Women in Frontline Combat?

[Treblaine]

snip

I have my reasons yeah.

"First is cost/benefit. Do we really need women fighting and is it worth the extra facilities to let them?"

I thought this was about front-line deployment. Women are ALREADY well established in the military system of UK/USA/Australia. The cost is already spent. The added costs are not that huge though. Rifles don't have to be redesigned. If the army was so sensitive about logistics challenges of Change then they'd still be using muzzle loading rifles!

"Second is the fact that I've heard numerous stories of men ending up carrying women's gear, a couple within this very thread. That means you're making one soldier's job harder to accommodate another soldier which strikes me as a bad idea."

Well that is more of a fuck-up on the logistics part. I've heard of soldiers getting the wrong sized body armour, does that mean all body armour should be made "one-size-fits-all" which actually would be "one-size-fits-none". This is also NOT an argument against mixed-gender units or front line deployment.

"Thirdly strength does still play a role, especially in close fighting. Saying it doesn't is one of those nice ideas that doesn't quite work out in practice, the ability to hit a guy really hard and lift weight is important in a soldier."

I've spoken to marines and they DO NOT want beefcakes, it's a huge mistake to bulk up before signing up. They want lean-mean fighting machines.

Men and women don't have that huge a difference in strength ability. You act as if the muscles merely by being in a woman's body are somehow inherently weaker and more fragile. Don't read too much into broad-population comparisons of upper body strength that can fail on .

I'd also be VERY WARY of making broad comparisons of demographics. Consider how all the "scientific proof" that black people are inherently inferior to white men, how long that held back blacks in the Army. That prejudice held fast for a long long time till it was proven to not be so in practice.

Realise that it is hegemony that Straight White Males have the "ideal" balance of intelligence, strength, stamina and socialisation.

"Fourthly there's no way in hell we can drop the entry requirements to allow women in, they're the way they are for a reason. This means that women have to qualify the same as men and some other people in this thread have stated that women have real trouble with that."

Women are ALREADY being admitted following entry requirements, none of this is argument against front line deployment. This seems to be a 30 year old long lost argument that women should not be ever put into infantry boots. When they are, they are trained but just never deployed.

"Fifthly women have gigantic drop out rates from such training schemes as have been run for them, it's a massively inefficient way to recruit."

Again, not an argument about front line deployment. That is a separate issue, recruitment for the military is tricky enough and women are quite a minority there, it's not surprising more women find it hard to adjust. This will inevitably improve with time.

"Finally we're not fighting another copy of our army, we're fighting people with a very specific mindset towards women. Basically insurgent fighters won't surrender to women. That one sounds silly but the enemy surrendering is important."

They'll learn to surrender soon enough. Anyway isn't this an argument FOR mix-sex units, having some men around to yell "Hande Hockt!" or whatever is Arabic for "hands up".

Their hatred is so deep, their logic so twisted if the entire US Marine Corps converted to Islam they'd somehow use their propaganda machine to twist it into the negative. It is utterly futile to try to convince them.

The people we need to win over are not the Taliban or Al Qaeda but the all too normal people who harbour them, aid them and merely do not inform on them. People of Afghanistan don't like the Taliban but they frankly do not trust the Coalition to stay, they worry if any co-operation at all will be for nothing if The West "pulls a vietnam" and just gives up, pulls out at the final hurdle and them to the slaughter.

Think what message female soldiers sends to the local population. These are not invading barbarians, they here are trying to make a difference for good.

Females make up 50% of the population of Afghanistan, notoriously subjugated, winning them over can mean so much. So useful for searching other females in a culture that is hugely sexually segregated.

Remember, Al Qaeda are ALREADY using women for suicide bombing attacks. They made the first move here on using women for direct aggression.

Also consider that women today earn about half of all science and engineering bachelor?s degrees. For officers roles in increasingly technological based warfare that is a pool that cannot be ignored.

 

[chiefohara]

Recently Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard recently announced that Women being in frontline combat should be allowed in frontline combat as it is "realistic".

Link to Story [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gillard-backs-women-in-combat-20110412-1dc1f.html]

Personally I don't believe that females should serve on the frontline of combat. If a woman is in a combat scenario and gets injured it will more than likely affect the male soldiers psyche differently then if another male soldier was wounded and may cause them to make more rash decisions than they normally would.. In most cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires physical skill that most women just have. But on the other hand if they can keep up, why not?

The media is semi behind the idea at the moment, but i wonder what will happen when the first female combatant to get killed is announced or one is captured an tortured?

The link above says that it would be "symbolic" if the men and women fought together, but i don't believe the enemy will think that way, I believe that they would try and target the women more than men KNOWING that it will damage morale more.

What are your thoughts on women in frontline combat situations?

A: Women have a higher pain tolerance and threshold against chemical damage and disease.
B: Women have a generally shorter profile which means they are less likely to be hit by enemy fire and shrapnel.
C: Women are generally far more likely to keep their edge and cool in combat situations.
D: Women are typically psychologically more sound than their counterparts.

E: I can guarantee you that if female enlistment in the army were to shoot up to the same numbers as male enlistment, you'd get a whole lot less warcrimes being committed.

F: The modern battlefield is about organization, control, effective leadership, multitasking and political discourse (PR) ... I have yet to see a man be better at any of those than their counterparts.

I disagree with point E.

The General in charge of Abu Gharib at the time of the Iraqi prisoner torture scandals was a woman. It was General Janis Karpinski.

Sadism is not a trait thats gender specific. Queen Mary (bloody mary) and Queen Victoria (the famine queen) did horrible things to Ireland during their reigns. Queen isabella of Spain persecuted moors, jews and gypsies. When in power women have been just as nasty as men.

 

[rutger5000]

Woman are more resiliant to pain and (when not having a period) they are also more capable to handle stress. It's true they also have several disadventages towards males, and it would be wrong to ignore those. But I'm sure there are plenty of combat scenarios were woman would have an advantage, so why not use them? Personally I find it offencive to all soldiers that ever lived or those yet to be born to call woman 'soldiers' but not putting them in life or dead combat scenarios.
It's also a grave insult to use female soldiers as a PR stunt. Don't use them as a symbol, use them as soldiers!
Though I would personally also find it immoral to use them against male enemies especially if those enemies are from a place were woman aren't so emancipated. That's kinda like using child-soldiers for them.
Kinda makes it hard to envision a scenario were it would be okay to use female solders.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Recently Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard recently announced that Women being in frontline combat should be allowed in frontline combat as it is "realistic".

Link to Story [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gillard-backs-women-in-combat-20110412-1dc1f.html]

Personally I don't believe that females should serve on the frontline of combat. If a woman is in a combat scenario and gets injured it will more than likely affect the male soldiers psyche differently then if another male soldier was wounded and may cause them to make more rash decisions than they normally would.. In most cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires physical skill that most women just have. But on the other hand if they can keep up, why not?

The media is semi behind the idea at the moment, but i wonder what will happen when the first female combatant to get killed is announced or one is captured an tortured?

The link above says that it would be "symbolic" if the men and women fought together, but i don't believe the enemy will think that way, I believe that they would try and target the women more than men KNOWING that it will damage morale more.

What are your thoughts on women in frontline combat situations?

A: Women have a higher pain tolerance and threshold against chemical damage and disease.
B: Women have a generally shorter profile which means they are less likely to be hit by enemy fire and shrapnel.
C: Women are generally far more likely to keep their edge and cool in combat situations.
D: Women are typically psychologically more sound than their counterparts.

E: I can guarantee you that if female enlistment in the army were to shoot up to the same numbers as male enlistment, you'd get a whole lot less warcrimes being committed.

F: The modern battlefield is about organization, control, effective leadership, multitasking and political discourse (PR) ... I have yet to see a man be better at any of those than their counterparts.

I disagree with point E.

The General in charge of Abu Gharib at the time of the Iraqi prisoner torture scandals was a woman. It was General Janis Karpinski.

Sadism is not a trait thats gender specific. Queen Mary (bloody mary) and Queen Victoria (the famine queen) did horrible things to Ireland during their reigns. Queen isabella of Spain persecuted moors, jews and gypsies. When in power women have been just as nasty as men.

Yes, but I'd argue that to be in power you had to be nasty. That and violent psychopathy is documented as being far less common in females than males. It's not about singling out exceptions (we coud be doing that all week ...), it's about looking at the biology and making inferences based on commonly accepted fact and research.

We're not talking about singular individuals, we're talking about large groups of people. And women are less likely to be psychopaths.

 

[Bebus]

As long as there is a clause in their contract stating they will NOT sue men for groping them whilst giving CPR on the battlefield, I don't see why not...

Seriously though, I can't answer this. Nobody who has not served can. Camaraderie and morale are incredibly potent things in high stress situations, and there is nothing more high stress than the threat of imminent death. Hate it and deny it all you will, both men and women act differently when with the opposite gender.

I have no doubt that women can face the physical and mental challenges involved. I would be far more concerned with the effect it would have on the effectiveness of my country's armed forces to have mixed-sex units of soldiers than any made up concerns over individual proficiency.

 

[The Man With the Soap]

Recently Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard recently announced that Women being in frontline combat should be allowed in frontline combat as it is "realistic".

Link to Story [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gillard-backs-women-in-combat-20110412-1dc1f.html]

Personally I don't believe that females should serve on the frontline of combat. If a woman is in a combat scenario and gets injured it will more than likely affect the male soldiers psyche differently then if another male soldier was wounded and may cause them to make more rash decisions than they normally would.. In most cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires physical skill that most women just have. But on the other hand if they can keep up, why not?

The media is semi behind the idea at the moment, but i wonder what will happen when the first female combatant to get killed is announced or one is captured an tortured?

The link above says that it would be "symbolic" if the men and women fought together, but i don't believe the enemy will think that way, I believe that they would try and target the women more than men KNOWING that it will damage morale more.

What are your thoughts on women in frontline combat situations?

If a woman can't hack it during combat, she will be weeded out during training just like any man who can't hack it. The people serving on the frontlines are there because they have proven themselves to be qualified to do so.

Also, don't make ignorant judgements about how male soldiers will react to female soldiers. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you have never been in live combat. Therefore, you have no idea what it is like to lose someone as close as a comrade in arms. The bonds people form from going through those situations are so strong and so intimate, that it is just impossible to understand it unless you have lived through it. When someone that close to you goes down, it's going to hit you hard, regardless of their gender.

 

[TeH PizZa Guy]

If women can carry their weight through a battlefield, I can trust their combat ability.

 

[The Night Shade]

I have to say if someone is shooting you no man is going to stop and look at a woman and i agree woman should be in frontline combat with the same responsabilities,gear,training,etc as a man

EDIT:I call bullshit on anyone saying that a man/Woman is more capable of staying calm in certain situations,because that has nothing to do with gender it as to do with a person's personality

 

[Moosh50]

Yeah, no.

What if a woman would get caugh and became a POW? Jailed in an enemy camp with thousands of men who propably haven't seen a woman in a very long time?

"Single line guys, this ***** ain't going nowhere."

 

[coolkirb]

Canada has women in the frontline and their deaths are treated the same as men, gender is and should not be an issue.

 

[nin_ninja]

I say yes. As much as I dislike Gillard, I like her opinion on this.
There really is no reason women shouldn't be on the frontline.

Personally I don't believe that females should serve on the frontline of combat. If a woman is in a combat scenario and gets injured it will more than likely affect the male soldiers psyche differently then if another male soldier was wounded and may cause them to make more rash decisions than they normally would.. In most cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires pysichal skill that most women just have.

What you're referring to is called "Nightingale Syndrome", and if soldiers are properly trained it wouldn't be a risk.
Also, you're assuming that ALL females are physically weaker then ALL males. Which is not the case. If a woman is apt and able, why shouldn't she serve?

I have female friends on the wrestling AND football team. They can kick pretty much any guys ass.

Females, like males, have to reach a certain physical requirement to join the military, so I wouldn't worry much.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

Go for it; as far as I'm concerned, if they are capable and willing to serve on the front lines, then why not?

Only thing I would mention is look at how the people we combat treat their own women. Now think of how they would treat a female P.O.W.

 

[chiefohara]

Recently Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard recently announced that Women being in frontline combat should be allowed in frontline combat as it is "realistic".

Link to Story [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gillard-backs-women-in-combat-20110412-1dc1f.html]

Personally I don't believe that females should serve on the frontline of combat. If a woman is in a combat scenario and gets injured it will more than likely affect the male soldiers psyche differently then if another male soldier was wounded and may cause them to make more rash decisions than they normally would.. In most cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires physical skill that most women just have. But on the other hand if they can keep up, why not?

The media is semi behind the idea at the moment, but i wonder what will happen when the first female combatant to get killed is announced or one is captured an tortured?

The link above says that it would be "symbolic" if the men and women fought together, but i don't believe the enemy will think that way, I believe that they would try and target the women more than men KNOWING that it will damage morale more.

What are your thoughts on women in frontline combat situations?

A: Women have a higher pain tolerance and threshold against chemical damage and disease.
B: Women have a generally shorter profile which means they are less likely to be hit by enemy fire and shrapnel.
C: Women are generally far more likely to keep their edge and cool in combat situations.
D: Women are typically psychologically more sound than their counterparts.

E: I can guarantee you that if female enlistment in the army were to shoot up to the same numbers as male enlistment, you'd get a whole lot less warcrimes being committed.

F: The modern battlefield is about organization, control, effective leadership, multitasking and political discourse (PR) ... I have yet to see a man be better at any of those than their counterparts.

I disagree with point E.

The General in charge of Abu Gharib at the time of the Iraqi prisoner torture scandals was a woman. It was General Janis Karpinski.

Sadism is not a trait thats gender specific. Queen Mary (bloody mary) and Queen Victoria (the famine queen) did horrible things to Ireland during their reigns. Queen isabella of Spain persecuted moors, jews and gypsies. When in power women have been just as nasty as men.

Yes, but I'd argue that to be in power you had to be nasty. That and violent psychopathy is documented as being far less common in females than males. It's not about singling out exceptions, it's about looking at the biology and making inferences based on commonly accepted fact and research.

We're not talking about singular individuals, we're talking about large groups of people. And women are less likely to be psychopaths.

My point was more towards the fact that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just because its a woman in the scenario as opposed to a man, doesn't mean that individual is any less susceptible to commiting a war crime or becoming a dictator than a man is. Some of those queens i listed inherited their titles. They didn't seize them.

Pte. Lynndie England was the woman famously photogrpaphed in the Abu Gharib torture photo's and she was by no means an exceptional person. She was someone who was in a circumstance of power over other people and she succumbed to temptation and abused it. Thats the danger of war crimes from an ordinary soldiers perspective, not exceptional psychosis

It's not about singling out exceptions, it's about looking at the biology and making inferences based on commonly accepted fact and research.

We're not talking about singular individuals, we're talking about large groups of people. And women are less likely to be psychopaths.

No offence, but you are breaking your own rule here. Violent psychopaths are not the norm so its unfair to typify violent psycohsis as a generic male trait, when its an exception in itself.

 

[Duruznik]

Well, the Israeli army allows women in frontline positions, and say what you will about Israel, but they do know how to run a decent military. Allowing women in the frontlines seemed to have worked out pretty well for us, so I'm all for it.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Even though someone has already provided the accurate information, people are still propagating their ignorance... women do NOT have a higher pain threshold...

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51160
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-04/cfta-hpt040903.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705004113.htm

...need I continue?

 

[Entreri481]

War isn't physical these days. It stopped being that with the invention of firearms.

it may be more about intelligence, but the job is still one of the most physical there is.

 

[maturin]

Sexual tension may reduce the military's deadliness.

You know absolutely nothing about sexual tension, I guess.