Poll: Women In Front Line Combat Role

[Jedi-Hunter4]

snip

Royal Marine Commando's these are an example of the regiments that bar women from their combat squads this is what they are required to do during selection this is only part of a 32 week training course which excludes specilisation

after their course which is grueling in itself they are required to do 4 tests over a 7 day period carrying full combat gear of 32lb

9 Mile speed march to be completed in 90 mins, again in full gear

Endurance course a six mile (9.65 km) course across rough moorland and woodland terrain, which includes tunnels, pipes, wading pools, and an underwater culvert. The course ends with a four mile (6 km) run back to CTCRM. Followed by a marksmanship test, where the recruit must hit 6 out of 10 shots at a 25m target simulating 200 m. To be completed in 73 minutes

Assault course death slide and ends with a rope climb up a thirty foot near-vertical wall. It must be completed with full fighting order in 13 minutes.

30 Mile march wearing full fighting order, and additional safety equipment carried by the recruit in a daysack. to be completed in eight hours for recruits and seven hours for Royal Marine officers, who must also navigate the route themselves.

Those are the sort of requirements they are saying only 1% of female soldiers are up to standard. The standards are very high, and by average what I'm trying to get across is the averages are so starkly different that there are very few women outside of athletes (and this is according to the MOD stats) that are capable of making those requirements. An yer I couldn't get up an do that, but I'm not in a training program atm, I'd like to think I could based of previous things I've done, but would be very very hard. It costs money to asses these people if only 1% are capable you do the math.

The there's all the psychological factors I mentioned. I stated I thought those who were capable should be allowed to do it, but the psychological effects on male troops should be investigated to see if there are detrimental effects, so I'm not really sure why you think I'm an advocate of banning women, I'm just saying I can see the logic in the stats they have based it off. I'm no military nut, but from my experience in the cadets and growing up in a military town its my understanding the UK forces have very high standards on a global scale in terms of physical performance, training and officers qualifications, so I can fully understand how because of the physical differences between men and women it wound up being along gender lines in the most demanding of roles.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

I think it's very poor to use potential, hypothetical psychological factors as an excuse for denying real people equality now.

Well this was also my point, I guess I have just met the other side of the argument is all. I disagree that its worth the increased risk to the lives of people who although doing it through their own choice are doing a job that secures the safety of myself and the people I care about. They already do an incredibly dangerous job and so their safety should be paramount as much as possible and its my opinion if the Generals etc etc are saying it would compromise these units effectiveness and stats are supporting it that things should stay as they are. Which is a sad fact that yer its not total gender equality in these small amount of jobs, but their not exactly your average job and its based off effectiveness in the role of that job.

 

[lechat]

geez you are all so afraid to admit women might actually be physically different from men. it's a fact that women on average have less muscle mass and take longer to build strength because of testosterone. that's not to say they can't fulfill the role but they are less likely to and will potentially require more training

also they have vaginas....
really wish i could find a link to the american politician that very awkwardly used the vagina argument but regardless of how poorly he put it he still had a point. women do require more hygienic conditions then men. we haven't had any major trench warfare lately but i dare say men will always fair better in the long term than women when exposed to unhygienic conditions

the Israeli army does a pretty good job of integrating women into it's ranks but they will admit that men tend to favor rescuing women over men even if it potentially endangers themselves and it has been shown that in some cases men will prioritize giving medical aid to a dieing women when instead they should have given aid to a less injured but savable man
it is also shown that islamic militants are less likely to surrender to women and consider them less of a threat (potentially a good or bad thing)

i won't say that women should never serve on the front lines nor do i have any military experience. i believe the major factor that should exclude women from major combat roles is not the women themselves but the effects they may have on their male counterparts and until further study is done or that is rectified no they should not serve on the front lines

 

[Reaper195]

Personally, I've always viewed these things in a truly equal manner. Yes, physically, men tend to have more stamina than women (Although that whole birth being more painful than anything else in the world I'm dubious about, since there isn't a way to accurately measure pain. For all men know, it could actually be a lot less painful than having your nuts squeezed until they pop...but we'll never really know). But that's why there are so many rigorous physical tests that need to be passed before one can go on the front lines. As far as I'm concerned, as long as one can pass all these tests, and is psychologically sound enough for battle, gender should be irrelevant.

 

[Overusedname]

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.

its not though, because as I said there's research that's been done which suggests it can have very negative effects psychologically on male soldiers that are totally involuntary and at the current time (possibly due to lack of research) seemingly unavoidable. Which is the point I was trying to make freedom of equality & opportunity could cost someone their life. An there are those that seem to think this is justified. which I'm inclined to disagree with.

How about 'amazon units'? There are thousands of women physically qualified for this work, and statistics indicate women have higher tolerance of pain and traumatic experiences. They'd make good soldiers. All female units may minimize the problem you bring up.

Also, instinct and cultural views are not the same thing. Some men don't have the 'protect women reflex.' Not to say the problem isn't still there. Just saying it's not like it's going to be true across the board. I freely admit this is a complex issue and maybe some people don't like gender segregating, but in this matter I think it makes sense. But if those women CAN fight, they shouldn't have their opportunity gimped because of something that has nothing to do with them.

Also, being less likely to resort to violence might result in less, ya know, war crimes?

 

[uzo]

A lot of people here are missing an important thing about the military; and about military training.

Allow me to explain:
You are not a man. You are not a woman. You are not white. You are not black. You are not hispanic. You are not straight. You are not gay. You are not good at algebra. You are not a talented fiction writer. You are not an individual. You are not a precious snowflake.

YOU ARE A SOLDIER.


Any characteristic that distinguishes you from your fellow soldier is to be based upon ability. Nothing more, nothing less. Armies wear uniforms not only to show allegiance and as a source of pride, but also as a leveller and equaliser. You, and the soldier on your left, and the one on your right, are the SAME. You are a team, in the utmost sense, in that there is no individual worth any more than any other. And if you have some issue, no matter how trivial, that could be a hazard or a hinderance to the other soldiers then you are a liability, and if you can't control it then you have no place being in said team. I know when I was going for officer training, I wanted armoured division. I wanted a big machine with big guns! But I need glasses or contacts all the time. My review stated, quite simply and without prejudice, 'you have glasses. when a vehicle is hit, it shakes like a giant has picked you up and is playing yahtzee with you and 4 other tanks. your glasses will fall off, or break. either way, you're blind. and you have a crew waiting for your next orders. what use are you going to be, fumbling around looking for your glasses? you've just cost the lives of several good soldiers, and destroyed a very expensive piece of machinery, because you got the job that someone else with perfect eyes should have gotten.' Expand that anecdote to gender.

This is why many men, for example, simply can't cope with military life, and many many more never even attempt it. There is a dissociation of self, a removal of your individuality, that is required for the work. When a commanding officer elects YOU to run into the open to distract the enemy and give the rest of the team an idea of where that sniper is, you don't stop and think 'but I wanted to go dancing tomorrow!' You fucking do it because you are part of a well-disciplined machine that thinks, acts, and reacts as one gestalt force.

No offence, I am certain women have killer instincts just as well as men. And I know certainly many many women I would never wish to cross (or even give a reason to look at me angrily!) let alone have shooting at me. But the psychology of the rest of your force is more important than the psychology of a minority within it.

It's simply easier for the military to say 'no', rather than open a Pandora's Box of by saying 'yes, but...'.

 

[eternal-chaplain]

I voted 'no', falling into the minority once again, but I had ought to at least explain myself. I oppose needless, petty conflicts like war in general, and I vote no as an umbrella statement, to say 'women [and] men' should not be allowed in combat, not that women specifically should not be allowed to do something a man can do.

 

[Jedi-Hunter4]

How about 'amazon units'? There are thousands of women physically qualified for this work, and statistics indicate women have higher tolerance of pain and traumatic experiences. They'd make good soldiers. All female units may minimize the problem you bring up.

Can't say I disagree if they meet the standards

 

[Souplex]

Yes, and everyone should be encouraged to schtupp everyone in the armed forces.
Look back to ancient Greece. Soldiers were encouraged to butt-buddy up. It created a sense of camaraderie, and motivated them to fight harder to keep the people they schtupp alive.

 

[Drago-Morph]

Well, I had something to say, but then I read this:

An it's an undeniable fact that men and women are different. denying that on average males have greater strength is like denying that on average women live longer lives.

And this right here is where you made the fallacy.

First of all, while yes, it is an undeniable fact that women and men are different, the question that should be asked is, "are the differences that are undeniable relevant to combat?" For example, men usually have penises. Since we do not carry rifles with our penises (spunk-gargle-wee-wee games notwithstanding) the distinction is irrelevant.

Also, I am not going to accept your claim that average males have greater strength without serious evidence as back up. I know a lot of males who have no appreciable upper body strength. I know a lot of males whose life revolves around a dull job sitting at a desk, lots of beer/chips/cola consumption, and then late night video game sessions. They are not stronger than most women I know, especially since most women I know routinely work out.

What you mean to say is "on average males have greater capacity for strength", meaning that if an average man consumes a proper diet and exercises to the peak of his physical capacity, he stands a good chance of being stronger than an average woman who does the same. This is why sexes are usually segregated in athletics.

The next question you need to ask yourself, however, is if that difference in strength matters to front line combat. Maybe 500 years ago, when soldiers needed to be able to stab each other with pikes, it mattered. Nowadays, as long as the soldier has the strength to carry their gear, it strikes me that there are much more important factors to consider- things like endurance, ability to follow orders, hand-eye coordination, and ability to make snap judgements in line with combat doctrines.

I see no credible reason to assume men are better at these things than women.

. . . And now I don't. So, thank you for making my life easier.

Have I ever mentioned you're my favorite poster on this site?

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Well.
As much as women and men should be equal in every respect, the general trend is still that men find it easier to put on muscle. Plus I think I've heard that men are more likely to produce a 'fight or flight' response, whereas women are more likely to attempt some kind of social solution. Forgot what the term was.

So.
Hopefully this doesn't make me a total bigot. I just think that wanting complete equality is a tiny bit ignorant when there are some -minor- differences between men and women generally. So... women that are up for it, yeah, they should definitely be allowed to at least apply. But if that study is accurate and only 1% are fit for it, then no punches should be pulled and only 1% shoul get it.

Also, just speaking from my own experience, I think that seeing a girlfriend or really any of my female friends die in combat would just completely break me. Seeing one of my male friends die would hurt like hell, but I'd be more likely to get angry and want to fight back rather than just break down entirely. I think. I couldn't really say without experiencing either of those things. But I do know that if I saw my ex kick it, I definitely would break down. I still care a huge about her. So opening up more possibilities for romance on the front line... maybe damaging overall?

 

[Twilight_guy]

Men are on average stronger. That doesn't change the fact that lots of people, men and women can whoop my ass. Just because you have a genetic predisposition doesn't mean your entire life has to built around it. Just have some sort of test or qualification set (they probably already do) and judge based on how they preform. Gender neutral tests that put the issue less on "because you have estrogen!" and more on "because you couldn't bench 150 pounds!"

As for psychological, that's based on engrained sexual bias. So long as we perpetuate it by letting it be, it will never change. If you want equality you're going to have to muscle though people having gender issues at first. The question is wiether or not you think its worth it to break down this barrier. Is a potential future with more women on front line worth possible complications that result immediately after enforcement begins? That's a more difficult question to answer.

 

[VanQ]

Do we set the same physical fitness standards for women and men, making it effectively extremely difficult for any girls to be admitted in a combat role (yes, girls are physicaly weaker than guys on average, get over it), or do we apply a lower standard to females, effectively reducing the overall quality of soldiers?

probably too much of such stuff that could cause a headache, hence they don't bother with it at all.

I'm surprised by the fact that this was the exact thought in my head when reading the OP. Admit them as long as they perform at the same level as every other soldier. There is no excuse for allowing the overall quality of your force drop just because someone thinks girls are special and should be treated as such. The only thing that would come out of lowering the standard for female soldiers is that those female soldiers will die. Or get a male counterpart killed.

People need to stop sugar coating the world. It's a big and dangerous place and no one is special and no one should be treated as such. If a job, be it military, commercial or what-have-you has a certain standard expected of the people that work in the field, the field should remain even for all that want to work in it.

It's only fair.

 

[Texas Joker 52]

For me, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to be enlisted in combat arms. In fact, let me show my line of thinking with this series of questions:

1): Have they volunteered to enlist into the military, disregarding specific branch? If Yes...

2): Have they opted to go into combat arms? If Yes...

3): Are they at all physically qualified, and can training make up for what they lack from the time they enlist? If Yes...

4): Are they better qualified for a different role in support as opposed to combat arms, and if so, did they still opt for a combat role? If Yes...

They should be allowed to serve their country in a combat infantry role.

Now, I know that the above is over-simplified. Each and every person alive will have differences, some that make them ill-suited to combat, and some that simply make them... Undesirable in that role, for one reason or another. Gender, however, should not be a factor.

Now yes, men and women are physically, and even mentally and emotionally, different. And yes, if captured, female soldiers have a much, much higher chance to be raped by the enemy when they become prisoners of war.

But.

If they volunteer and accept these risks as part of the duties of combat infantry, let them be infantry. In Britain and the U.S. at the very least, only legal adults can enlist in the military, disregarding the few underage enlistees that sneak into the service. That means, as legal adults, they have the right to make the choice as to whether or not they put their lives in danger like that. So, ultimately, its up to them.

 

[lacktheknack]

in 2002 MOD research showed that only 1% of trained women soldiers were physically fit enough to qualify for the front line and found that women ?required more provocation and were more likely to fear consequences of aggressive behaviour?.

Answer is right here.

If a woman is physically and mentally fit for the front line, there's no reason they can't be on it. Sure, according to the research, there's few women who should be there, but if they qualify, let them.

I... literally cannot see any alternative viewpoint that's not misogynistic ("Women are too delicate", or the oppositely problematic "Gender equality means there should be more women out there whether they're qualified or not") or misandric ("Only men should be put in danger").

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

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.

Um... you think this is an issue of what society finds attractive in the respective genders? Yes, I'm sure once society deems physically fit women appealing, and men express their interests in assertive women, we'll have a sudden influx of front line combat volunteers. Great logic there, why don't we start a 'big is beautiful' campaign so we can get more people trying out for the 100 yard dash!

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

I... literally cannot see any alternative viewpoint that's not misogynistic ("Women are too delicate", or the oppositely problematic "Gender equality means there should be more women out there whether they're qualified or not") or misandric ("Only men should be put in danger").

The only one that works requires there be a population crisis in our specie. But, I don't think the human race is in danger of that particular issue.

 

[Xdeser2]

I really cant understand the people who think

"Oh, that human being has a Vagina, therefore she cant Fight as well as me"

COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF LOGIC OBVIOUSLY EXIST IN THAT SENTENCE GUYZ/Sarcasm

 

[XX Y XY]

Simply, NO. I find it ironic that that vast majority answered yes but under the same requirements as male soldiers. I'm assuming most of those people aren't stupid and realize that only the tiniest, tiniest percentage of women would ever be able to meet the physical requirements that males do in order to qualify to be a front line infantryman. Following that logic, most of the people who voted yes, but under the same requirements as male soldiers, in their mind, are thinking no but I don't want to be viewed as sexist or politically incorrect. Seeing women being badly maimed and killed has a devastating psychological affect on male soldiers. It is biological, undeniable, and would compromise effective military decision making on the front lines. It would cause male soldiers to hesitate and cost lives. I'm all for equality of all peoples but ignoring the differences between them to entertain political correctness at the cost lives is wrong, no matter how you try to justify it.