Women in Frontline Combat?

[Grospoliner]

Actually women a perfectly able to perform in front-line combat roles.

They can command: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica

They can fight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military#World_War_II

They can conduct special operations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/707th_Special_Mission_Battalion

The fact of the matter is they CAN do everything a man can including combat. So all of your arguments against women serving in battle are invalid. It is childish and insecure in this day and age to think of women as fragile or somehow inferior. With proper training and determination it makes no difference. If you're concerned about rape? Then execute soldiers who commit those crimes like we're supposed to.

 

[Sicram]

Women would at least serve better as scouts and snipers. To begin with they have a slower (genrally) metabolism and procentually more skin fat than men. All in all it makes females to go on for longer. While men have the strength women have the stamina. Generally.

While the psychological kinks can be ironed out to a grat extent there's still a biological matter. Periods, I think this monthly cycle can mess shit up really, really bad. Then again it varies, some suffer from PMS and go bananas and some aren't too affected. This could be fixed with hormonal drugs, I think.

At any rate, I don't think it's too bad if women would be at the frontlines. Hell, I read somewhere that in general it's more likely that a person listens to a womans voice than a mans voice. Don't remember all the details.

And if I'd for some reason be in any army, get shot and yell "medic" I wouldn't mind the medic being female. (not because of skill or anything like that, it's equal, I just like girls )

 

[Lineoutt]

On first thought it seem like it should be ok, but if you get into it a little more:
- frontline soldiers are prone to hand to hand combat, smaller combatants are at a huge disadvantage there
- likelihood of capture/torture, yes soldiers aren't supposed to be tortured anymore but war is war and noone gives a rats ass about rules, and if a female is captured you can take a wild guess what the most likely form of abuse will be...
- sexual tension, frontline soldiers will spend alot of time together relying on eachother, now while a bromance between two guys wont go anywhere there is a high possibility that opposite sexes get infatuated (really bad idea for soldiers)
- endurance, without equipment this is no issue at all(half size requires only half the power) but fully packed weaker soldiers will have problems keeping up

And why would you even want to go to the front lines, cannon fodder isn't exactly the most prestigious job you can get.

Thank you!

I totally agree with everything here.
+10 internets

 

[The Mapper]

Of course women should be allowed to serve.

And please, have you actually seen guys in the military? They're not all muscle-bound fucking Terminators. As long as the women pass the same required fitness tests then go nuts. If it means there are less women in the military then so be it, but actually banning them because they are generally not as strong (strong =/= fit/conditioned) is ludicrous.

I think the idea that men will suddenly become illogical apes at the sight of a woman in trouble (any more so then seeing a friend they've served with for years in trouble) is also a little bit of cock slap to the face of the guys who have been trained to deal with such situations.

well said

 

[Xixikal]

However: I say let them take all the same tests as the men, and if they pass them all, and enough pass them all that it is worth investing in any changes required to accommodate them, I take it all back.

Yes, that is what many are saying. If she is able, then why not?

 

[thecoreyhlltt]

wow, i didn't think women were still being denied the same rights as men in australia...
that's fucked up

Uhh, the USA still doesn't allow women in some combat roles. America was also one of the last developed (and for that matter, well behind tons of developing) countries to allow gay people to serve, and it's still technically not over yet, so I'd be more concerned with the inequalities in your own country.

As for the OP, of course they should be able to serve. So men might react differently to a woman dying than a man dying? That's their problem, a group of people shouldn't be excluded from an institution because another group of people would be uncomfortable, and it could easily be fixed with training anyway.

starting this summer openly gay people will be serving their first, probably not really their first, tour. i never said america was perfect, i just thought we were we were one of the stragglers. i would'nt have guessed australia was so behind as well... that's all i really meant

 

[Zenode]

snip

First off I want to say gratz on the MM score, havnt seen anything that high yet

Thanks for that, although i got nothing

From the rest of what you said i completely agree, the difference between being intellectual equals and physical equals is a big one that most people cant understand.

This isnt about equality as much being able to fight in a combat situation/operate properly in training.

 

[Xixikal]

Sorry, I just wanted to point out, that the OP did say "in most cases" which is the truth. He never said anything about all...
.

Yeah, I realised. I was just pointing out my POV, not trying to negate his - we were both saying pretty much the same thing.

 

[zehydra]

There's something funny about people fighting for their right to kill

 

[Baalthazaq]

Sorry, can I also just say... this isn't about women in the Army. It is women as frontline fighters.

Women in the airforce is a great idea. It boosts their number 20%. They are capable and in many cases better than their male counterparts on many fronts. I have no problems with a woman even as a general.

This is, should we be using them to fight toe to toe with males of equivalent training, and minimal technology shift in a situation where physical might rules?

We don't do it in tennis for chrissakes.

 

[Gudrests]

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY mean equal responsibility as well.....or else how can you hold a male and female n the same light if...hurr durr one can get shot and and one cant. What it boils down to is if they are told no front line, then they cannot complain if passed over for a promotion. It is a key part of the job, and you say you cannot do it? im sorry thats called no qualified for the position.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

If you want to go with physical advantage, we have a higher pain tolerance...

This is a very common misconception, women have a far lower tolerance for pain than men on average except during childbirth. I'm very sorry to say that a lot of women I know have an artificially inflated idea of their own physical ability because...as horrible as it sounds...the men around them humour them. I'm surprised about how consistently this mistake is believed actually, it's one of those things thatjust seems to have come out of nowhere.

So as much as I agree with your other points, this is not one of the best reasons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4641567.stm
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/pain-management/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100218149
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51160
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705004113.htm

I stand corrected.

Also, I don't think it's a general trend among women to overestimate themselves. That's kind of like saying that women only _think_ they're as awesome as men, and they're actually not.

A lot of people already said it here, but strength does not equal conditioning and resilience.

 

[LiftYourSkinnyFists]

Women who want to should be able to, nobody is forcing anybody to do anything now a days.

 

[Xixikal]

Australia has an army?
.

Ouch.
Hell yeah we do. We may not have a lot of them, but Australia has some of the best trained troops in the world.

 

[NobodyHereButUsTrees]

If a woman can pass a PFT by male standards (pull ups included, no falling out of runs), then yeah, why not?

 

[CloakedOne]

Women should be allowed to do that because men are allowed to do that. That's pretty much my response on any "should women be allowed to _____" threads or questions.

 

[bdcjacko]

Australia has an army?
.

Ouch.
Hell yeah we do. We may not have a lot of them, but Australia has some of the best trained troops in the world.

Every country claims to have the best trained in the world.

 

[Daverson]

I'm in favour of it. I'm all about Gender equality, see, and it'd be a bit difficult to give women equal opportunities, if they aren't given equal responsibility.

The days when war was about hitting people with clubs is long gone. There have been plenty [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Sampson] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko] examples [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Ann_Hester] of women being as capable as men in frontline service.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Sorry, can I also just say... this isn't about women in the Army. It is women as frontline fighters.

Women in the airforce is a great idea. It boosts their number 20%. They are capable and in many cases better than their male counterparts on many fronts. I have no problems with a woman even as a general.

This is, should we be using them to fight toe to toe with males of equivalent training, and minimal technology shift in a situation where physical might rules?

We don't do it in tennis for chrissakes.

Well women have better bodies for high Gs, just that fewer that can do the spatial manipulation, which is rather important part of being a pilot.