I really don't see why not. Women are only weaker than men in that they can't get ridiculously beefed. They can run just as fast, work just as hard and probably have better average dexterity and motor control than men. I'm sure they're absolutely capable of serving on the front line, and it would be a huge step forward in combating the latent sexism that still exists in most cultures if female soldiers were treated the same as male ones.
I haven't followed the Olympics in years, so I may be wrong about this, but as far as I can tell the gender-segregated divisions in the Olympics are usually based off the notion that it would only be fair to the women if they competed against other women. It's true, women may be incrementally slower/weaker/less durable, but it wouldn't matter much. A speed difference of a few hundredths of a second is all well and good if you're trying to set a world record, but in any sort of non-contrived situation I seriously doubt it would make much of a difference.
Well seeing as though I know a few "sheilas" who are already in the ADF, nah I have no problem with it. I seriously recon these birds could handle themselves quite well.
I went to Benning, so there were no females, but if my friends can be believed, 75% of the female soldiers in Basic spent more time fucking then training. Probably an exaggeration. More like 40% is my guess.
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.
Zenode said:
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?
Theres a lot of good reasons why women shouldn't be on the frontline.
Firstly, they generally just aren't as physically able as male soldiers. I don't mean to sound like a prick and I don't like saying it, but thats just how it is.
Secondly, female prisoners are often raped. It's fucked up yes, but thats the reality of it. If this ends up happening (which it will if they do assume combat roles) then its obviously very detrimental to the individual but it is also a major political issue waiting to happen.
You could have things like massive protests against women serving in the military when this happens.
I am not just assuming that this will happen. It will and it has.
Thirdly, theres also the issue of 'fraternization' between the men and women. Lets say a woman joins the army and falls pregnant after the government has spent thousands on turning her into a soldier. Theres thousands of dollars down the drain.
I've got nothing against women, but this is just the way it is. And even if women volunteer for combat knowing the risks theres still the political ramifications of what happens to them if they do.
The north didn't 'win' because they had female combatants. And the only real reasons they had them was because they were desperate for fighters and they weren't even real soldiers anyway. Very few of the Vietcong even were soldiers, they were basically random men women and even children who picked up a weapon and sought to kill their enemies.
And they didn't win the war in the more traditional sense. The Vietnam War had just gotten so hated and unpopular by the general public that the US eventually pretty much had to pull out.
In fact, to make the assumption that the north won solely because of their female combatants and that they even won the war through direct force anyway is just silly.
"Look, man. I only need to know one thing: where they are."
-Quote Vasquez
[sub]If they can handle it, they should be given the same 'treatment' as the men. However there are probably numerous psychological problems with this.[/sub]
Recently Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard recently announced that Women 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, YES MOST NOT ALL cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires physical skill that MOST women just dont have especially if they came up against another male in a CQC scenario the physically larger male will have an advantage straight up.
But on the other hand if they can keep up, why not?
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?
Eventually, natural selection will fix this problem. If it doesnt, than a political move like this will change the attitudes in a generation or two as peoples views on such things change. Im guessing the reason the other soldiers would take rash actions is because they are brought up thinking some form of chivalry is still in effect.
Also, I'm fairly sure that there was some study that had shown that females have higher pain tolerance or tolerance towards discomfort than males... Not sure if this is true, will verify later.... Mainly because of how I have seen some females act.
I haven't followed the Olympics in years, so I may be wrong about this, but as far as I can tell the gender-segregated divisions in the Olympics are usually based off the notion that it would only be fair to the women if they competed against other women. It's true, women may be incrementally slower/weaker/less durable, but it wouldn't matter much. A speed difference of a few hundredths of a second is all well and good if you're trying to set a world record, but in any sort of non-contrived situation I seriously doubt it would make much of a difference.
From a quick glance it's in the 5-10% range(and a few times more), so the statement that they do just aswell, is false (and no I don't count weight lifting).
Sorry ladies, you join up you should be treated 'equally' afterall that's what everyone wants equality. So I say stick them on the front like and let them die like everyone else. Sure it looks bad, effects morale, women don't have the same emotional deadness required, but anything other than equality is unfair.
As I said on page 1 and I repeat now. There should be no restrictions on women serving in the Australia infantry, as long as they meet the requirements and those requirment are tough. The Australian infantry training course is (supposedly) one of the hardest courses in the world for basic infantry. I have two friends who've done it and they said they had about 50% attrition, one of them even though he passed now has "sports injuries" from his brief time in the infantry, that are going to last the rest of his life. I don't think I could do it.
So if a woman can do it, more power to her, she's tough and she deserves to be there. After the training program she'll be "one of the boys" to speak.
However if her physical standards are reduced, she gets special showering privleges and doesn't have to carry as much gear. Not only will she not get respect from the other grunts, but she'll have open scorn, that she's not good enough to be there and endangering everyones lives
Anyone saying strenght isn't as important these days needs to remember:
Every rifleman needs to be able to use this if the circumstance requires. Rifleman's bodyarmour with the ceramic plates can be roughly as heavy as a medieval knight's (20kg) or, thats not counting the ammunition and other gear.
My liberal estimate is you'd never get more than 20% infantry as women and even that's pushing it. Given that there's not as many women as men in the defence force, and it would be only a small fraction of that that wanted to be infantry, then a chunk would be excluded for medical reasons (even simple things like height) and then the attrition from the training course, which may or not be higher. I think you'd end up with an Aliens scenario with like one (or two?) female grunts for a large group of men.
Once they come out with exosuits, I will have no problem with it. Exosuits would level the playing field for everyone as the strength and endurance of each person will be determined by the suit, meaning those with the same suit will be completely equal.
Actually i guess guns have a similar effect, since it comes down to reaction time and ability to aim with guns, not strength, provided they have the strength necessary to operate the firearm.
So, I guess I am for it, although I hate the idea. At least for now I hate the idea.
How much money do they spend to run predator drones, tanks, or AC130s?
I could conceivably see them slowly being introduced, say initially one per section (6-10 men) probably the section machine gunner. This would allow him/her to carry a shitload of ammo and become practically a moving weapons platform. You might trial it with Special forces or only with one battalion. Obviously the Marines would get them last though, it's just the way it works.
These exosuits would be doing jobs already handled by other machinery/manpower.
Although I can easily imagine new options opening up due to their introduction. You have to remember that some old dude has to give this the go ahead.
It depends on the exo-skeleton but I think this might have some use in carrying support weapons on an infantry level. But if your sentiments are that we'll never have every soldier wearing one, I'll agree with that.
(New Topic) Should women be allowed to wear exo-skeletons?/Sarcasm
Anyone who mentions concerns with periods and feminine stuff, there's an easy solution. Have them all have to get a Mirena implanted. It's a wonderful device they place in the uterus, that lasts five years, has almost no side effects and prevents women from not only becoming pregnant, but stops their period completely.
Anoctris said:
I agree with you. If a woman (without gender norming applied) can achieve the same physical standards for males and passes the Inf course, I see no reason not to let them in.
The problem is getting men to accept it, and being able to supress some of things listed here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military
It's not so much whether they can do the job (some can), but whether their presence makes the job more difficult/dangerous than it already has to be.
I think the problem is everyone thinks of it being normal women or sometimes even worse some stereotyped princesses. The women that would want to and could pass the infantry training course would be probably be big tough, ball-busting gals who bear only a passing resemblence to anything feminine.
Anoctris said:
I went through Infantry training during 2003/2004.
In my first course I was backsquadded due to injury. Of the 40 trainees that started on that course, only 12 marched out after 10 weeks. In fact only 8 of the 12 were from the original platoon, the other 4 were backsquads from other platoons.
I made it to the final week in my second training platoon (a trial 12 week course, designed to limit physical damage to trainees). During the final week my Platoon consisted of only 2 understrength sections (about 8 men in each). I was failed during Ex HardCorps by the Training Officer who I had never met until that day, but another trainee who quit on his mates half way through was put back into training 7 times before they finally transferred him to SIGs.
At the time I was there, the injury platoon had 150 trainees in it, with everything ranging from severe neck/back injuries to conditions which caused some to be confined to bed, and the usual malingerers but only a handful of them. It took a suicide before Trg Comd woke up and realised there was problem with some of the training practices there, but that's another subject.
When I was transferred I considered myself lucky to only have minor leg injuries.
Lucky for me they hadn't reintroduced the Mag 58 to the section when I went through, I only got to heft one once in the armoury. Fire and movement with that would've been a ***** to say the least, not discounting carrying the ammo for it.
Thanks for sharing that, two of my best friends have gone through the infantry course. Ones still in but I lived with the one who'd discharged. He had problems with undiagnosed stress fractures, that means these days he has the ankles of an 80 year old and a 350dollar a year pension for paracetamol. He told me a lot about what he did. He said when dealing with the MAG58 he basically had to throw it forward and then crawl up to, there was no other way if he was prone. He also did a stint in rehab for the ankles and yeah it sounded terrible.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
