aug 7, 2012
311
0
0
There's a reason that for the most part, physical sports are divided into men's and women's sections and they dont compete as one.
As plenty of people have said, biologically and chemically men are better suited to frontline combat.
 

dvd_72

New member
Jun 7, 2010
581
0
0
The simple truth is that you need to put a soldier into the role they are best suited for physically and mentally. This rule does not differ between men and women. While women may not be as physically capable as men they have many other advantages over men that must be put to use if one intends to maximise their potential in the military.
 

monkey_man

New member
Jul 5, 2009
1,164
0
0
Like it's been said already, whenever the 1% of fit females (as stated by OP) wants to be in the front line, let them!
whether a man or woman gets shot to death is equal to me. I'm not a fan of any military of any sorts, hell if it involves real guns I'm not interested. (except non lethal things like paintball and stuff :D )

*DISCLAIMER* Just because I don't like the military and don't care whether a man or a woman gets shot, does not mean I wish people painful bloody and horrible deaths. It's their job, and if they choose to do such a thing, it's their choice, not mine. But they also know the risks.

Captcha: bots are bad m'kay
Actually, that would pretty much solve a lot of problems.
 

lunavixen

New member
Jan 2, 2012
841
0
0
well, the NSW police force has the same requirements out of female recruits compared to males, if you can make the grade, you can apply for the job, if not then you can't. Sugar coating or softening a job based on gender will only cause more issues in the long road for the one who got the kid gloves as well as the ones around them
 

Easton Dark

New member
Jan 2, 2011
2,366
0
0
Heaven said:
We're not talking about some random, small subset of soldiers here; this is a very significant percentage, so much so that you can't possibly remove them from an army and have a legitimate fighting force left. The sort of men who join the army for frontline combat generally have very powerful protective instincts towards their allies, and it manifests more strongly when trying to protect their female allies from harm.
I don't think that's what their training should have instilled in them. Maybe the training should be better.

Heaven said:
Enemies are enemies, so that part doesn't matter
No no, you can't just say it's biological for men to protect women and then say it doesn't matter for another side. Factions and war are man-made things. If biology plays such a huge role in this, it shouldn't matter what side the female was on.

Heaven said:
but combat isn't about reasoned, "progressive" thought; when people are shooting at you, all but the mostly highly-drilled specialists are tapping into primal instincts, and that's what comes out. You can't tell them not to do it; they would have figured out a way already if you could.
Primal instincts sure come in to play when you're being shot at. I think that's what the training was for, to keep soldiers calm and thinking under pressure.

If they can't do that, the training is bad. So yes, whether or not women will be serving on the front lines, using yours and others testimonies, I don't believe modern military training is up to snuff and should be improved.
 

Heronblade

New member
Apr 12, 2011
1,204
0
0
Fuzzed said:
Why does this pole not have a simple "yes" choice without any qualifications?
You have a problem with the "under the same requirements as for male soldiers"?

I can see letting women into front line military units if we can be confident that their effectiveness won't be compromised for some reason, but there is absolutely no good reason to lower standards in order to do it. Those standards keep those soldiers alive. Allowing anyone who is not up to par in, whether male or female, risks everyone else around them.

Easton Dark said:
Heaven said:
We're not talking about some random, small subset of soldiers here; this is a very significant percentage, so much so that you can't possibly remove them from an army and have a legitimate fighting force left. The sort of men who join the army for frontline combat generally have very powerful protective instincts towards their allies, and it manifests more strongly when trying to protect their female allies from harm.
I don't think that's what their training should have instilled in them. Maybe the training should be better.
First of all, the training merely reinforces the natural tendencies of most soldiers. Few people sign up for the military that do not already exhibit that kind of behavior. Secondly, the training in question helps to ensure two things, that they are willing to enthusiastically fight on the behalf of their countrymen and allies, and that they are unwilling to use their combat training against those same people when not on the battlefield.

Trust me, you want it to stay the way it is.
 

Fuzzed

New member
Dec 27, 2012
185
0
0
Heronblade said:
I can see letting women into front line military units if we can be confident that their effectiveness won't be compromised for some reason, but there is absolutely no good reason to lower standards in order to do it. Those standards keep those soldiers alive. Allowing anyone who is not up to par in, whether male or female, risks everyone else around them.
How do women lower standards? And, isn't the risk level on the front line like already ridiculously high? How would some females up there make the situation any worse?
 

bastardofmelbourne

New member
Dec 11, 2012
1,038
0
0
A few posters here seem to be under the assumption that the "other" side is arguing for the total exclusion of women from the armed forces on the basis that they are statistically less muscular than men.

That's retarded. No-one is arguing that women need to be excluded on the basis of statistics, and if they are, they've got straw packed deep up their asshole. If a female soldier can meet the same physical standard as the male soldiers do in the same role on an individual basis, there is no reason to exclude them except for the insufficiently researched possibility that the male soldiers might do stupid shit in the presence of vaginas. If they can do the job, let them do the job.

What you will get, however, is an unequal gender distribution. This is because you're applying one physical standard to both sexes, but it's a standard that one sex (the male) has an easier time fulfilling than the other. There will be women who meet the standard, but there will always be many more men who meet it as well, and as a consequence the ratio will stay entrenched heavily in favour of the males.

This is more-or-less unavoidable. The only alternative is the application of special measures (you Yanks call it affirmative action) to ensure an "equal" gender distribution; basically letting women enter under a lowered standard. That's unacceptable for obvious reasons.

So, in short, you're never going to even out the gender distribution in these kinds of front-line military roles, or any role that requires a high physical standard. So long as you apply one formal standard, there will be an unequal gender distribution due to biological differences between male and female muscle development. It is not a question of "social norms." It is not because the military is clinging to outdated physical standards. Those arguments are bad arguments made with good intentions. It would be awesome if women had it just as easy with men when it comes to building muscle, but they don't. It sucks, but that's how it is.