Women in Frontline Combat?

[Xisin]

But if there's a war, I should be forced onto to the front lines against my will, even if I was a cheerful anti-violent housewife?

Men are drafted regardless if they are cheerful and anti-violent. Why would women be any different?

That's my point. If in an emergency both men and women should be treated the same, why is there a huge difference when freedom of choice is involved.

My example was to point out the double standard. If a woman "shouldn't" fight on the frontlines, why was it it ok to draft them? It didn't make sense to me.

 

[hortez the champion of the frozen wastes]

The amount of blatant sexism in this thread is appalling. Absolutely appalling. even from people supporting women on the front lines.

Feminists will call for 'equality' until the first female soldier is killed.

Feminists. They whine on about equality and then when they get it, still they're unsatisfied.
Don't get me wrong,"I'm not anti-women but" equality is a goal that humankind should strive towards. And that includes both men and women sacrificing themselves on the frontline. So feminists should probably shut up.

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 forgot to add earlier:

It's also completely unfair that men risk their lives while women are holed up, safe and sound. It's as much about rights for women as it is as rights for men.

Actually the really fanatical feminists who want to kill men et cetera are a tiny minority. Most of them are pushing for EQUALITY, for both men and women.

To Mackheath's last quote, yes I suppose that would be unfair. If it actually happened.

To the OP, you are a very sexist person with little understanding of the way the military, men, and women act.

And Xixikal, see my above paragraph. You may just be ignorant about feminism and not actually sexist, which isn't nearly as bad. But really, we're not all bad.

 

[Zenode]

To the OP, you are a very sexist person with little understanding of the way the military, men, and women act.

Sexist? How? Women ARE physically weaker then men, that's not being sexist, that's just straight fact.

How do I not know how men and women act? I don't hide away in a basement i do understand humans and how they act.

 

[satanic kitty]

here is what will happen:

soldier: hey baby whats your name?
woman: Sarah. Your cute.
soldier: hey maybe when this war is over, we can go out for some coffee and maybe, you know*...(head shot)

 

[chowderface]

This has probably already been said in such a long thread, but I probably missed it. They've actually done studies, and not (officially*) putting women in front-line combat is actually for the benefit of squad efficiency...on the part of the MEN. When men and women are in a squad together, the men take unreasonable risks and go out of their way to protect the women above all else. Leaving women out of direct combat situations keeps the men on task and in general gets more of them home alive.

That said I'm all for equality, so as soon as we buck that particular hang-up, I don't see why anything except maybe physiology (particularly small women? Maybe shouldn't be carrying around sixty pounds of combat gear. Do we let really small guys do that? I don't think we should let tiny men do that either) should keep women off the front lines.

*Not officially because what constitutes not being on the front lines is a little blurry at times these days.

 

[hortez the champion of the frozen wastes]

To the OP, you are a very sexist person with little understanding of the way the military, men, and women act.

Sexist? How? Women ARE physically weaker then men, that's not being sexist, that's just straight fact.

How do I not know how men and women act? I don't hide away in a basement i do understand humans and how they act.

That wasn't what I was referring to. What I was referring to was the fact that you used the same argument used to keep black people and gay people out of the army: they might cause a problem with their differentness. Black people might cause people to have less faith in the team, gay people might cause sexual discomfort, women might not be as strong.
None of that matters because, to quote Kierkegaard, "when you label me, you negate me." When you put all women under the same stereotype, you are being sexist. Period. That's what, in a nutshell, sexism is.
When you say that women are weaker than men, you may be right. However women are PROVEN to be more dextrous, are more flexible, and have higher pain tolerance, which evens it out quite a bit. Both men and women have their pros and cons, for example, you could argue that men shouldn't be allowed on the front lines because they have a LOWER pain tolerance.
Another thing, when you argue Florence Nightengale effect, you insult soldiers by saying they would be more likely to risk their lives for a girl they might not know very well, but you see nothing wrong with someone risking their life to save a someone who they have BONDED WITH THROUGH WAR.

 

[WolfThomas]

Ah, okay, I misunderstood you. Yes, I would imagine male infantrymen will remain a majority for the foreseeable future, though I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the line it goes right about 50/50. Particularly with warfare getting lighter, faster, more remote, and more digitized all the time, brute strength isn't as important as it once was. Or we could just make exosuits more practical and less bulky, and problem solved.

I don't think it would ever be truly 50/50. There will probably always be more men enlisting, wanting to be infantry and passing the training course. But I think that in time something like 10-20% could be achievable.

For me, it has nothing to do with men being stronger or turning into blithering apes at the sight of a damsel in distress. But when it's that time of the month, women change. Hell, it usually KOs me for a few days when it comes around. It sounds stupid but seriously, periods fucking hurt to the point every single thing you do only makes it worse. Add to that the hormonal imbalances that happen and a woman in heat is dangerous shit. Not to mention that due to regulations, you would have several women sharing barrack and when they synchronise, it's not pretty. Then to put these women in a highly dangerous and stressful environment? The problems that would cause would far outweigh what we gain from equality.

Plus the hygiene, having lady parts is freakin' gross. Men are much easier to keep sanitary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirena

I think if you were going to train female infantry, you'd probably have to make these mandatory or at least strongly suggested. They have next to no negative side effects, provide contraception and prevent periods.

But a lot of the problems you suggested female soliders in support roles already have to deal with.

 

[Zenode]

To the OP, you are a very sexist person with little understanding of the way the military, men, and women act.

Sexist? How? Women ARE physically weaker then men, that's not being sexist, that's just straight fact.

How do I not know how men and women act? I don't hide away in a basement i do understand humans and how they act.

That wasn't what I was referring to. What I was referring to was the fact that you used the same argument used to keep black people and gay people out of the army: they might cause a problem with their differentness. Black people might cause people to have less faith in the team, gay people might cause sexual discomfort, women might not be as strong.
None of that matters because, to quote Kierkegaard, "when you label me, you negate me." When you put all women under the same stereotype, you are being sexist. Period. That's what, in a nutshell, sexism is.
When you say that women are weaker than men, you may be right. However women are PROVEN to be more dextrous, are more flexible, and have higher pain tolerance, which evens it out quite a bit. Both men and women have their pros and cons, for example, you could argue that men shouldn't be allowed on the front lines because they have a LOWER pain tolerance.
Another thing, when you argue Florence Nightengale effect, you insult soldiers by saying they would be more likely to risk their lives for a girl they might not know very well, but you see nothing wrong with someone risking their life to save a someone who they have BONDED WITH THROUGH WAR.

You were reffering to the black and gay argument? you never mentioned that once? I never used that argument, maybe 50 years ago certain groups did. Are you labelling me as racist now for something I wasn't even alive to witness, are you also saying that all men are the cause of that, because women also were against blacks being in the army so stop being sexist yourself and saying men are the cause of those problems, sexism works both ways you know. And notice how I used the words MOST women (which you seem to be forgetting) I'm not putting them ALL under a stereotype, who cares if its a stereotype if its true, im not claiming that all women are weak and feeble only that women under MOST(the one key word you are missing) circumstances are less physically able than men.

I also said near the end of my post that if they are able to keep up, why not?

Biologically men are basically programmed to protect women if they see them in trouble, yes this may be trained out of them, but its still a possible risk associated with a women being injured in combat. Im not saying that a man in combat would not risk his life to save a comrade, they certainly do, but they MIGHT take more rash decisions if it was a women. When (not if) Women are let into frontline combat in Australia it will take a while for it to become the "norm" because Women are not going to be enlisting in droves to be a solder, and so it will have to be implemented carefully.

I agree with the dexterity and flexibility but as for the pain tolerance, women actually have a LOWER pain tolerance then men, women only have a higher pain tolerance during childbirth.

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/pain-management/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100218149

 

[dagens24]

On the physical adeptness point the OP made. It's not as though this is some sort of affirmative action situation where there is a limited number of jobs and they are potentially giving the position to a woman instead of a man. Women wouldn't be replacing the male dominated frontlines, but rather supplimenting it.

 

[Mettking]

If the person is saying it of their own free will, I don't see any reason not to. Only if it's being forced, then I will have to consider based on too many outside sources to make any general choice.

 

[Midnyte]

I have absolutely no idea what kind of bra she was wearing, but i can confirm that she was less than intelligent.... And the reason we were all forced to carry their packs was because our officers believed in a very subtle but effective punishment: make them feel like everyone of their friends were suffering because of them. Guilt can be a powerful motivator.

Sounds like bad laundry management, lmao. I remember that punishment, and it's when I saw the most people break down and cry. Whether it was because someone couldn't finish their water canteen or a fatty took a doughnut from the DFAC, they'd almost always break down after a few minutes of seeing the rest of us in front leaning rest 6" off the ground.

Oh god, the memories...The pain, the pain

 

[Xixikal]

Theres a lot of good reasons why women shouldn't be on the frontline.

Firstly, they generally just aren't as physically able as male soldiers. I don't mean to sound like a prick and I don't like saying it, but thats just how it is.

Secondly, female prisoners are often raped. It's fucked up yes, but thats the reality of it. If this ends up happening (which it will if they do assume combat roles) then its obviously very detrimental to the individual but it is also a major political issue waiting to happen.
You could have things like massive protests against women serving in the military when this happens.
I am not just assuming that this will happen. It will and it has.

Thirdly, theres also the issue of 'fraternization' between the men and women. Lets say a woman joins the army and falls pregnant after the government has spent thousands on turning her into a soldier. Theres thousands of dollars down the drain.

I've got nothing against women, but this is just the way it is. And even if women volunteer for combat knowing the risks theres still the political ramifications of what happens to them if they do.

I understand where you're coming from, and you're correct on some accounts. However, as I said before, there are many women who are as strong as - if not stronger - than some men. These women are clearly able to carry out the same duties as male soldiers. As you've said, fraternisation is an issue. Although it can't be totally policed, one would hope that the soldiers are sensible and committed enough not to make that mistake. If they've come so far as to be sent on to the frontline - they're going to be the best in their class.
Personally, I believe it's based on the individual rather than judging from a generalised point of view.

 

[Xixikal]

Actually the really fanatical feminists who want to kill men et cetera are a tiny minority. Most of them are pushing for EQUALITY, for both men and women.

To Mackheath's last quote, yes I suppose that would be unfair. If it actually happened.

To the OP, you are a very sexist person with little understanding of the way the military, men, and women act.

And Xixikal, see my above paragraph. You may just be ignorant about feminism and not actually sexist, which isn't nearly as bad. But really, we're not all bad.

I hope I wasn't coming across as sexist. If anything, I try to promote women's rights - since I am a female myself.

I was trying to convey that some feminists (not all), don't realise what they're asking for, i.e. the death and physical abuse that could result from allowing women on the frontline. I definitely think women should be on the frontline, there's no doubt there. I also think what feminists are trying to achieve is great and I'm up for anything that will try and improve the way women are treated today. So I apologise if I was coming across as unappreciative of feminists - I know you're not all bad

 

[thevillageidiot13]

If a woman signs up for the military, she knows what she's getting into. You don't enlist so that you can lose weight. Getting shot at is an occupational hazard of being in the military. Period.

So if you enlist for infantry and you make it through the training, there's no excuse for not wanting to getting sent into combat as much as anybody else.

 

[lipstickconservative]

Being my husband, (that Schappert guy Zen and Marcone referred to), has served in a combat unit all of his military career ? 19 years in the Special Forces and going strong ? I have a bit of a stake in allowing women on the battlefield and how it might adversely affect his life the next time he?s deployed overseas. And when I talk about his life, it?s not in some abstract sense ? it?s his actual life. When I talk about him deploying, it?s not a question of if, it?s when, and how soon. That is what I, a military wife, worry about.

The Basics
There are two things a soldier must concern himself with when in a combat zone: how to increase his lethality and how to increase his survivability. And I say ?himself? because there are no women allowed in combat units. Currently females make up about 10 percent of the military population, and yes, there have been women involved in combat due to the nature of urban warfare, but not officially in a combat unit. And while there has been a recent push to change this policy, there are two main reasons it is so: the obvious physical limitations, and the underlying, but also obvious, sexual ones.

Physicality: The frame of a typical woman would struggle carrying a 60-pound rucksack on her back in the field, besides the roughly 50 extra pounds of body armor and weapons added to the rest of her body. That?s not even taking in consideration the fact that you must be able to run and maneuver while wearing the full kit with ease. In the physically grueling training process to even become a Green Beret, two-thirds don?t even make it past selection, their bodies collapsing from injury and exhaustion. My husband literally watched a fellow trainee fracture both his feet during an exercise requiring him to carry bags of rocks on top of his already-heavy ruck. As my husband tells it, ?His mind was willing but his body just broke.?

Sexuality: To start with, combat units spend days, if not weeks, out in the field, living on top of each other, working, cooking, eating, bathing, sleeping, going to the bathroom in front of each other, and, yes, that?s number two included.

Women, by military regulations, have to be afforded separate barracks and bathrooms. That works OK when you?re operating out of an American base.

That doesn?t work OK when you?re forward-deployed away from Big Army in the middle of a combat zone.

Caught in a Bad Romance
But let?s really get down to the nitty-gritty because we all know it: sex changes everything. And if you?re like me and took small-group dynamics in college, you know I don?t lie. Think about it: How many careers have been decimated by the office romance? Has a ?no fraternization? office policy ever really stopped anyone? What corporate team hasn?t fallen apart because two people hooked up or one falls for the other and lets their jealous emotions take over? We?ve all had those kind of relationships, where you don?t think rationally, become distracted at work, get obsessed with the relationship and pretty much make an ass out of yourself. Thank god for cubicles. Could you imagine if that type of temptation was out in the field with bullets whizzing by your head? Head in the clouds for even a second, and bam, you?re shot dead or even worse, the guy you were supposed to be covering is dead. A war is no place for distractions.

I remember during one of my husband?s deployments that the ?senior wives? (so to speak) got word that one of the other wives was giving her husband, also deployed, a hard time for being away, whining and complaining, even once threatening him with divorce ? basically, stressing him out. Well, don?t think we didn?t come down on her. Why? Because you distract your husband, mine gets killed. Simple as that.

Fast-forward to sexual politics between men and women at a military office, or, in our case, a humvee being targeted by terrorists, because that?s your cubicle today. If one person in a group is a sexual object to another, the group dynamic is compromised whether they?re gay, straight, bi or a space alien. In the end, the group is weaker.

So to the Steewpid zombie guy, its actually you're opinion thats invalid.

this excerpt is actually from an article I wrote referring to don't ask don't tell, you can look up my name if you want to read it.

 

[Ultrajoe]

If a woman can meet the physical and mental standards required of the job, and she can do the work, her chromosomes don't goddamn matter. Men and women have served together in high-pressure, high-risk situations before and neither were consumed by the 'frailties' of their gender.

Men and Women, gaspshockhorror, can actually work together without horrific consequences.

I also had a good read of this thread and found more poisonous, perverse and just plain incorrect depictions of feminism than you can dredge up on an actual misogynist forum. Rather than furiously fellating the image of feminism that sexists brew up just as idiotically as flat-earth believers summon their dogma, do some research before you comment. Feminists want equality, for both men and women, and everything that comes with that.

 

[WolfThomas]

A lot of people seem to be listing reasons why a women wouldn't be an infantry, not shouldn't. If you can find a women who can haul the equipment, march the distance, handle going without showering, shitting in front of men and handle the sexual jokes, she will certainly be in the minority but also deserves to be there.

 

[Crashage]

I've been playing COD with male friends before and they've asked me if I'm bothered that women are included in the games,and I've always said no because women aren't involved in frontline combat in real life so, I'm not going to bothered by it in a game. At the same time I can understand why women aren't allowed at the front. The most basic points are ones raised by my father, who has seen action a few times, and one of the problems he mentioned is that when you're out in the desert or where ever and you have twenty dirty guys who all wash their junk in the same water and just get clean, and then there's a girl, would she want to wash with that? And bathroom breaks you know, guys in the military could all go to the bathroom in a row and no one would give a crap, but where would a girl go? Etc etc...

And then of course, there's the old chestnut of men trying to 'protect women' that seems to upset people, and I'm not saying every bloke is the same but I think it's generally accepted that it happens. My father mentioned that from a senior perspective and as a parent if a guy was wounded he would do his best to see him kept safe but not at the cost of the objective or others, but if it was a girl he would be keenly aware that that was some other man's little girl, and he would feel like he HAD to keep her safe, and that puts other people in danger.

I'm not trying to say women are incapable, I certainly know ladies who would completely hold their own in that situation, and I'm definitely not saying all men turn to mush around a lady in combat, but I do understand that there are reasons why women aren't on the frontline, and to me, they're pretty reasonable ones

 

[badgersprite]

Why should anyone who can perform to the set standards and training required by the service be denied the right to serve? They're capable enough to pass all the training and physical tests that current frontline soldiers do, and God knows it's better than shipping the same poor bastards over to fight on the front lines for their fourth tour when they only signed on for one.

It's just common sense. Good, well trained fighters should do what they're good and well trained at.

Israel's army seems to do fine, after all.