Women in Frontline Combat?

[DEathgod650]

Both sexes can serve. There's really no difference

 

[funguy2121]

Well, looks like i was right, huh? Well then, good sir, i offer to shake your hand at this intriguing debate. *offers to shake Funguy´s hand*

Look again. Actually read the sources that say that men have a higher pain threshold; they also say that pain tolerance is very difficult to measure and that it "may not be biological at all."

 

[funguy2121]

Even a weak, skinny man would be able beat most strong, fit, trained women in a fight, according to my mum the personal trainer. I think that if both sexes were trained at the level that the military uses, that you would be looking at a scenario where ALL the men would be stronger, faster and better in combat then ALL the women. Plus women are more fragile and use their tendons for power more than males who use muscles more efficiently. The effect of this is that women are *much* more prone to injury. They also have weaker bones that are *much* more prone to breakage. Plus the psychology factor that the OP said. Thats why I don't think women should serve on the front line. I also think 'symbolism' is an absolutely stupid reason.

Your mom just goes to prove that women make better misogynists than men. Her vocation makes for little more than anecdotal evidence. Linda Hamilton Ca. Terminator 2 era could easily beat the shit out of 75% of men. An intelligent person wouldn't argue that a weak, skinny anyone would be able to beat a strong, fit, trained anyone.

And don't knock symbolism, it's a wonderful literary device.

 

[Wistfane]

What are your thoughts on women in frontline combat situations?

Women should be allowed in front line combat.

Our strength no longer matters - we have guns now.

And it has been proven that, given the same training, women are better shots than men. Sorry guys, we are just dexier than you. Like elves with bows.

Some really controversial statistics thar care to link to source ?

Aside from that women in the army is good. Want equal rights ? Fight for 'em. Literally. If anything it will break those cutesy action girl stereotypes in the media (most likely played by a Angelina Jolie. You wanna be like the boys? Well say good bye to your mascara and drop down and give me 20

 

[funguy2121]

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.

But that's not a rifle, it's a heavy machine gun. What percentage of infantry are machine gunners? 20%? 15?

 

[x EvilErmine x]

If they want to then why not. As long as they can pass the tests and do the job then not allowing them to is tantamount to sexism.

 

[Voration]

As has been said many times in the thread, I don't think someone should be denied a job based on gender, provided that they are capable to do the job asked of them, this goes for men and women.

I don't think a woman on the front line will be easy to single out, since when wearing a full suit of gear, with a short haircut, it becomes difficult to distinguish a woman from a small man. Some women are really big, dwarfing other men, somehow I don't think they'll be targeted for being women.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Aside from that women in the army is good. Want equal rights ? Fight for 'em. Literally.

Nicely put.

But that's not a rifle, it's a heavy machine gun. What percentage of infantry are machine gunners? 20%? 15?

Depends on the nation, but in a "classic" fireteam, 1 in 4 in a fireteam carries a LMG, though with the USMC, another person helps carry the ammo.

Not sure what fireteam organisation the Australian Army uses, I keep finding contradictory sources on this, some saying it's a usual 2 fireteams to a section thing, others 3 3 men fireteams, each of the 3 having a different role.

 

[The Hairminator]

In Sweden females are allowed on all posts within the military, but the physical tests are often very tough and they are equal for both genders.

Many would say what OP suggests is discrimination, and I would be inclined to agree.

 

[Wolf-AUS]

Snip

When I went through, we had a WO2 tell our section that a real rifle section carried the Mag58 AND 2 LSWs, boy, that made shit fun

But that's not a rifle, it's a heavy machine gun. What percentage of infantry are machine gunners? 20%? 15?

About 20%. How is that relevant though? Should they not have to perform to the same amount because there is 80% of the other people who can do it? Why not replace them so you can run a section at maximum strength. We can't have token women because the public wants it. If women are to be employed, that have to be fully capable of doing of what the basic infantry soldier is expected to do, which is carry that ************ and 1000 rounds.

 

[binvjoh]

No doubt in my mind that they should be allowed in frontline combat.

The whole psyche is absolute bullshit, if male soldiers can't keep their head straight if a woman gets hurt in combat then they're the ones who shouldn't be allowed on the frontlines.

 

[Irriduccibilli]

I can only disagree with you. I believe we should have MORE women on the frontlines. The reason to this is - Have you ever seen a woman get pissed? If they start bleeding they won't be the only one. They are fierce. But on the down side, the women won't be able to throw grenades (women can't throw (just kidding))

 

[inquisiti0n]

They should be put in their own regiment/companies/whatever since I can easily imagine their presence among other men during a firefight mess things up. Putting all women in their own groups would also prevent alot of rapes and stuff.

 

[Wolf-AUS]

Aside from that women in the army is good. Want equal rights ? Fight for 'em. Literally.

Nicely put.

But that's not a rifle, it's a heavy machine gun. What percentage of infantry are machine gunners? 20%? 15?

Depends on the nation, but in a "classic" fireteam, 1 in 4 in a fireteam carries a LMG, though with the USMC, another person helps carry the ammo.

Not sure what fireteam organisation the Australian Army uses, I keep finding contradictory sources on this, some saying it's a usual 2 fireteams to a section thing, others 3 3 men fireteams, each of the 3 having a different role.

They're mixing it up currently. Using the current terminology, it's 2 4 man bricks, generally each has one LSW, one 66 and a GLA, but they're changing it as I said. There's a piece on it here: http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/512-41768.aspx use CTRL-F and look for Infantry 2012 Model

 

[DefunctTheory]

when everything goes tits up, a servicemember with a gun is a servicemember with a gun. They have the same function, be it providing cover fire or simply taking out the enemy.

Females are not serving as Front Line Combat Medics. Sorry.

Reading comprehension. There is no front line. Women experience combat in Afghanistan on a regular basis. You are forgiven.

There is a difference between being in combat as a support soldier, and being a front line combat soldier. A huge difference.

But if you want to keep arguing with a soldier, go for it.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Something was so poorly established that it collapsed anyway and the US military couldn't take it down? poor show. - jokes i dont really care -

Given that it was doing just fine (or as fine as a PoS third-world communist country can be said to be doing) until the US showed up, I think it's fair to say we had something to do with said collapse.

[Heh, if you read my post you'd see that's pretty much what I've said that minority of women who could, should be allowed to serve. I was just being a realist and stating that it's probably not going to be many.

Ah, okay, I misunderstood you. Yes, I would imagine male infantrymen will remain a majority for the foreseeable future, though I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the line it goes right about 50/50. Particularly with warfare getting lighter, faster, more remote, and more digitized all the time, brute strength isn't as important as it once was. Or we could just make exosuits more practical and less bulky, and problem solved.

 

[Colour Scientist]

I forgot to add earlier:

It's also completely unfair that men risk their lives while women are holed up, safe and sound. It's as much about rights for women as it is as rights for men.

Hey, I'm all for womens equality; when WW3 breaks out I want them out on the frontline if I am conscripted. All this chivalrous bullshit is just setting the whole 'womans rights' thing back. If they want to sign up, let them.

Although I have to wonder about what some feminists would say to this...

Most feminists would agree with you? What do feminists have to do with it?

OP: Of course they should, if a woman wants to fight on the front line there's no reason she shouldn't. Soldiers are soldiers. To be honest, I thought they already were.

There is no doubt you're right. Feminists will call for 'equality' until the first female soldier is killed. A women deserves to serve if she is able, just as a man deserve to not be the only one sacrificing his life.

Wow. Anyone who does that isn't actually a feminist, in my opinion. I also don't believe you. I'd be as equally encouraging of women who are willing to die for their country as men. If a woman feels that she can go defuse the bomb, at risk of blowing herself into tiny bits all over the landscape, then she should be trained and let to do it. If she dies, she knew what she was getting into, just like the man that could have been in her place.

I say that anyone who won't let women in combat should also not let women do other physically taxing things, and then they become a sexist jerk. Women can climb Mount Everest, swim the English Channel, all that...but they can't hold a gun and keep up with the men on the front lines?

Men who can't take the sight of a woman getting hurt are old-school and need to get over themselves. The next time America ever has a draft, if it does, they should draft women also. Not because I particularly _want_ to go out and get killed, but because it's fair. Women, with suitable physical training, are comparable to men until you get to ridiculous proportions, so long as they train hard enough.

Also, think about this: many extremely skilled Russian snipers were female. If you want to go with physical advantage, we have a higher pain tolerance and greater dexterity. We're smaller and thus can hide under things more easily, get through smaller spaces, and not be giant bullseyes.

Many countries have used women in the military, even in front combat -- Russia, I believe Israel requires service for both men and women, etc.

So do it. If she can keep up, she can fight. Jeez. It's not like having a vagina and a pair of boobs prevents you from doing any of this stuff.

I think I may actually love you. I really don't think I could have said anything better.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Because I've know several people to react badly when I suggest women should be allowed to fight on the front line to make them equal with men; the same people who would rail against fair wage and rates.

You want equality? Fine. But you take everything that comes with it.

Although as the other person you quoted said, I'm not sure if they are feminists. They call themselves it, but I really doubt the real deal would enjoy being associated with such people.

That's the problem with feminism, most people don't actually know what it's even about. Those women are as much of a problem to feminism as chauvanist males really. You mention it nowadays and most people, men and women, will roll their eyes and give you a pat on the head or something.

I know I have a tendency to call out people who ***** about feminism or make statements like that, based on premises which are actually the antithesis of most strands of feminism, but like, someone has to.