Poll: Women In Front Line Combat Role

[Imp_Emissary]

Because only about 10% of the USA's population are soldiers. Meaning that if they all died we would still have 90% still alive. To be fair that 10% is worth at least 25-30%, but even that would still leave us with 70%. Also, there are still more men in the army than women. Plus, I don't think any women in the army who want to be in the front are going to get pregant for a good bit.

Um...the population of the US is over 300 million. There's about 1.5 million US military personnel.

That's much, much less than 10%, and the vast majority of those aren't front-line soldiers.

Your basic point isn't wrong, though, if those 1.5 million were all women front-line soldiers, and all suddenly died, the US would still have over 150 million women. Those 1.5 million would tend to be young adults, though, the general population would include the very young and very old, but the US is not facing extinction without them, the idea is laughable.

Damn. I thought so, but I got that answer when I was looking up the answer.

Thank you for correcting me. I will change that then.

 

[Generic4me]

If you're capable of performing to the physical and mental standards of the role, then I see no reason why your gender should have anything to do with being allowed to fill it.

As for "Men behave differently with women around", sure maybe we do under normal circumstances. War is not normal circumstances. Also, these are soldiers who have received military training, I would not automatically assume that they would make "risky decisions" because there's a girl in their regiment.

And if there is a problem with men and women being in the same units, then why not just make separate units for women? Problem solved.

Also, for the "Women aren't as strong as men debate", the infantry does not require you to be at your maximum possible physical ability. Yes, maybe women might have to work harder to be at the same physical level as the men, but it still doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to be in the military.

 

[Thanatos5150]

As long as the prospective soldier meets the current requirements to serve in a front-line combat role, I fail to see how I should give a shit about the gender, sexuality, race or religion of said soldier.

 

[Blow_Pop]

Yes with the same requirements. I'm still pissed that I am disqualified from joining the military because I was diagnosed with ADD and am a female. Our MEPS station out here if they send medical reasons down for any reason it is an automatic disqulaification. Yet we can have bi-polar men in the military?

My dream in high school was to be a SEAL. I wrote countless letters to congress to allow women at least the chance to be a SEAL and then to find out I can't join for some stupid inane bullshit reason that has no impact on me anymore(as I have it under control without medication and have for the past 14 years now)was crushing.

 

[Dense_Electric]

The issue here shouldn't be trying to make men and women equal, but just the opposite - we should remove the question of sex from the equation altogether. This viewpoint is not at all hard to understand, nor is there any logically sound reason that I can fathom to disagree with it: you have a universal set of requirements to meet to operate in front-line infantry roles. If you can meet those requirements, you're in. If you can't meet them, you're rejected. Simple.

As long as someone can meet those requirements, which would include, among other things, reaching a certain level of physical fitness, the ability to think calmly under pressure, and the ability to accurately fire a rifle, who the flying fuck cares what sort of crotch-luggage you're packing? What's next, are we going to start re-segregating units based on skin color? IT'S. NOT. RELEVANT.

That's the fundamental issue here: why is sex even considered? I here all the time things like, "women aren't as able as men to perform in combat situations," and while that may be true on average, it's still a generalization, and you're now excluding some qualified individuals, however few or numerous they may be, merely because they have the wrong genitalia. How fucking stupid is that?

EDIT:

But my problem is that, women cannot be conscripted.

Men can.

Until women can be conscripted as well and WILL be conscripted when needed then they shouldn't be able to join the Army as a career. It's not fair to the men who are forced to sign that little piece of paper saying the government can kidnap you and kill you/get you killed if they want, but women get a free pass, yet everyone constantly goes on about "equality blah blah blah women can be just as good as men blah blah blah."

Also this.

Now to be fair, I refused to sign that form (on moral and ethical objections, as well as refusing to bow down to Big Brother - I have yet to suffer any of the alleged consequences, and if I ever do, I will take it right up to the Supreme Court if I have to), but I agree with you completely. If men can be conscripted, so can women. Period. End of discussion.

That being said, NO ONE can be allowed to be conscripted, at least not if your government isn't run by evil psychopaths (which the United States government is). It's unmoral, unethical, a grave and unforgivable violation of personal freedom, and is also a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (which states that no mandatory servitude can be issued except as punishment for crime). It's also a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (which states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States enjoy equal protection under the law).

 

[Thaluikhain]

Until women can be conscripted as well and WILL be conscripted when needed then they shouldn't be able to join the Army as a career. It's not fair to the men who are forced to sign that little piece of paper saying the government can kidnap you and kill you/get you killed if they want, but women get a free pass, yet everyone constantly goes on about "equality blah blah blah women can be just as good as men blah blah blah."

Hey? You have to let them into the army before you can conscript them into the army. Once women become established in the military, conscription would follow naturally anyway.

but there is also the logistical side of things, where women keep the population going so if we did get in a massive war that didn't automatically go "LOL NUKE ZE SHIS!" I can see problems ....

As mentioned several times previously in this thread, that's rubbish. The vast majority of people in a nation simply aren't front-line troops. If a war is so bloody that you are taking so many casualties amongst your front-line troops that there won't be a next generation, your country is facing total destruction anyway, and gender issues will have bene forgotten long ago.

Not to mention, it's not just women that keep the population going, men are required as well. Yes, one man can impregnate several women simultaneously, but which modern war required polygamy due to a sudden, massive shortage of men?

 

[Souplex]

A fun scientific fact:
A bullet to the brain is consistently lethal, regardless of whether the shooter has a Y chromosome.

 

[Risingblade]

All woman units all men units, problem solved.

 

[Ryotknife]

I'm all for it just to shut up the MRAs whining about tough men have it by doing front line combat duty. It also doesn't exactly help how much soldiers are universally praised and held up on pedastals by our country only to deny even the shot at that glory to women.

im sure the billions of men who have died as soldiers throughout history are feeling really glorious right now >_>

 

[Senare]

If you employ soldiers who can not face women being blown to bits, how would they react if they have to kill women combatants? Are those people really mentally ready to be front-line soldiers at all?

Are all the social effects of mixed-gender units bad? If male soldiers behave differently in the presence of female soldiers, is that behavior always for the worse? For example, could it have a lowering effect on the number of war atrocities committed? And what effects does it have when you need to cooperate with civilians?

And as many have pointed out - statistical averages are not relevant in this discussion as the armies do not employ average people.

 

[Vuliev]

Honestly, while the ideal of "let anyone in that can meet the strenuous requirements" is a good one (and one I'm inclined to agree with), I haven't seen anyone bring up the subject of sexual abuse. I have no idea how other militaries deal with it, but the US military absolutely has to solve its existing issues of sexual abuse with the women it currently employs. Allowing women into front-line combat squads could quite conceivably make those issues worse, and as several posters have already pointed out, you don't do something unless it is only going to improve unit and overall effectiveness.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

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.

Youre a fucking... genius... this has to go further. We are MODERN dammit. We can apply LOGIC.

Well sexed soldiers are happy.

Sex sometimes leads to relationships.

Soldiers in relationships with other soldiers might become unhappy because of death/risk/breakups.

Cross sex units will result in babies.

The only solution i can see is to have two legions of gay polygamous men and gay polygamous women. The gayest we can find. The damn gayest.

(yeah i stole this joke but the application of a legion of polygamous gay men or women is fucking... infinite. A source of emotionally balanced VERY motivated people with no biological downside. I love it.

Honestly though i think if the same standard is held theres no reason why not. That WILL create an inblance though because biologically the "Median" of each gender is different.

I remember talking with all my female friends and the theory really does show in reality (yeah yeah its annecdotal but its supported by facts). I commented how my teenage years made me MUCH more assertive and aggressive, anger was the primary emotion of my angsty hormonal phase. The women i was talking with said they mostly felt melancholic and sad. The hormone mens bodies get FLOODED with is associated with aggressive behavior. You need to be aggressive to be a soldier on SOME level, or at least have the capacity to reach such a state. Id be concerned very few women would be biologically capable of the aggressive mindset a fuck tonne of testosterone makes you able to achieve. Obviously not all men can do this. But more men can than women.

Which is the issue im thinking about, which is that even if we DID let women into the frontline infantry they already have a disadvantage of biology although im beyond certain a lot of women would be able to achieve it anyway. This means the % of women will be lower. Even seperating them out presents a problem. Can we ensure the 1 woman battalion for the 9 male battalions will be used fairly and equally? People might discriminate. At any rate this isnt an argument about letting them, fucking power to them if they want. Im just wondering what we would do to ensure the soldiers receive the respect and service they deserve.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Regarding my tone, let's just say I've heard the "average" fallacy used time and time again to deny women their rightful place in various industries, and I no longer have the time or patience to kindly hold someone by the hand as I explain what is wrong with that argument. Incidentally, the discrimination cuts both ways. Despite my spending tens of thousands of dollars on post-grad education in the field and spending years training, there are people who say I can't be a good language teacher to young people because women are on average more nurturing than men. So let's just dispense with the discriminatory fallacies all around, shall we?

I have no doubt that the military is a grueling job. I never questioned it. But the exertion of being in the military is different from raw muscular strength. There is more to physical fitness than raw muscle mass, which is the chief area men are claimed to have a collective potential advantage over women.

It's not a fallacy. Men find it easier to build more muscle than women and do it quicker. An earlier poster linked to a website you almost certainly didn't read that explained the science behind it.

Look, what you're talking about is the difference between substantive and formal equality. You can't apply substantive equality to the military; it's an institution where the physical requirements are critical to effective performance. It's the same with emergency services, like firefighters. Lowering the physical requirements to allow for a greater proportion of women into front-line roles is something nobody really wants. Not even women want that, because it's just as sexist - it's basically saying "you're so much weaker than all the men here, we had to lower the standard just for you." They'll deal with that stigma even if they could have met the higher requirements in the first place.

You have to apply a formal fitness standard, which you'll note is what the majority of people voting in the poll are in support of. And because men find it easier to do press-ups than women, you're going to get more men in the army than women. It's unavoidable.

If what you're saying is true and the average men isn't stronger than the average woman, apply one physical standard to front-line combat units. We should see an even gender distribution in recruitment without any further screening required. Why hasn't that happened?

Incidentally, responding to someone by telling them you can't be bothered to explain why they're wrong is a goddamn waste of time. You may as well have just typed "You're wrong" and left it at that, because it was exactly as effective at convincing me why I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, explain why. If you can't be bothered, don't respond. If you respond just to say that you can't be bothered to effectively respond, you're just blowing yourself. I haven't got time to watch a guy blow himself.

 

[Ryotknife]

I'm all for it just to shut up the MRAs whining about tough men have it by doing front line combat duty. It also doesn't exactly help how much soldiers are universally praised and held up on pedastals by our country only to deny even the shot at that glory to women.

im sure the billions of men who have died as soldiers throughout history are feeling really glorious right now >_>

I'm not going to get burial at Arlington or a memorial holiday when I die, don't know about them.

Arlington is just a cemetary, people intered there will be just as remembered as people in any ole cemetary. As for the holiday, those soldiers dont get a holiday for EACH one killed, they are all just lumped up (WOMEN INCLUDED) in one big ole nameless group.

You are more likely these days to achieve "eternal glory" as a scientist/inventor than a soldier. There is nothing "glorious" about having your internal organs plastered over a 10 foot area. If eternal glory is all that you care about, you are more likely to achieve it as a woman these days than as a man without having to risk your life. Even moderately successful women are held up as a role model (whihc is fine btw), whereas men in that same field only get attention if they are at the very top or do something very special.

In the end though, glory is pointless and foolish. Most of these events will be forgotten in 1000 years, and only a small infintasmal portion of the population will have their deeds remembered for any appreciatable amount of time. If you think it is worth 99.99999%+ of those other male soldiers throughout history whose deeds will never be remembered on an individual level dying a gruesome violent death, more power to you.

 

[AlexWinter]

I picked the "Yes but only if they're held to the same standard as men" option. On second thought any woman that goes into the front line is going to get raped ten times a week by fellow soldiers.