Women in Frontline Combat?

[baarserik]

Ugh, just watch GI Jane and let this conversation die.

 

[goldendriger]

Nope! Never have a woman on the frontline, i studies this in college, and my tutor was an ex-marine. He said if there was a woman on the frontline and she got injured the men would rush blindly to help her, even if the woman told them not to, its the male macho thing of "Grr me man, me protect woman" even if the woman is fully capable and probably better than you. So i think even if woman aren't at fault they'd get people killed.

 

[Om Nom Nom]

Yes.

Women can be much more precise than men with their hands, and are generally good at multitasking, though they have a predisposition to have less strength. Recon, sniping, electrical engineering, radar operation, communications officer... there's a plethora of roles that would suit a woman's natural strengths.

 

[GameMaNiAC]

I think its a bad idea, and thats all I'm saying.

Me too. I bet enemy soldiers would kick the pregnant ones in the torso. [/unfunny reference to your avatar of Vault Boy being a jerk]

OT: I really don't like seeing women in battle. Not saying they are weak or anything but, as it has been said, they are a little more fragile than men. Plus, men have more physical endurance so the constant combat would have less of an impact on them. It would lower morale of a soldier to see a woman dying, too. Also, males are almost always more aggressive and violent than females, which makes us ideal for war. But... war is horrible, for both men and women.

 

[WolfThomas]

The only thing I'd be genuinely concerned about is favouritism brought on by relationships in the field. Say like a CPL involved with the platoon's LT. If they weren't in the same unit or corps it wouldn't matter, but those kind of relationships are bad for unit cohesion and the chain of command. Adds more variables and emotions to a situation that doesn't really need it imo.

I think it's really just a problem that going to need to dealt with and steps put into place to handle. As time progresses it might even be a problem with homosexual soldiers (a whole other thread there) and it presumably happens in other areas where women and men serve together.

Also whenever someone brings up the 'Women in combat' debate I always think of a Vasquez - the fictional smart-gunner from ALIENS. If there's anyone a budding female infantryman should aspire to be like imo - it's her.

Heck, one could even say male infantryman should aspire to be like Vasquez.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I went to Benning, so there were no females, but if my friends can be believed, 75% of the female soldiers in Basic spent more time fucking then training. Probably an exaggeration. More like 40% is my guess.

Holy shit, that is one insulting and retarded-ass rumor. I was in basic 11 years ago, but I highly doubt things have changed that much.

They have cell phones now.

And its quite an extensive rumor. Army wide and all.

 

[Dense_Electric]

My liberal estimate is you'd never get more than 20% infantry as women and even that's pushing it. Given that there's not as many women as men in the defence force, and it would be only a small fraction of that that wanted to be infantry, then a chunk would be excluded for medical reasons (even simple things like height) and then the attrition from the training course, which may or not be higher. I think you'd end up with an Aliens scenario with like one (or two?) female grunts for a large group of men.

But that's just the argument we're making - would you stop the few that were capable of doing it from doing it just because the rest of them weren't? What does the physical standing of one human have to do with another, just because they both happen to have vaginas? It's like saying if one male is a bad driver then I'm a bad driver just because I also happen to have a penis, then charging me more money or something crazy li - oh wait, they do that too.

Butthurt cause you lost a war? shame.
Trolling aside, the difference in numbers provided by the refusal of vietnamese women to stand by and watch the invasion doubled the number of potential combatants on their side (potential - I know not all women fought), and in the end, the invaders left because hey couldn't win... So the north vietnamese succeeded.

And within two years or so of the US's pulling out, North Vietnam's Communist regime collapsed and that country ceased to exist. So I could say the US succeeded as well. Or I could make the argument that both sides lost the war because the other did what they set out to do. There were absolutely no clear winners or losers in Vietnam.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Absolutely allow it. The physical differences after full military training probably put the women at an advantege over the men, all things considered. On top of that, anyone who is willing to go to the frontlines shouldn't be denied. That's fanaticism, which is very difficult to deny.

1. Advantage through physical training? What the hell are you talking about?
Do you think that men will not improve or that women will, after training, automatically be the ultimate killing machines?
Or are you referring to the "women are smarter than men" stuff, implying that not only are ALL women smarter than ALL men, but also that
they only lack training to also be STRONGER than ALL MEN?
I am sorry, but this seems wrong (sexist) to me.

2. NO. Let's say a deaf fat guy in a wheel chair wants to go to the front.
He would put everyone in danger, since he won't be able to hear commands or warnings.
And just try to haul him around on a beach.
He will however be hilarious to watch trying to shoot anything, when the recoil propels him around.
So let's rather say: Everyone ready, willing and able should be allowed to.

 

[EllEzDee]

Russian women used to fight in the Second World War. I remember reading on the Men of War bios about a seriously skilled woman who was about 19 and served on the front line. The male soldiers would call her their "little daughter" since they all had children and everything. So yea, i see what you mean about the whole "it'll effect the other soldiers differently" thing, but i'm pretty sure soldiers are taught to deal with the loss of friends properly nowadays, so i doubt it'll be much of an issue at all.
The rest of your comments, however, are pretty stupid.
A guy versus a girl in hand to hand combat, the winner is gonna be whoever listened best in the training.

And please, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, can we stop saying CQB. I understand CoD is your favourite past time, but CQB is the dumbest abbreviation in the entire fucking universe. It's the perfect way of telling a CoD player from a normal human being.

 

[WolfThomas]

But that's just the argument we're making - would you stop the few that were capable of doing it from doing it just because the rest of them weren't? What does the physical standing of one human have to do with another, just because they both happen to have vaginas? It's like saying if one male is a bad driver then I'm a bad driver just because I also happen to have a penis, then charging me more money or something crazy li - oh wait, they do that too.

Heh, if you read my post you'd see that's pretty much what I've said that minority of women who could, should be allowed to serve. I was just being a realist and stating that it's probably not going to be many.

 

[Sir-jackington]

Of course they should be able to, as long as their actually willing and able.

 

[dslatch]

Du

Recently Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard recently announced that Women 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, YES MOST NOT ALL cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires physical skill that MOST women just dont have especially if they came up against another male in a CQC scenario the physically larger male will have an advantage straight up.

I would like you to tell that to Sgt. I know

 

[mooncalf]

All the really GOOD reasons I can think of that women shouldn't be in the military are the reasons why I think NOBODY should be in the military... If someone wants in and they can keep up, let them in, treat them similar and for godsakes don't screw up everyone's Peacekeep-the-Hell-Out-Of-You picnic by doing stupid things like Her - Sleeping with a Coworker, and Him - Recording It!

 

[Womplord]

Even a weak, skinny man would be able beat most strong, fit, trained women in a fight, according to my mum the personal trainer. I think that if both sexes were trained at the level that the military uses, that you would be looking at a scenario where ALL the men would be stronger, faster and better in combat then ALL the women. Plus women are more fragile and use their tendons for power more than males who use muscles more efficiently. The effect of this is that women are *much* more prone to injury. They also have weaker bones that are *much* more prone to breakage. Plus the psychology factor that the OP said. Thats why I don't think women should serve on the front line. I also think 'symbolism' is an absolutely stupid reason.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

stupid questions are stupid, of course women can serve on the front line and if a man can't concentrate, he shouldn't be there.


on a side note, does anyone really think we will have a "frontline" in 5 years? I think the concept of an army will be null and void by then

 

[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.

 

[Varrdy]

Hell why not? I've known several girls who joined the military and as far as I know, at least one wound up in Iraq. I have no doubt that any of them could kick my scrawny arse and, if trained properly, anyone else's arse too! Sure they might lack physcial bulk but make up for that with better agility and speed (I'm generalising, of course but it's not my intention to belittle either sex).

If a woman is able and willing to fight on the front line then she should be allowed to - simple as that. I have huge respect for our armed forces who, if I'm honest, get a bit of a shitty deal sometimes but they still put their collective arse on the line for us and for that we should be thankful!

Sorry...tangent...I'll get off my soap-box now. Where was I?

Strength is not the key issuue - OK so carrying a 120lb Bergen requries some muscle and military training will give you that and more. Many years ago, when I was an Air Cadet, I spent a weekend at Proteus army camp (before it closed!) and while there I managed to complete the assault course several times. Back then I was so weak and feeble I could have been knocked over by a stiff fart but I made it round the course (several times). It helped to have an officer (female, for the record) pretty much bollocking me the whole way round but, thanks to Stormin' Norma and a bit of stubborness on my part, I made it. The point I am making is that if I was strong enough to complete an army assault course then ANY woman soldier is strong enough to do the job as they're all a lot harder than I was (and am now)!

Gender has no effect on skills like shooting, running, tactical ability, fieldcraft and so on and so gender should not be an issue when it comes to front-line "suitability". Sure there are some things that women are better at than men and vice-versa. Rather than use them as excuses, why not meld the various skill sets and create much more effective fighting force?

Respect could be an issue but again, from my own observations, soldiers testimony and various other sources, there are many female NCO's and Officers who command respect and take no shit off the grunts. I think, in a front line situation, gender will go out the window anyway as all that matters is you work together as a unit, watch each other's backs and trust them with your life.

Finally, consider this. It's still the norm that front-line combat is a male-dominated environment. I'm not going to get into a debate wether this is right or wrong BUT, if true, then a woman soldier on the front line will have had to work much harder and train longer in order to gain the acceptance of her male counterparts. This, in my eyes, would make her much more able, focused and, most importantly, dangerous.

Wardy