Women in Frontline Combat?

[DevilWithaHalo]

From a biological perspective, no. I don't like the idea of putting the only half of the species capable of propagation in a knowingly hazardous situation. Especially when we take a look at this from a World War perspective which compounds the issue further. Others have already discussed the physical requirements of front line combat (although I haven?t seen anyone mention the requirement of pulling another solider off the field oddly) and the obvious physical differences between the genders.

From a sociological perspective, no. Unless I stop seeing the obvious examples of white-knighting on internet forums and the intuitive leaps in morale, both for the allied and enemy units, then it isn?t realistic. As much as it amuses me to think of an all female unit on PMS taking their rage out on enemy soldiers, the numerous examples of public reaction to female soldiers in various situations further muddies the overall idea. Jessica Lynch anyone?

From a progressive perspective, try it out. Just because something works for someone, doesn?t mean it will work for another. Try an all female unit and a mixed unit. Rate their performance based on current requirements. If after a few years (yes, years, because it requires that much time to gather the appropriate data) they perform well and don?t create any unforeseen issues, then expand.

I can?t really comment on the examples provided in the thread thus far though regarding women in these roles. Most of them have been statistical anomalies, and the military won?t hedge their bets on a long shot.

 

[Feralbreed]

It's a bad idea.

Getting women into the mix adds nothing, it just takes away from the effectiveness of the whole military. It would cause confusion in the field and a lot of unnecessary hassle in the base, and besides, women are not just designed for marching or combat anyway.

And if we're gonna have to have wars, then for gods sake don't drag any more unfortunate people in. This just wouldn't be necessary, and it would be stupid too, just to make a couple of feminist bitches feel valuated.

There are lines that you must cross, and lines that don't have to be crossed.

 

[Rottweiler]

I believe everyone should be held to the same standard. If a female fits the bill, I'll fight beside them.

However, that is very unlikely. The current standards are lower and the expectations are also lower, and my unfortunate experience is this will continue until someone takes responsibility and makes it go by common sense rules.

 

[Feralbreed]

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.

 

[A random person]

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.

However, I can very well see a larger chunk of women in combat being sharpshooters than on the front lines. Nothing wrong with them in that regard, mind, any commander trying to minimize their casualties would want someone to deal with enemy soldiers from a distance.

 

[funguy2121]

snip

OP, "front line" is not really a very applicable term in the current setting of global terrorist networks and modern guerilla There is no "front line" in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

America's official line is that we try to avoid situations wherein women see combat, but this differs quite a bit from reality. Women hold support positions such as medic, and medics see combat in any situation. It hasn't hurt the morale of US forces fighting in the current conflict.

Anyone who wants to put their life on the line for their country and has the focus and physical stamina to do so should be allowed.

 

[Admiral Stukov]

-snip-

First of all let me say that I find you generalization a bit infuriating. The country I live in, Sweden, has a volunteer only army, and as far as I'm aware no difference is made between men and women. Israel has had women serving at the frontlines for decades.

I'd go as far as to say,[footnote]This is an opinion, and thus in no way proven fact.[/footnote] that one's suitability for fronline combat depends to 99% on the person, not your number of X-chromosomes.

The problem isn't one of which sex you happen to be, but rather age-old societal views so deeply ingrained in our minds.

I see no reason to forbid someone from serving at the frontlines based on sex alone, and do find it infuriatingly stupid.

 

[TetsuoKaneda]

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?

I'm sure it's been said before, but it bears repeating. In the immortal words of that cantankerous bastard Bill Hicks (though his was about gays in the military):

"If anyone is dumb enough to volunteer for military service and wants to be put on the front lines of combat? F*cking LET THEM! Why the hell is this such a big issue? If they want to go out and get killed, if they're dumb enough to think that's a good idea, why the hell are you standing in their way?"

I can't completely agree with the anti-military sentiment (I'm anti-military myself, but it has no place in the discussion), but the gist is about right: If someone's willing to run off to get killed for you, if someone wants to do that, a) why does it matter if they're gay, straight, man, woman, or wiccan? And b) why are you going to prevent them to do that and force other people to?

 

[mParadox]

I see no reason to forbid someone from serving at the frontlines based on sex alone, and do find it infuriatingly stupid.

100% agree on this one. They're soldiers. I'm pretty sure that they've been trained to handle wounds/deaths/injuries in such a manner that they don't lose their shit in the moment of battle.

 

[Frankster]

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).

 

[Flauros]

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?

By that logic, women should not be cops, either. Remember, this isnt that "live in a trench for a year" combat scenarios it used to be. Rushing machine guns nests while running off a boat is just in WWII movies, not in modern combat. They go do their job on a search checkpoint or go take out a building, and then they go back to headquarters.
Soldiers are well trained teams, the fact that they might drop their guns to go hold hands with a girl shouldnt really be an issue.

And as one woman soldier said "their ARE no front lines anymore. A suicide bomber can come at anytime, anyplace. We all need to be trained for that"

P.s. As for the "women cant pull a man into cover, or cant snipe, or blah blah blah" You know you have to pass tests BEFORE you can do a job, right? Its not like they just hand them a gun and say "have fun". If you DO NOT pass the snipers test, you are not a sniper. If you DO NOT pass the MEDIC tests, you are not a medic. That simple. If women cant, then they wont. The end.

 

[Jesper Christiansen]

It should be like this:
Have a certain standard for your soldiers. Test them all on the same grounds, and the ones that can live up to the standards, get to fight for your army.
If a woman can do a job as good as a man, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to fight for their country.

 

[Continuity]

All soldiers should be women, that way there would be less of them here to nag me.

Seriously though, men are built for war, literally we evolved as warriors, we've been hitting each other with clubs and poking each other with spears for tens of thousands of years or longer. Men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and have more endurance. Not to say women are incapable of being frontline soldiers, just I'm not sure why we would want/need that or that it would even be practical in many circumstances.

I think we should not even look at soldiers as male or female, but just as soldiers. They should all be treated as equals. For good and for bad. You can't cherry-pick on the subject of equality.

Thats all very well but men and women are not equal, sure they have equal rights etc but a man is not a woman and a woman is not a man. equality in an absolute sense is impossible, there are differences and where lives are at stake we cant afford to just ignore them.

 

[Kuhkren]

I hear all this men are stronger in the thread. Women can carry a rifle and have endurance similar to men after training. This isn't the day and age of wearing full plate and swinging broadswords. Sorry, but if strength is going to be used as an excuse then better define it and post some research saying it has inhibited women's performance in the military. A military to look at would be women in the IDF.

They don't have female front line soldiers, also they don't get hand to hand combat training anywhere near as good as what the males get.

Getting guard duty in towns is not the same as front line combat.

Perhaps that wasn't the best example then, however the idea I'm presenting remains.

 

[funguy2121]

For this, I refer to Terry Schappert when I say that the military in not a place for political hanky panky. It's a death machine. It should only be changed if the changes make it deadlier and more resilient. Otherwise, fuck you and your politically correct bullshit.

Should women serve on the frontlines? Doubtful. Unless their physical fitness requirements are brought up to equal those of the men, fuck no. Even then, there is no personal space between soldiers on the frontlines, which means there will most likely be some sexual tension (regardless of most military women being very not-pretty). Sexual tension may reduce the military's deadliness.

Hanky Panky means fucking.

 

[jng2058]

I'd like to take this opportunity point out that as recently as World War II, women fought in front line combat and were effective. The Russians had more than 800,000 women in the military, and all your hypotheticals about "pain tolerance" and "muscle density" can't change the fact they they helped win the war.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military )

I'd also like to point out that the same kind of bullshit excuses were used to exclude or segregate American armed forces as recently as Vietnam. "Negros are too uneducated to be useful on the modern battlefield." "Soldiers of African descent are only suited to rear area duties, they cannot be relied upon in combat." And so on and so forth. All that despite a history of valor dating back to the Revolutionary War and even earlier.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_African_Americans )

And yet, no one would dare say that today, would they? At least, I hope not.

So it will be with women. History shows that any change of this sort takes time. Eventually, however, the idea that women can't fight will be as outdated as the idea that "Negros" can't fight, that gays can't fight, as outdated, in fact, as the Roman idea that only land owning citizens should fight.

Considering how difficult it is for the American (and, I presume Australian) armed forces to get recruits these days, to not use people who are willing and able to fight seems to me to be sheer lunacy.

 

[funguy2121]

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.

 

[Exocet]

While have I nothing against the notion,you would have to make sure no additional sexual tensions plus enventual incidents influence combat effectiveness within reasonable limits.
If there are no problem,go ahead,knock yourselves out GI Janes.

 

[funguy2121]

I don't personally like it because this is the real world.

To clarify: Everyone who says about women doing the same as men in the army is operating in 'lab conditions'. In practice I've heard plenty of stories of mixed sex training where the men have ended up carrying the women's equipment on long marches.

Basically almost every woman I've met has at some point tried to use the fact that they're a woman to get out of doing things. It sucks but you can't really have full equality until people stop thinking that that'll get them off the hook. It's like the big hoo-ha you'd get if a woman got all up in a man's face and got a kicking for it, until we get rid of shit like that then women can't really be fielded as part of a mixed sex unit.

There's also the fact that women are in more danger in a war and that our populations value women more than men, are we really willing to see our first video of a female soldier being tortured and beheaded? Honestly, we as a society and women as a sex need to decide how much 'equality' is really practical.

On principle I'd say it's not a good idea yet, but that it would be in future. Once you accept that it'll never be a 50/50 gender split then I don't see a problem, this isn't one of those jobs where you can tweak the entry requirements until anyone can do it.

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