Women in Frontline Combat?
- Thread starter Zenode
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Israel learned the hard way not to put women on the front, it would be sad to see that experience go to waste.
Who won? Everyone lost in the Vietnam war.letterbomber223 said:
I think it's bullshit. I am continually surprised at hour our socities are willing to throw up major sources of valuable fighters on the ground that it might affect the feelings of some theoretical soldier. Frankly thats insulting to women, homosexuals, and the men already serving, who if I am to believe the things said about them, have the emotional fragility of an eggshell as well as all having ADHD in the middle of firefights. (Because after all, someone trying to kill you does absolutely nothing to focus the mind right? *Sarcasm*)
If women want to fight, if they can meet the mental and physical standards required of front line troops, then hell yeah we should let them. (Provided the mental and phyiscal standard isn't "Has a penis and is only attracted to the opposite sex")
Men and Women work together just fine in nearly all fields, I've yet to hear a convincing argument that they wouldn't work together just fine in combat.
Furthermore, while I do firmly believe in Gender Equality , I don't believe in Gender Equivalency, men and women or not the same, I'm not suggesting that militaries enforce some sort of affirmative action policy, and in most normal circumstances, men would still far outnumber women in front-line combat (and probably military roles in general) for the same reason their are more female ballet dancers then male ones. Also women lack men's natural aptitude for spatial perception, so they'd need extra training with firearms to compensate. (It's a hunter-gatherer thing, you don't like it? Take it up with evolution.)
There would be some growing pains yes, but then the same thing happened with adding women to the workplace and we got over it. And I'm sure a great many people complained that men wouldn't be able to do their jobs in the presence of boobies, but you know what? They were wrong.
If women want to fight, if they can meet the mental and physical standards required of front line troops, then hell yeah we should let them. (Provided the mental and phyiscal standard isn't "Has a penis and is only attracted to the opposite sex")
Men and Women work together just fine in nearly all fields, I've yet to hear a convincing argument that they wouldn't work together just fine in combat.
Furthermore, while I do firmly believe in Gender Equality , I don't believe in Gender Equivalency, men and women or not the same, I'm not suggesting that militaries enforce some sort of affirmative action policy, and in most normal circumstances, men would still far outnumber women in front-line combat (and probably military roles in general) for the same reason their are more female ballet dancers then male ones. Also women lack men's natural aptitude for spatial perception, so they'd need extra training with firearms to compensate. (It's a hunter-gatherer thing, you don't like it? Take it up with evolution.)
There would be some growing pains yes, but then the same thing happened with adding women to the workplace and we got over it. And I'm sure a great many people complained that men wouldn't be able to do their jobs in the presence of boobies, but you know what? They were wrong.
Well soldiers have to pass physical tests as is, so the physical limitations are already being addressed for men as well. As for men making rash decisions when female soldiers would be involved....I think we can get past that. Either with training or good old fashioned willpower.
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.Xixikal said:
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.
"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?"
Yes. ALL. In caps. Is exactly what everyone means.
Unless of course frontline fighting squads are chosen from a specific grouping of physically fit rather than just all men. After all, the marines wouldn't turn away toddlers, the elderly, the disabled, the overweight, the underweight, and the brittle boned.....
Oh wait.... actually looking at it, all you're really saying is that the top 5% of physically fit men fall outside the range of virtually all women. Unless of course all they mean is that it's not worthwhile testing women to see if they're capable, when it will give a force of 45K people, an extra 2k recruits at best. (Taking Vietnam as an example, and scaling down for population difference).
So! Is it worthwhile? Well lets take one example of physical strength (a frontline fighter still needs about 100lbs of gear, as well as a need to be a good shot and whatnot).
Men's weightlifting record: 263.5 Clean and Jerk.
Women's: 186Kg Clean and Jerk.
A female olympian recordholding weightlifter, the best ever, is losing by about 170lbs.
Well... men are naturally bigger, so lets adjust for weight category.
You get out of the heavyweights, and start looking at smaller men.
Men still take the record even if you don't count any men over the top weight class for women, and keep going until you're 20 pounds lighter than the heaviest woman. Men would still be winning for strength.
It's only when you're looking at men almost 30 pounds lighter that they start to compare to the *best* woman. (You're looking at weightlifters weighing 135 pounds and under competing with a >165lb woman).
Similar stats can be looked at for:
Aggression. Speed. Stamina. Pain Threshold.
Women come out on top for:
Dexterity. Visual acuity. Multitasking. Flexibility.
This is why there are twice as many women in the airforce as any other branch of the military (almost 20% compared to figures of 7%(marines) to 14%(navy) elsewhere).
So. Frontline fighters, changing the military machine, separating accommodation, incidence of rape in the military, mistreatment of women by enemy forces, over-coddling of women by current forces, retraining required for sensitivity on the one hand, and lack of sensitivity on the other, all that jazz, for the benefit of, if done fairly (with equal requirements for both men and women), an extra (being generous) 5%?
My conclusion? No.
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. ALL. In caps. Is exactly what everyone means.
Unless of course frontline fighting squads are chosen from a specific grouping of physically fit rather than just all men. After all, the marines wouldn't turn away toddlers, the elderly, the disabled, the overweight, the underweight, and the brittle boned.....
Oh wait.... actually looking at it, all you're really saying is that the top 5% of physically fit men fall outside the range of virtually all women. Unless of course all they mean is that it's not worthwhile testing women to see if they're capable, when it will give a force of 45K people, an extra 2k recruits at best. (Taking Vietnam as an example, and scaling down for population difference).
So! Is it worthwhile? Well lets take one example of physical strength (a frontline fighter still needs about 100lbs of gear, as well as a need to be a good shot and whatnot).
Men's weightlifting record: 263.5 Clean and Jerk.
Women's: 186Kg Clean and Jerk.
A female olympian recordholding weightlifter, the best ever, is losing by about 170lbs.
Well... men are naturally bigger, so lets adjust for weight category.
You get out of the heavyweights, and start looking at smaller men.
Men still take the record even if you don't count any men over the top weight class for women, and keep going until you're 20 pounds lighter than the heaviest woman. Men would still be winning for strength.
It's only when you're looking at men almost 30 pounds lighter that they start to compare to the *best* woman. (You're looking at weightlifters weighing 135 pounds and under competing with a >165lb woman).
Similar stats can be looked at for:
Aggression. Speed. Stamina. Pain Threshold.
Women come out on top for:
Dexterity. Visual acuity. Multitasking. Flexibility.
This is why there are twice as many women in the airforce as any other branch of the military (almost 20% compared to figures of 7%(marines) to 14%(navy) elsewhere).
So. Frontline fighters, changing the military machine, separating accommodation, incidence of rape in the military, mistreatment of women by enemy forces, over-coddling of women by current forces, retraining required for sensitivity on the one hand, and lack of sensitivity on the other, all that jazz, for the benefit of, if done fairly (with equal requirements for both men and women), an extra (being generous) 5%?
My conclusion? No.
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.
Practically ninja'd my thoughts on this one.John Marcone said:
Literally everything I was gonna say; most men'd go "[chivalry] Shit, the lady's in danger! [/chivalry]" and rush in to protect them more so than a fellow male. I know I would.
That coupled with the fact that a very small % of infantry would be female, it really is just too much hassle.
But then again, I agree with the World War statement too. If a woman wants to protect her country, then she should be able to at the drop of a hat. If it were a World War it would be a different matter; right now my country (England) isn't exactly in immediate and terrible danger, but if it were, and we needed everyone available, sure let them all in.
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.thecoreyhlltt said:
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.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23886Generic Gamer said:
"The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield"
This is the closest thing I could find.
First off I want to say gratz on the MM score, havnt seen anything that high yetZenode said:
Secondly, as a female who has played lazer tag and paintball I can confidently say that I'm glad women arent put on the front lines. I say this purely because if I was ever drafted I wouldnt want to die instantly. Also I agree with your idea that women might affect the psyche of men as well as the other way around. If you want to be a soldier you have to be ready to ditch the idea of humanity and detach yourself from the enemy and your allies. If you develop connections than you have the potential to be more emotionally fucked than you thought possible.
Men and women are all about connections because we have an instinct to reproduce and we have a need for sex. I have heard of many rapes going on in the army when there are both girls and guys there and I really think there is no way around drama when you have both girls and guys. Have you ever been to camp?
Hey you, yes you. How would you like it if a women constantly got favored in the work force, always made more money, got more respect as a leader, and was safer in the streets and just in general. I bet you would feel mad because there is no way of expressing your frustration with out people saying "Lol your a masculinazi, boo throw things at him"Mackheath said:
People need to understand that women and men are intellectual equals, not physical equals. For the love of christ don't get so deluded that you switch up facts. I think women who say otherwise are lying to themselves. But I respect the fact that they want to be as good and are willing to work to get it (see million dollar baby). All the anti-feminists and feminist extremists need to understand this; because as long as we can't separate those two we will never have equality.
Women aren't men! We are made for babies, not for hunting. But we're just as smart as men and we don't have to prove ourselves as hunters for that to be an accepted fact. And guess what men, it sucks that you have the double responsibility of being adroit physically and mentally. But shelter yourself in the fact that you will have a much lower chance of being raped after the age of 18, and you don't have to worry about having babies.
END RANT
...
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.
- 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.
Also, everyone here should remember this thread next time someone posts another thread about dating or virginity, truly, the amount of sexism exhibited here answers any questions anyone might have about why it's so hard to get laid.
Suggested methodology:
Work out how many troops it would be worth having to compensate for the cost of inclusion.
Lets say, Y troops would be worth the cost of modifying the military to include them. Any less means the costs outweigh the benefit.
See how many recruits you get total. If under Y, abort.
Take maximum number of them at random for training.
See how many pass.
If X% pass, assume X% of total will pass.
If X% of total < Y, don't include them.
If X% of total > Y, include them.
Work out how many troops it would be worth having to compensate for the cost of inclusion.
Lets say, Y troops would be worth the cost of modifying the military to include them. Any less means the costs outweigh the benefit.
See how many recruits you get total. If under Y, abort.
Take maximum number of them at random for training.
See how many pass.
If X% pass, assume X% of total will pass.
If X% of total < Y, don't include them.
If X% of total > Y, include them.
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...Xixikal said:
OT: I think if a woman goes through the same tests as a male and does well enough to qualify as anyone else would there should be no issue, though the point about if she got wounded is valid.