Women in Frontline Combat?

[RelexCryo]

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?

He said in most cases. He also explicitly said he was fine with some women serving, providing they are tough enough. When you claimed that he was trying to portray all women as weaker than all men, you outright lied. The problem is that, on average, most women cannot fight on the level men can- women are slower, carry less weight, and have thinner skin and less dense bones, which means they tend to injure and bleed more easily. Some women are exceptional. They can fight on the same level men can. Most can't. The problem with deploying women against an enemy force of men is it gives the enemy a tactical advantage, unless the female force is composed solely of women who are exceptional, being by nature signficantly stronger and tougher than most women.

 

[meece]

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

It's always been and still is. Only a fool would think that all it takes is to shoot with a rifle and you're all set, all enemies dead.

Only a fool thinks brawn is required to shoot straight. You think people still carry full plate armor isn't battle and swing around boradswords or pull like 500 netwon bows? Or you think modern war still involves stabbing people? Full kit is heavy yes, but it's hardly of a weight it requires a hulk to carry it. Nor do you tend to carry that into combat and wear it during combat.

 

[Lionsfan]

Only a fool thinks brawn is required to shoot straight. You think people still carry full plate armor isn't battle and swing around boradswords or pull like 500 netwon bows? Or you think modern war still involves stabbing people? Full kit is heavy yes, but it's hardly of a weight it requires a hulk to carry it. Nor do you tend to carry that into combat and wear it during combat.

Have you ever seen a fat soldier? And no I'm not talking about Navy guys or Air Force guys. I'm talking full on Oorah grunts. They have to be in very good shape to fufill their jobs. Not terminator buff but physically strong. Battle gear tends to weigh over 100 pounds or so and they have to wear those around ALL THE TIME on the front lines. It hasn't been stabbing and charging for 500 years but front lines soldiers still have to be physically strong to adequately do their jobs.

OT: I have to disagree with this. Not because of physical limits or anything like that I just don't think it would work in real life. In a perfect world everything would be 100% equal and fine, but we don't live in a perfect world. A double standard would definitely be in effect and when you have males and females together for a long period of time you're gonna get pregnancies. I would support trial units though, with extended study on the effects of mixed/all female units. But I really don't think this is that big of a deal either. Take away countries like Israel (where everyone HAS to be combat trained for the countries survival) and on the majority you don't find that many females who really want to and absolutely HAVE to be on the front lines. Western Culture just doesn't have that many females who want to join the military

 

[Heatray]

Israel has been doing this for a long time, in my understanding. But they're fighting a siege war, so it's a different situation.

Also, they're winning.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

See this is EXACTLY what the Australian government actually wants, the way they are fighting wars at the moment they ideally want a zero-fataility rate.

In the wars of the past if a soldier went down he was considered entirely expendable to the mission. Now, the primary mission is to reduce casualties and fatalities! So if a woman gets wounded in the middle of battle then they ARE going to go back for them. No man left behind, ESPECIALLY no woman left behind.


And if you are worried about a "Shit Hit The Fan" scenario of total war and Australia is being invaded and everyone being murdered in sight... well that happened in Soviet Russia and female soldiers served well enough on the front line to spite the Red Army's infamously poor discipline. They killed, died and suffered alongside their male comrades, spurred on by nothing but desperate/fanatical patriotism. (Communism wasn't much of a rallying cry, Stalin tried and failed that early in the war till he pulled the Patriotism card, die for "ZEE MOTHARLAND!" not Karl Marx)

In most cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires physical skill that most women just have.

Hey, the Army of UK (and by Extension Australia) used to mandate you had to be over

Women are PHYSICALLY more adept at many military exercises:

-Sniping:
Patience is their virtue here, and strength is not so important. Also they are less susceptible to "kill jitters" which is an adrenal response before killing something that can ruin your shot. It's seen a lot on men on their first hunt and is even more exaggerated on the battlefield killing other human beings.

-Piloting:
they can endure higher G-manoeuvres for the same level of physical training and also can function better with the multi-tasking environment of programming GPS guided bombs while swooping in at Mach 2 after being awake for 36 hours. That's just how their brains and bodies respond to pressure.

Remember Women have been adapted through evolution to for the trauma as each one must be prepared for childbirth.

Woman may not be QUITE as good at the Short-Sharp violence of charging over open ground emptying a belt-fed machine gun and bayoneting the enemy, as men. But a huge part of modern war fighting is patience, endurance and remaining clam under pressure.

Men have too many cave-men defensive instincts in violence of war. Women are more of a "tabula rasta" a blank slate, far easier to train in the desired response.

pic relevant

 

[guntotingtomcat]

To paraphrase Bill Hicks:
Anyone dumb enough to want to die for their country should be allowed to.
Also, why are we making such a big deal over hired killers?

Bill Hicks' sentiments, but I agree.

 

[funguy2121]

Well the only problem I can think of is perhaps the housing, to avoid rape and sexual harassment and such. Though women fighting in the front-line is perfectly fine.

LOOK AT NCR, THEY HAVE WOMEN IN FRONTLINE!

Rape and sexual harassment are ongoing issues in the military. I don't think assigning women to the front lines is going to bring in any more or any fewer women to the military. And if the women have more intensive training, they'll have a better chance of fending off a rapist. So to me it's a complete non-issue (as it relates, to frontline fighting, flamers, I am concerned with rape!)

 

[funguy2121]

In theory I'm all for it, seems fair for everyone for both genders to take the same risks but in practice....

Do you guys remember during the early stages of the iraq war(or was this in afghanistan? cant recall) when a group of US soldiers got ambushed and all got killed except for a female soldier who was presumably spared on account of her gender?

The US military ended up having to wage a major rescue operation which they would never have done for a male soldier (and in the process, endangering LOTS of other soldiers even if it turned out she was in a hospital that wasnt heavily guarded so they just walked out with her).

There was a slight fuss about this at the time, media tried to portray the female soldier as some kinda hero, remember at the time it was said there would be a movie about her "adventures" (seeing her entire squad killed, getting shot, being in hospital for a bit, then getting rescued by loads of men, GIRL POWER!). Suffice to say, were it a male soldier, there would never have been such an effort made to rescue him, nor would it have gathered particular media attention, and might have been treated differently by the enemy (that the iraquis didnt rape or torture the female soldier but bought her directly to hospital gives them a lot of credit, but its not like our media will ever say nice things about those we are currently fighting now will they? ¬¬)

So yeah.... In theory, males and females should be equal on the frontline, in practice they are treated differently by both friendly forces and enemy forces. Whether that is a good enough reason to prohibit women from the front lines, I know not however, it is not like humanity is so lacking in numbers it makes biological sense to keep women away from danger, humans are numerous enough as it is so we can certainly afford to risk both genders for a bit (as cold as that sounds).

Was this the cute blonde? I'm not trying to diminish her, but if we're talking about the same soldier, the Bush Admin persuaded her to lie so that they'd have a modern day hero at the beginning of the Iraq war. She later said so. I believe she passed out during combat just after the last of her fellow soldiers died. So much attention went to saving her because Iraq was a hyperwar, a war for show. That was all to make us feel good about Bush Jr.'s little revenge mission/oil grab.

 

[Kathinka]

Israel has been doing this for a long time, in my understanding. But they're fighting a siege war, so it's a different situation.

Also, they're winning.

israel conscripts women, but not into combat troops.

here in the czech republic as well as in germany where i reside half of the year women can serve in combat troops, as long as they meet the physical requirements for the branch (no easyer tests for girls). as a matter of fact two friends of mine served in the german rangers and fought in afghanistan. the german and czech forces implemented women with no problem into the combat troops.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

My brother in MARSOC, told me at one point that a lot of reason why women can't serve in the front lines, at least in special operations is due to feminine issues (I.E. they don't want women getting their period during combat) It seems perfectly reasonable, as that could obviously cause eh... complications...

 

[funguy2121]

Tell that to the Israeli Army. Oh, and by the way, every single adult citizen is drafted.

Actually the Israelis told it to the Israeli army, that's why they withdrew their female units from frontline combat.

there's a difference between being drafted into the army and being deployed as front line infantry. Women have a place in the army to be sure, just not on the front line. Bear in mind this thread is purely about front line positions.

Googled and corrected. I believe it makes sense in a draft army to pull them out of the front lines anyway.

 

[Chemical Alia]

The best argument I've heard for excluding women is that men would tend to them too much and break cohesion. Otherwise, same requirements, same opportunities.

We made the same argument for integration of black people in the military.

 

[jamesworkshop]

it's fine, a ton of men don't get in so I don't see the difference, i don't really see any need to restate the generally higher athletic abilities of men compared to women (higher power ratio, bigger chest increasing lung capacity, higher testerone increase muscle tissue recovery, longer legs/narrow hips provide faster top running speed) when everybody knows what they are

male sprinter
10. Carl Lewis (United States) - Fastest Time: 9.86 seconds


female sprinter
1. Florence Griffith-Joyner (United States) - Fastest Time: 10.49 seconds

http://www.destican.com/sports-track-sprinters.htm

What people are being confused by is women not being able to do the job as competently as men (at the highest levels, men vary too) is not the same as saying they can't do the job at all.

I don't think letting women serve in the frontline is really going to make much difference, few women are capable and even less will have the interest to drive them into doing it

 

[Treblaine]

Tell that to the Israeli Army. Oh, and by the way, every single adult citizen is drafted.

Actually the Israelis told it to the Israeli army, that's why they withdrew their female units from frontline combat.

there's a difference between being drafted into the army and being deployed as front line infantry. Women have a place in the army to be sure, just not on the front line. Bear in mind this thread is purely about front line positions.

OK, I've got this picture of Afghanistan here:

Could you draw where the front "line" is?

...

There are no frontlines any more, if you are there in uniform you are a target. Israel has a front line only thanks to its (inexplicably) controversial border-wall that keeps 99% of the Op4 on one side of an actual "line".

There is no point in deploying female infantry to Afghanistan if you say they can never ever ever leave the base except when they are flown in and out again. What is the point in infantry in a base who never leave? They are just a liability to mortar attacks.

It's annoying that it is such an esoteric question "Why are our Troops in Afghanistan" but officially they are there to defeat the Taliban, Hunt down Al Qaeda, improve the development of the indigenous population.

You cannot do that sitting in a walled base all the time.

Women have a place in the army to be sure, just not on the front line.

So obviously there are cases beyond anti-insurgency warfare in Afghanistan/Iraq(/Libya).

So should Women in the army be kept for basically National Guard duty, only to defend against an (incredibly unlikely) invasion of Mainland USA/UK/Australia. Or some other catastrophe that would mandate the intervention of the Government's Armed Forces.

While the men are sent off overseas to play 3rd World Policeman?

 

[Gwarr]

Yes , if a woman is combat ready , why not? for all you " omg they will get raped: . A front line trained woman will chop of your genitals and wear them as trophies before you got anywhere near her+ most of them are too muscular to be attractive( hulk females don't appeal to me at least) .

 

[awesomeClaw]

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.

Really? I would like to see that statistic.

Also, for me, it´s 50%-50%. On one hand, having only one gender has some pretty clear advantages. For one, there will be a lot less sexual tension (unless you´re a homosexual) which makes it easier for everyone involved. Sexual tension creates frustration. And being frustrated and angry in a place where you can get shoot if you make the wrong move is not good.

Also, women may have a lower pain tolerance then men because of GIRK 2: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proteins-may-be-key-to-pa

But on the other hand, you might have women that are really fit and just as strong as any guy. Why shouldn´t she be allowed to sign up? Ofcourse, they will be far and few between, but still.

I dunno. Do the pros outweigh the cons? I dunno.

Work in an OR and then tell me that women have a lower threshold for pain than we do. Or give birth. Most of us are babies compared to them.

I don´t know what an OR is, so...?

Also, the old excuse "Well they give birth!" Well, you see, under pregnancy, the woman´s body builds up a ton of "happy"-hormones that reduce pain. When labor comes, she then unleashes those, and therefor is able to tolerate the pain. So that argument is nullified. Or do you have a source for your claims, like i had? Or are you simply pulling them out of your arse?

Sorry, mate, but you´re gonna have to try a little harder then that.

 

[Ampersand]

of course they shouldn't because no one SHOULD be in front line combat. =/

 

[Kurokami]

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?

First of all I'll agree with what most people said on here, women aren't weaker than all men and after the training they all get (one should hope) they are quite capable of carrying guns and taking/giving orders as need be.

On that note, I don't think you understand the bonding that many soldiers go through, several examples come to mind in the Israeli army where squads would risk their own necks just to retrieve a body.

I don't know what army you're talking about, but if they need more soldiers, they should consider everyone that's a member of their nation.