Poll: Women In Front Line Combat Role

[bastardofmelbourne]

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.

Oh, God, don't get that started.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I call bull on that, sorry.

I don't see conscription happening for women, even if they are let in front lines, for a shit ton of time.

And it doesn't take a genius to understand why. (Cultural, social, religious)

I'll rephrase that. People won't likely accept conscription of women into the army until they accept women in the army.

Besides, though I cannot personally find historical references of such, saying that it cannot happen simply because it hasn't happened... well, yeah. Look at that. It's stupid. It's like saying you don't need a gun in the woods cus you never needed it before, but fact is the woods you always went to didn't have bears at every step ready to kill you. Bad analogy. Point being, just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't.

It hasn't happened because no country can sustain the amount of casualties to make it necessary. You get conquered long before you lose enough of your population in front-line combat to make that sort of demographic problem.

The US has more military personnel than most, and it's still little more than 1.5 million out of 315 odd million people. If all of those were women, and all of those were front-line soldiers and all of them died, that's less than 1% of the women in the US.

Even if that wasn't the case, if the issue were to come up sometime in the future, female personnel could be moved away from the front-lines then.

 

[Zen Toombs]

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.

Amen.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here[footnote]that absolutely noone has EVER suggested, no sir[/footnote] and propose that we allow any person who qualifies for a position on the front lines to take that position if they choose, be they black, white, latin, [sub]gay, straight, [sub]jewish, christian, muslim, atheist, [sub]male, female, [sub]pet lover, child hater, [sub] gamer, jock, prep, emo, [sub]repeat ad nausium.[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]

What supgroup you happen to belong to should be irrelevant. The only relevancy should be 1: can you carry the needed gear? 2: can you shoot good? 3: can you follow orders?[footnote]4: can you do whatever else spec ops require?[/footnote] If so, then you're good in my book.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

It hasn't happened because no country can sustain the amount of casualties to make it necessary. You get conquered long before you lose enough of your population in front-line combat to make that sort of demographic problem.

The US has more military personnel than most, and it's still little more than 1.5 million out of 315 odd million people. If all of those were women, and all of those were front-line soldiers and all of them died, that's less than 1% of the women in the US.

It's because the US hasn't fought a total war since World War II, and even that wasn't particularly harsh on them compared to the other belligerents.

Army sizes have actually shrunk dramatically over the course of the 20th century. They spiked upwards when conscription was introduced during the French Revolutionary Wars, and continued to increase until WWII, after which point they began to climb downwards. For comparison, the US has 1.5 million soldiers today. In WWI, they mobilised nearly five million men, Britain eight million, Russia twelve million and Germany thirteen million. And this was when the populations for all four countries were much smaller than they are today.

If you want an example of how total war can impact population levels, look at Russia. They lost thirteen percent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths] of their population in WWII. So yes; you can in fact fight a war for long enough that population loss becomes a serious problem without either nation being conquered. It's just never happened to America; the closest they got was the civil war, when they lost about two percent of the population.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If you want an example of how total war can impact population levels, look at Russia. They lost thirteen percent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths] of their population in WWII. So yes; you can in fact fight a war for long enough that population loss becomes a serious problem without either nation being conquered. It's just never happened to America; the closest they got was the civil war, when they lost about two percent of the population.

And most of that 13% was not front-line combat troops.

You'll also note that faced with destruction, they had no choice than to have women serve in the military.

 

[Dangit2019]

If a women's got military training and an M4, I have no doubt that she can prove herself in a combat situation just as any other man.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

snip

What are you actually arguing?

Also, I am not going to accept your claim that average males have greater strength without serious evidence as back up.

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.

Am I correct in assuming that was your stance? That a) there is no differnce in strength between the sexes and b) that physical strength is irrelevant to modern combat?

Because that's what you wrote, and that's what I responded to. My answers were a) yes, males have greater strength on average and b) yes, that difference in strength matters to front-line combat. Are those answers wrong? Why are they wrong? Why are you right?

I mean, if you're arguing against a hypothetical person stating that we should disbar women from the armed forces because of averages? Yes, that's a fallacy. That would be retarded. No-one here is arguing that, however, so I'm confused as to why you brought it up.

I mean, seriously, what are you arguing here? This is like punching a balloon made of butter. Are you going to make a fucking point that I can actually fucking respond to or are you just going to backtrack all the way to the West Coast?

 

[Schadrach]

You'd have to make specialised combat armour for women though, because women are shaped differently to dudes. Also, I'd say that they should have the same fitness test, but I think I read somewhere that men usually have greater upper body strength and women greater lower body strength (something to do with women having to shart out babies), so maybe the tests could be optimised around those?

Giving differing standards based on gender always means the same thing -- giving women lesser standards and pretending those lesser standards make them equally capable. Since we're talking about military here, the US military uses different physical standards testing in each branch. Tests where women typically meet or exceed the performance of men have matching standards. Tests where women can't keep up with men have lesser standards for women, because holding women to men's standards is apparently sexist because not enough women pass.

If a woman isn't allowed into an aggressive front-line combat position, it should never be because she is a woman or because of the averages of female athletic achievements. It should only be because she personally didn't meet the minimum standards that are required to do the job. The fact that she tucks her sex cells inside rather than letting them dangle between her legs is 100% categorically irrelevant to that question: can she do the job?

I agree with you completely. Anyone who can meet the standards for any given field or activity should be permitted to do so (not just military, anything). The only exception should be in cases where you have more eligible people than places to put them, then you should take the top performers until you are out of room. This all assumes that we're holding everyone to the same standards, and not giving one group or another lowered standards, special bonuses, or special preference.

As long as she performs to the physical and mental expectations of the guidelines set in place, I don't see why not.

There's the trick, they often do "normed" testing in which the guidelines specify lesser performance requirements to receive a similar score for women.

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.

Assuming you are talking US, I suppose that's not too hard, so long as you don't want federal student aid, state student aid in some states, or to work for the federal (or most states') government, along with a handful of other limitations.

 

[serious biscuit]

I say yes but keep the male and female regiments separate.

 

[Farther than stars]

I don't have a problem with female tank crew, artillery gunners, fighter pilots or in surface ships. I think the physiological differences are to great for women to operate as infantry. A women has lower levels of testerone which builds muscle and promotes aggression. The odds are that a woman in an infantry role is at great risk of dying than a male counterpart. There are very few sports in which men and women compete on equal terms. As great a sprinter as Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce is there is no way she will ever beat Usain Bolt.

True... but then a bullet fired by a woman is just as deadly as a bullet fired by a man, no matter how fast either of them runs.

 

[Albino Boo]

I don't have a problem with female tank crew, artillery gunners, fighter pilots or in surface ships. I think the physiological differences are to great for women to operate as infantry. A women has lower levels of testerone which builds muscle and promotes aggression. The odds are that a woman in an infantry role is at great risk of dying than a male counterpart. There are very few sports in which men and women compete on equal terms. As great a sprinter as Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce is there is no way she will ever beat Usain Bolt.

True... but then a bullet fired by a woman is just as deadly as a bullet fired by a man, no matter how fast either of them runs.

Close combat means sticking a bayonet in someone's gut, who did think is going to win that one?

 

[Easton Dark]

Close combat means sticking a bayonet in someone's gut, who did think is going to win that one?

Whoever reacts first. I'm not sure if there's a difference in reaction time between the sexes.

 

[Albino Boo]

Close combat means sticking a bayonet in someone's gut, who did think is going to win that one?

Whoever reacts first. I'm not sure if there's a difference in reaction time between the sexes.

You the other guy is just going to stand there and let stab him, if he has strength advantage, even if you react first he grabs your rifle and kills you. If strength and weight are not advantages in a fight, why are so many women being beaten by men?

 

[Farther than stars]

I don't have a problem with female tank crew, artillery gunners, fighter pilots or in surface ships. I think the physiological differences are to great for women to operate as infantry. A women has lower levels of testerone which builds muscle and promotes aggression. The odds are that a woman in an infantry role is at great risk of dying than a male counterpart. There are very few sports in which men and women compete on equal terms. As great a sprinter as Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce is there is no way she will ever beat Usain Bolt.

True... but then a bullet fired by a woman is just as deadly as a bullet fired by a man, no matter how fast either of them runs.

Close combat means sticking a bayonet in someone's gut, who did think is going to win that one?

If she met the same requirements as a male recruit? The outcome's probably 50/50.

 

[SinisterGehe]

They have equal right of getting shot and shoot attackers as males do. And if it is an issue to male soldiers. Then they need to get their brain adjust. If someone has problem with me it doesn't mean I need stop existing or trying.

There has been female soldiers in many cultures. They can defend as much as males can. And I think when it comes to defensive action, specially towards younger, they might be even better. Also because females have less testosterone the likehood they will do irrational actions under pressure is lower.

But I think everyone has the equal right to get them self's killed in action. If they signed up and understood their responsibility and rights.

Long as they are able to fill the requiments for frontline action then, go for it.

 

[Easton Dark]

You the other guy is just going to stand there and let stab him, if he has strength advantage, even if you react first he grabs your rifle and kills you. If strength and weight are not advantages in a fight, why are so many women being beaten by men?

But she'd have passed the same tests that male soldiers would have, meaning she was just as capably strong.

And think about it like this, this would be a military woman going up against whatever forces the military fights today. Terrorists, drug dealers, etc. I'd bet her fitness regimen for a front line soldier would put her above the enemy.

Not to mention most wars today are done with guns and robots in the sky, not bayonets or knives...

 

[Teshi]

Most of the "troop morale" and "men and women are psychologically different!" arguments are the same arguments that were made against racially integrated combat units, and I give them about as much credence.