Women in Frontline Combat?

[Dense_Electric]

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

Seconded. Seriously, where can I meet women with similar beliefs where I live? There don't seem to be many around here.

 

[Valate_v1legacy]

America

Wrong country, friend. Australia is a bit different in terms of handling their military, to say the very least.

Australia has a military? (I keed, I keed...)

There's a very important reason that women have, as a general rule, not been allowed in the U.S. Army, and that's that if a fully-equipped male soldier is downed in the middle of a battlefield with only one fully-equipped female soldier, it entirely comes down to if she has the muscle and strength to pick that guy up- all 200+ pounds of him- and run to safe cover.

Almost every time, she has not. I won't say EVERY time, because I don't personally know, but enough times to make the notion unpopular.

This isn't to say that there's no place for women in armed combat, because I know a fantastic girl of a friend's family who's currently in the Air Force, but hey, just something to consider, Australia:

Which would you rather have dragging you off a battlefield, a man or a woman? Don't dodge the question with "Whoever's fitter or larger" or whatever crap, if that was all you knew, two possible draggers, one man, one woman, which would you choose?

20% of the United States Armed forces are women. There was no sexual segregation of troops as of 1978, even though the legislation was signed in 1948...?

 

[Midnyte]

Spoiler

When i was in the millitary, we had 7 girls in our company at boot camp. These girls were all in good shape, and seemed to be strong-minded individuals with the will to do anything. And then when we had our first march through the woods, 5 of the girls gave up 4 hours in and the rest of us had to split their packs between us, while they carried no weight whatsoever except for their rifle and basic combat gear. That march suddenly became 10 times worse for the remaining guys and girls.

However, the two girls that didnt give up their packs turned out to be two of the hardest working and impressive soldiers our lieutenant had seen, and years later became officers themselves. So yeah, im agreeing with a lot of people here saying that women should absolutely be let into the frontlines, but they have to be able to perform on the same level as the guys.

Just saying, that also counts towards other things than physical strength, such as getting undressed in front of the opposite gender.

The majority of our bootcamp was during winter, and during one of our marches we had to cross a big river. I.E swim. Now, obviously, you have to take your clothes off before you start swimming, but one of the girls simply refused to take her clothes off in front of the others. Apparently, her bra had a malfunction, and she didnt want to flash her breasts at everyone. Leaving everyone standing on the other side of the river, freezing cold, while she walked upstream to a shallower point.

It took her 10 minutes. 10 f***ing minutes.

Anecdotally, when I was in basic, my company was about 25% female. The only people I ever saw drop out of a ruck march were the ones who passed out from heat exhaustion or a sprained ankle, and I can't recall anyone having to give their gear to another person, male or female. This story really surprises me.

Also, sports bras can't malfunction. If she was wearing a normal bra on a ruck march, she is retarded.

I have absolutely no idea what kind of bra she was wearing, but i can confirm that she was less than intelligent.... And the reason we were all forced to carry their packs was because our officers believed in a very subtle but effective punishment: make them feel like everyone of their friends were suffering because of them. Guilt can be a powerful motivator.

 

[Mr Binary]

Women should have equal rights to serve as the men do. If they are apt and able I see no reason to hold them back, safe and sound while the men go out and gte hurt or die for their country. I don't normally agree with the points that Gillard makes but I like what she is saying this time.

 

[Treblaine]

Honestly it doesn't sound like women bring anything to the table that men can't do equally well or better in this circumstance. Women as a generalisation have their skills and maybe there aren't enough of them that lean this way to make it worthwhile.

It's a shame that I keep failing to articulate my points to you as you keep seeming to miss them.

OK, I'll cover this again, in bullet-point, so you cannot possibly miss it (and a few more):

-HALF the population of America is female, that is a HUGE recruiting pool that cannot be entirely ignored. Especially in a world where conscription is not only socially unacceptable but is under it's greatest legal challenges and likely cannot ever be used again. Recruitment must cast its net wider than ever before to get the quality of recruits in the quantity they need.
And there is NO POINT in recruiting infantrymen if they are banned from ever doing what infantry are defined for: Combat operations.

-Women also make up 50% of the population in occupied countries, in Iraq and Afghanistan where often local custom is VERY SENSITIVE about male/female segregation, female infantry ARE SOUGHT AFTER BY THE MILITARY! They can enter women's quarters, search women and other areas that male soldiers would be just a bit too inflammatory.
This IS necessary as Al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups are now consistently using females on suicide bombing missions. Other ways they are utterly unscrupulously exploited the privacy/decency to carry out insurgent and even terrorist actions such as using them as mules and even male combatants disguising themselves in women's face scarves and cowering with their mother/sisters.


-You talk about how men won't surrender to female troops, well how would a woman feel being pulled over buy a load of men with guns. A female face can put a lot a of those - not so unreasonable - paranoias to rest and cut down on the all too common of people getting freaked out by all the guns and trying to ram the car checkpoint even though they have no contraband. Womankind's reputation for compassion is a boon in this scenario.

-Also 25% of Science-engineering degrees in the United States are awarded to women, THAT is a recruiting pool that cannot be missed when such skills are so highly sought after in the increasingly technically advanced battlefield calling in laser/GPS guided close air support, sniper-locating sensors, radar that can shoot mortars out of the sky.
That's not logistic roles, that's COMBAT roles. The "close" part of Close Air Support is no exaggeration, you need to be able to direct a metric-ton of high explosives from 10'000 feet to a position just a couple hundred feet from where you are standing. You don't want some dude who flunked High School math directing that because he was the best candidate you could find. Not when there are so many qualified females.

-If you think women haven't got the - hmm - the guts for the job, don't think it's anything inherent or biological:

http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Women_Warriors/Hirschfeld_01.htm

"A peasant girl related that she found herself right next to a German, ran him through with her bayonet and at the same time shot him and took his helmet for a memento.... Another girl related that before they went over the top they were all very much excited and scared. But when the order to charge came she forgot everything and leaped over the top with the mob of screaming and bellowing girls. All excitement had virtually disappeared when the time came for shooting. This despite the fact that bombs were bursting all around. The first dead man that she saw made her pause for a moment but she just had to go on and therefore passed right over his dead body, a thing to which she soon became quite accustomed. Another girl related how her battalion had surrounded a company of German soldiers who threw away their weapons, held up their hands and shouted in amazement, 'Good Lord! Women!'"

1915 -

before women had the Vote in most of the western world they were leading bayonet charges.


Bottom Line

You may be of the opinion that war is too much of a meathead's game, where unrestrained brute violence is the principal path to victory and a path that can be forged exclusively by testosterone fuelled men (which kinda omits

The fact is the opposite, that to defeat insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan DEMANDS, finesse, discretion and violence only when justified. And this is war fighting that is not in the trenches or a distant battlefield but on the streets, in the market, in people family homes. War is no longer men fighting other men in a field at an agreed time and place.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/102737/20110119/lift-the-ban-on-women-in-combat-panel-says.htm

Everyone whose opinion means anything on this matter is in favour or lifting this combat-ban which at the moment is frankly disrespectful of women's contribution to the service. They are de-facto in combat roles but this ban de-just denies them recognition and commendation for that.

 

[KalosCast]

I don't think sex or gender should matter as long as they're physically able to do what the job requires.

 

[Drago-Morph]

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.

This. A thousand times this.

I mean, there will be people who argue to pain tolerance thing, but you were right on the dexterity and size, so your point stands. There's a huge variety of things that women are more physically capable at than men.

So I applaud you for saying what most of the supporters have been trying to say.

 

[xdiesp]

What else is to understand, that all they need is meatshields to fill bodybags? If they could, they would send in children to conquer a little more oil.

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

im fine with females serving in combat but what i dont agree with is when they offer a handicap for women. combat doesnt get easier just because your a woman and the training is meant to train them for combat, so why make it easier for women? if women wish to enlist they must be held to the same standards as everyone else. the point of training is to weed out those who would not be able to handle direct combat and when you put a double standard in place it defeats the entire purpose

 

[Treblaine]

Honestly I'm sick of debating this with people who don't know what the army needs, I find it telling that the soldiers who've posted here seem to have experience of working with women and it hasn't been all that good.

Consider this, you appeared to have missed a very important detail when debating with me:

I'm not a Yank.

The American numbers mean absolutely nothing to me, my country's army is considerably smaller and worse funded. I think the army gets to discriminate however the hell they want to get the job done, simple as.

Neither am I, but this IS an American forum. I've always taken the American perspective because of the demographics of these here forums.

What should it matter anyway about who is yank or which country we talk about, we are talking principals here, and UK and USA are not that different. Remember, this is not a PM conversation, this is for the benefit of the whole forum. Also since American forces are still the largest single country running military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan the decisions on this issue are far more pertinent to the wars of today.

As to our Great Britain, well women are already in front-line rolls, most notably flying close air support missions in Libya. I frankly find it frustrating to debate British military policy as there is just so little information and all to often what is decided and what is done is not followed through as British activity is so limited in Iraq and Afghanistan.


"I think the army gets to discriminate however the hell they want to get the job done, simple as."

If the military establishment had their own way then the Armed forces would be very different. They pushed for women in the military but they want to have their cake and eat it, they seem to just want them to sure up logistics but are strangely reluctant to admit they could take on an aggressive role.

FYI women who have been put on the front line in a non-aggressive role as field-medics, dog-handlers and bomb-disposal specialists. This put them under HUGE risk from enemy action, especially considering the enemy's tactics.

This shows the British Army's concern is not the increased concern of women being killed in combat, they seem to be concerned about them doing the killing.

Which is interesting as historically women have proven to be adept at war, society seem to accept he idea of them killing the enemy on the battlefield. Do they think they somehow cannot do it within the army as it is?

This is why it cannot be left entirely down to the Army or Navy or Air Force but ultimately with the wider ministry of Defence, a democratically elected and appointed body to determine this matter.

"I find it telling that the soldiers who've posted here seem to have experience of working with women and it hasn't been all that good."

Can't you see the obvious reason women have a poor reputation on manoeuvres: it is all in vain. When a male infantryman trains he knows he is training for the real deal, very likely one day he will be dropped into a bullet hell and he will NEED his training and competency to survive and succeed. Women always know they will never be asked to go toe to toe with the enemy.

It's like saying some reservist is performing poorly when he knows he will only have to fight an enemy that physically invades his homeland, and extremely unlikely possibility.

I do hope you read the link I gave to you, about how women CAN fight, especially in all-female units where they can be particularly aggressive. It demonstrates how outside western Europe (and by extension outside former European colonies) women warriors are quite common and expected. Hell even in France and Britain many women tried damn hard to fight in the ensuing wars but were constantly denied.

I know from personal experience how tough women can be, how well they can perform under extreme circumstances and how they can even be uniquely adept.

 

[D0WNT0WN]

Let women do it.

They want equality lets give it to them.

 

[Chemical Alia]

I have absolutely no idea what kind of bra she was wearing, but i can confirm that she was less than intelligent.... And the reason we were all forced to carry their packs was because our officers believed in a very subtle but effective punishment: make them feel like everyone of their friends were suffering because of them. Guilt can be a powerful motivator.

Sounds like bad laundry management, lmao. I remember that punishment, and it's when I saw the most people break down and cry. Whether it was because someone couldn't finish their water canteen or a fatty took a doughnut from the DFAC, they'd almost always break down after a few minutes of seeing the rest of us in front leaning rest 6" off the ground.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Absolutely. As a Canadian, I am aware that we have one of the most integrated Armed Forces, with a very high number of women operating in combat. I hope that Australia follows suit.

 

[Treblaine]

What else is to understand, that all they need is meatshields to fill bodybags? If they could, they would send in children to conquer a little more oil.

Nope. THIS is how you get your mits on a load of oil:

Bombing Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc was for something far far more valuable to politicians than oil: votes.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc has been the precise antithesis to an oil-grabbing agenda.

 

[Sun Flash]

I'm all for equality and everything, but unless WW3 breaks out and conscription is mandatory, wouldn't it just be easier to keep men on the front line?

For me, it has nothing to do with men being stronger or turning into blithering apes at the sight of a damsel in distress. But when it's that time of the month, women change. Hell, it usually KOs me for a few days when it comes around. It sounds stupid but seriously, periods fucking hurt to the point every single thing you do only makes it worse. Add to that the hormonal imbalances that happen and a woman in heat is dangerous shit. Not to mention that due to regulations, you would have several women sharing barrack and when they synchronise, it's not pretty. Then to put these women in a highly dangerous and stressful environment? The problems that would cause would far outweigh what we gain from equality.

Plus the hygiene, having lady parts is freakin' gross. Men are much easier to keep sanitary.


TL;DR it causes ore problems than it solves, so... nyeh.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

As long as they conform to the same standards, I'm all for it. The way we do things now is just a disgraceful waste of resources.

 

[Luke Merriman]

i reckon women should be aloud to serve but think about if a wormen gets captured there is not going be women interrogating another women its going to be man and most of those times they will probley rape

 

[funguy2121]

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.

I won't. Instead I'll inquire as to the nature of the difference. Are the bullets whizzing overhead any different?

I'm not arguing that their jobs aren't different on paper. I'm stating that women see combat on a regular basis. And once again: THERE IS NO FRONT LINE.