Poll: Women In Front Line Combat Role

[Chemical Alia]

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.

Only 600-850 pounds? Gosh, that's so embarrassing! Why even bother doing squats in the first place? Or lifting anything, ever? This is so relevant to military PT standards, thanks for bringing up this important point!

Whenever this thread comes up, I'm always reminded of how goddamn thrilled I am to no longer be in the army.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

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?

He is referring to the possibility that the physical standard will be lowered to even out the gender distribution in such front-line military roles, or that a second standard be applied to female applicants. The women do not "lower standards" by their mere presence; the idea is that the army will lower its standards to let more women in.

This is undesirable. It occurs because most political and legal attempts at reforming gender distributions in the workplace start on the assumption that if there is an unequal gender distribution, a sexist standard is being applied. This is technically the case with the military - they are applying a physical standard that favours men - but the prevailing opinion inside the army itself is that the physical standard takes priority over gender equality.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

My thoughts:
Women should not currently serve on the front-line but I do think more research should be done.
If Women do prove capable of front-line roles, and they do not interfere with serving Men's combat abilities as has been hypothesised, then yes. However, even if women are not suitable for front-line tasking, that doesn't mean they couldn't be better suited elsewhere. They already serve as pilots, mechanics, etc. However, most special forces operatives are smaller than the average soldier. Perhaps Women could be of greater use there. Or as Snipers. A two woman team could work very well.
It all requires further research. I'm all for gender equality, but not if it means risking lives.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Only 600-850 pounds? Gosh, that's so embarrassing! Why even bother doing squats in the first place? Or lifting anything, ever? This is so relevant to military PT standards, thanks for bringing up this important point!

Whenever this thread comes up, I'm always reminded of how goddamn thrilled I am to no longer be in the army.

I have to ask you to elaborate, if only because it sounds like you have a well thought-out point but you haven't told us what it is yet.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Only 600-850 pounds? Gosh, that's so embarrassing! Why even bother doing squats in the first place? Or lifting anything, ever? This is so relevant to military PT standards, thanks for bringing up this important point!

Whenever this thread comes up, I'm always reminded of how goddamn thrilled I am to no longer be in the army.

I have to ask you to elaborate, if only because it sounds like you have a well thought-out point but you haven't told us what it is yet.

It sounds to me like the high end of what women can lift is still pretty damn high. Yet I don't see what that has or hasn't got to do with overall aptitude to serve in the front lines. My job was in military intelligence and most of the people I worked with were pretty rational and cool, but I'm really glad I didn't limit myself by wanting to make the military my career.

I also find it funny that the army has been lowering its aptitude standards from fitness, education, criminal history, and intelligence in the years since we went to war. In some part thanks to kids these days being too fatty fat to meet recruitment standards otherwise.

 

[Farther than stars]

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.

Excuse me, but you're quoting the wrong person. I never said any of that.

 

[Darken12]

*snip*

Already tackled most of that here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.398195-Poll-Women-In-Front-Line-Combat-Role?page=2#16281745]. Genetic (or hormonal, or biochemical) determinism is a horrendously offensive concept. I cannot fathom, as a biochemist myself, living my life imagining there are things that are simply out of my reach (or out of someone else's reach) because their levels of X aren't high enough. Preposterous. That's why we have science and medicine, to make those things our bitches.

Besides, nobody's asking for standards to be lowered. If those women make it to the front lines, they are every bit as tough, strong and capable as the male soldiers, and can be counted to do absolutely anything her fellow men could do.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

It sounds to me like the high end of what women can lift is still pretty damn high. Yet I don't see what that has or hasn't got to do with overall aptitude to serve in the front lines. My job was in military intelligence and most of the people I worked with were pretty rational and cool, but I'm really glad I didn't limit myself by wanting to make the military my career.

I also find it funny that the army has been lowering its aptitude standards from fitness, education, criminal history, and intelligence in the years since we went to war. In some part thanks to kids these days being too fatty fat to meet recruitment standards otherwise.

Thanks for explaining. So many people won't do that on internet forums! I think I agree with you anyway.

Already tackled most of that here. Genetic (or hormonal, or biochemical) determinism is a horrendously offensive concept. I cannot fathom, as a biochemist myself, living my life imagining there are things that are simply out of my reach (or out of someone else's reach) because their levels of X aren't high enough. Preposterous. That's why we have science and medicine, to make those things our bitches.

If I read you right here...you're saying that you find genetic/hormonal/biochemical determinism horrendously offensive, and then say that we should use science to change it...then link to a post where you talk about how we can change women's testosterone levels through hormonal manipulation, referring to polycystic ovary syndrome and a controlled diet and exercise regime during adolescence.

My question is that if you're suggesting we manipulate female hormones - whether through inducing PCOS or through controlled diet and exercise - to increase testosterone levels, aren't you subscribing to some level of hormonal determinism? You have to at least acknowledge that their hormone levels have an effect on their muscle development if you want to manipulate hormones to increase muscle development.

That's still biochemical determinism, it's just that you're changing the determining factor (hormones) so that the outcome (muscle growth) is different. The fundamental process by which hormones affect muscle growth is still deterministic. It has to be deterministic, or your suggestion that we manipulate it would be baseless.

 

[BristolBerserker]

I don't think women should be in front line combat units. One reason I can think of that no-one has pointed out yet happened recently in the British Army.

Lets say that women are allowed on the front line, you have mixed squads, units and regiments. Now you and your squad are being deployed to a warzone when you find out two of your squad members are pregnant. They obviously can't fight while pregnant and a deployment lasts about 6 months so they are told to stay behind. Suddenly you are missing two members from your squad and they are going to be away for the pregnancy and the maternity leave as well so they're going to be gone for about 18 months. That is not a reasonable amount of time to be away from your squad. Also if a female soldier is killed and she is found to be pregnant it would have a massive drain on morale and a media backlash at home asking why a pregnant soldier was on deployment.

So simply put, women should not be front line soldiers because the if they get pregnant, that is a massive drain on man power and resources. One pregnant soldier is one less soldier to deploy.

 

[Heronblade]

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?

By default, they don't. However, only a tiny fraction of female soldiers meet the standards already in place. Making an exception for the others is not acceptable.

Also, the risk level on the front lines is actually incredibly low considering the circumstances for our soldiers. The tools we give them keep them alive far more often and far more reliably than could ever be expected if otherwise. Among the most important tools is unit cohesion, how well individuals work with and rely upon each other. Upset the balance there, and people WILL die. Whether or not female soldiers in such units will cause that problem is not something I can answer, but it is a question that must be carefully considered.

 

[Timmey]

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?

By default, they don't. However, only a tiny fraction of female soldiers meet the standards already in place. Making an exception for the others is not acceptable.

Also, the risk level on the front lines is actually incredibly low considering the circumstances for our soldiers. The tools we give them keep them alive far more often and far more reliably than could ever be expected if otherwise. Among the most important tools is unit cohesion, how well individuals work with and rely upon each other. Upset the balance there, and people WILL die. Whether or not female soldiers in such units will cause that problem is not something I can answer, but it is a question that must be carefully considered.

Actually women already require lower standards to join the army, although only as officers. However your right that they shouldn't lower them for women wanting to join the infantry, if that were to be allowed.

http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20153.aspx

 

[SextusMaximus]

I remember wondering about that a lot when I was little. A woman can fire a gun just as easily as a man, so why shouldn't they be allowed to serve on the front lines?

Then I learned that Russia actually used women for snipers because they tended to be better shots, so some countries used women as soldiers.

Then, one day when I was in college, my English teacher said something that I've always remembered: Women are needed to continue the population. If your fighting a war that threatens your very existence (whether it be total annihilation of the human race, or just your own way of life), you're going to need to keep your numbers up. A man is just needed for a few minutes and their job is done. Off they go to fight, but their work to continue the species is finished. A woman has to carry that baby for nine months, and then raise it. Out of combat for her. So there's that.

I personally believe that having a woman on the front lines will affect how men act. You can try to deny it all you want, but men act differently when women are around. Whether this means not deploying her unit, her her specifically, even though they are sorely needed because of the belief that a woman should be protected, or putting your unit at greater risk because a woman is in danger and you need to save her, or just having her as a distraction for the men.

Then there's all the science stuff that says women wouldn't be as effective as frontline soldiers as men would. Biological differences and structure differences.

So, my final thoughts: I don't think a woman should be on the front lines in active hunt and kill missions. If backed into a corner, or suddenly in a live fire fight that wasn't being sought, or any 'support' (and I use the term lightly, because I'm including pilots and gunners) roles, then that's fine.

You raise an extremely good point, few consider the possibility of women not being in the army because they're superior to men.

Would also like to bring up high levels of rape in the military, as much as we wish it weren't true.

 

[m19]

Excuse me, but you're quoting the wrong person. I never said any of that.

Whoops. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Farther than stars]

Excuse me, but you're quoting the wrong person. I never said any of that.

Whoops. Sorry for the confusion.

No worries. I hope you managed to contact the right guy.

 

[Seydaman]

Yes, but with adjusted requirements. Take advantage of the increased dexterity, otherwise, there is little problem.

I've heard tale of men not being able to work with women, but the thing about the military is, that it breaks you down and makes you into a soldier, and if being a soldier means being gender blind, then soldiers will be gender blind.

 

[Cheesus Crust]

If women can prove themselves to be just as competent as the male soldiers in the front lines then I honestly can't come up with a good reason to not let them have a go at it.

 

[La Barata]

You can lower the standards for a warehouse job.

You can lower the standards for a construction job.

You can lower the standards for most any job there is, except for a select few.

These few are those jobs in which people can and will die if you're not physically capable, military, firefighting, police work, etc. 51 people in this poll voted to say that they should be given adjusted physical requirements. Seriously? Do the lives of people really matter so little to you that they should be risked so things are 'fair'?

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

If they want the job and can do the job then they can have the job in my opinion. Don't give the women in question any extra help when it comes to the fitness tests and such, but if they make the grade then I don't see the problem.
One thing that bugs me about this issue is that one of the objections I often hear relates to concerns that guys might try to protect female members of their unit. I feel this is a bit of an odd and somewhat hypocritical thing to be concerned about when taking risks to protect teammates is so commended by the military already.
The other objection I hear mentioned a lot is the concern that the male members not being able to behave themselves around women. This one just annoys me as it implies that guns and serious responsibilities are being given to folks who don't know how to behave.