Women in the military

[Dr. Love]

So, I drew inspiration for this from a recent thread on rather or not women should be allowed in combat roles.

The answer to that particular question on my part was no, not cause they can't do anything males cannot do, I truly believe they can. It was more of a matter of they are given lower standards compared to men, and as a result aren't for the most part as physically prepared for the rigors of combat and hauling around combat packs and the like as men generally are.

So my question for the community is given that women are naturally not as strong as men, should they still be given the same standards that men are given in order better qualify them for front-line combat roles? Women in the military are given significantly lower physical standards then men, I hope this does not come across as sexist, I truly believe they can conform to the same standards as men, its more looking for efficency more then anything more soldiers the better and we're blocking a good amount of the servicewomen from performing that role.

 

[Meggiepants]

Having the same standards is important in this type of role. If you cannot carry your weapon, gear etc, and keep up with the group, you will hinder the unit and put other people's lives at risk.

That shouldn't happen simply to adhere to an unrealistic ideal of perfect equality.

edit: Obviously, any woman that can pass the standards should be allowed. Simply barring them because of their sex is ludicrous.

 

[Kiefer13]

As far as I'm concerned, women should be allowed to join the military and perform in frontline combat roles just the same as men.

I disagree with the current way that they are given lower standards to reach however. There should be one set of standards: If you meet them, you're in. If you don't, you're out. Whether you are male or female.

Yes, that means that given the fact that on average (yes, I am well aware that on an individual basis there are plenty of women that are stronger than the average man) men have more physical strength than women, it is likely that more men that are applying will meet these standards than women (assuming of course that both the male and female candidates are of average strength). However, it ensures there is no discrimination, as both sexes are being held to the exact same standards. I see no reason why a woman should be rejected for frontline duties providing they pass the same tests that a man has to pass to perform the same duties.

 

[Dele]

Finnish army has allowed women to serve conscription with males since 1995. I serve in one of the largest brigades in the country and so far only one female has been accepted to receive a frontline training... and she couldn't handle carrying her own weight for 15 kilometres so she quit. Currently female volunteers only receive training in support and even there a certain scenario constantly repeats itself: Somebody has to carry their equipment due lack of strenght. If war happens and I am sent to frontlines, I want to have a mate I can trust to be able to do the same feats as I can and carry my injured ass back to safety if necessary. and I havent even mentioned extra costs and rape/groping.

In short: Too few recruits with high testosterone, too many minor issues to make it worthy.

 

[Cookiegerard]

I agree that women should be allowed to do the same as men in front line combat. But according to a book I was reading the main reason for not having women is due to the fact that if a woman is wounded, because of some instint, the men will stay and protect the woman, thereby stopping the mission. I may be completely wrong in this, but this is what I read. I still agree that what a man can do, a woman can do.

 

[Balmarog]

When their PT test standards are the same, sure. Then again, if they were the same, there would be a hell of a lot less women in the Army. To give people a point of reference:
For males 17-21 the minimum on a PT test is 42 pushups, 53 situps, and 2 mile run under 15:54. For females 17-21 the minimum is 19 pushups, 53 situps, and 2 mile run in under 18:54.

 

[Quaxar]

There's another very good reason for it too.

That's the reason.

You forgot kickass-Thrace...

Spoiler

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PYVKD31RPFs/SAf0Uc_QonI/AAAAAAAAAXE/rIG0lWyWn4g/s400/starbuck_l.jpg

And yes, I'm all for women in the military. In fact, in countries with national service they should also be forced to serve.
If women want emanzipation they should deal with the goddarn negative consequences too!

 

[Kiefer13]

I agree that women should be allowed to do the same as men in front line combat. But according to a book I was reading the main reason for not having women is due to the fact that if a woman is wounded, because of some instint, the men will stay and protect the woman, thereby stopping the mission. I may be completely wrong in this, but this is what I read. I still agree that what a man can do, a woman can do.

Even if this is true, if the men are not disciplined enough to ignore their base instincts and focus on the mission, then surely that is a fault with them, and not the women? In which case, I hardly see why it should be used as an argument against them.

[small]Edit: Woo, Gonzo![/small]

 

[Zacharine]

I have nothing against women in military. In my experience those women who stay, perform at or above the male medium. If, based on my service time, I could build my favourite company of 30 soldiers (from the fellows who served with me), 6 of those would be women.

As for Dele: "Currently female volunteers only receive training in support and even there a certain scenario constantly repeats itself: Somebody has to carry their equipment due lack of strenght."

I disagree. Every single female volunteer who was with me during the basic training and didn't quit within the first week, carried their own weight around. They did in fact better on full-pack marching than the bottom third of men. They did everything us men did. In PT-tests, they consistently scored in the top-half, same for Cooper runs. Perhaps you just had a poor patch of volunteers.

 

[Axeli]

Not all men get through military training either. Fewer women can reach the standard than men, yes, but that's not indication that all women are unqualified.

 

[MurderousToaster]

They should be allowed in combat roles. If they want to fight and die for their country, that's their decision, not that of the officers.

If they were allowed to go into combat roles, they would probably do just as well as the men did. It doesn't matter whether you're male or female, bullets do the same things to you.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

They should be allowed in combat roles. If they want to fight and die for their country, that's their decision, not that of the officers.

If they were allowed to go into combat roles, they would probably do just as well as the men did. It doesn't matter whether you're male or female, bullets do the same things to you.

Yeah, but first you gotta carry the pew-pew that spits them bullets to the frontline, and if you can't, than you can't pew-pew back at the enemy pew-pews effectively.

What I'm saying is what someone else already mentioned: if they pass the same test that men do, they are most welcome to get shredded for empty lies.

 

[Rensenhito]

I say equal standards for men and women. Giving women lower standards is not only a bit condescending, it's detrimental to the military as a whole. People in the military need to have equal levels of strength and endurance regardless of their gender.

 

[Dele]

I disagree. Every single female volunteer who was with me during the basic training and didn't quit within the first week, carried their own weight around. They did in fact better on full-pack marching than the bottom third of men. They did everything us men did. In PT-tests, they consistently scored in the top-half, same for Cooper runs. Perhaps you just had a poor patch of volunteers.

This, of course, highly depends on the branch of military you look at. Sure, I dont mind having women in the artillery or communications for example. The training in many support branches such as these is hardly physical at all compared to frontline troops (although in a real war it might be different..) so it's not surprising to get extremely variable material and results. You are aware that women receive gender-boost in PT-tests and Cooper runs I assume.

 

[Caligulove]

I can see no problem with having women in frontline combat roles. The Soviet Union fielded many regiments of them during WW2, and almost all of them excelled at their role. Many countries that do allow women to serve report that they are just as capable as the men.

Some degree of segregation would be needed though, but a relatively small degree. I think it should be allowed, certainly. Plus, it doubles your frontline force instantly.

There's another very good reason for it too.

That's the reason.

Anytime. Anywhere.

 

[Zacharine]

I disagree. Every single female volunteer who was with me during the basic training and didn't quit within the first week, carried their own weight around. They did in fact better on full-pack marching than the bottom third of men. They did everything us men did. In PT-tests, they consistently scored in the top-half, same for Cooper runs. Perhaps you just had a poor patch of volunteers.

This, of course, highly depends on the branch of military you look at. Sure, I dont mind having women in the artillery or communications for example. The training in many support branches such as these is hardly physical at all compared to frontline troops (although in a real war it might be different..) so it's not surprising to get extremely variable material and results. You are aware that women receive gender-boost in PT-tests and Cooper runs I assume.

I was talking of pure raw results: as in, from flat, equal start on Cooper test, in those 12 minutes they physically outran half the men. They did more situps and pushups in one minute than about half the men. Their times on the obstacle course, expressed as raw seconds without those gender boost, was less than what roughly one third of men had. The top female time for that course from our batch was in top-ten without gender bias.

And you do realize that forward spotters for artillery, one of these 'artillery and support jobs', is more physically intensive than a basic infantry-man's? I assume you don't know much of what the actual jobs and the physical intensity of those jobs is for anything but front-line troopers.

 

[Chester41585]

I've seen perfectly capable male soldiers and seamen get passed up for job postings because of female favoritism. This is especially rampant in the Navy. The recent decision to let women on submarines was a terrible idea. You think power-fucking up the CoC is bad on a surface ship? Ha!

 

[Dele]

And you do realize that forward spotters for artillery, one of these 'artillery and support jobs', is more physically intensive than a basic infantry-man's? I assume you don't know much of what the actual jobs and the physical intensity of those jobs is for anything but front-line troopers.

I do have several infantry friends who went to do spotting and leading artillery fire and I do know it's still nothing compared to what scouts or anti-tank infantry does. Scouts with the job of doing forward spotting and reporting targets for the artillery are part of infantry, not artillery.

 

[cyber_andyy]

Of course they can. As long as they are good enough too.

However, there are many reasons why women are not allowed to apply for the SAS, most of which have been covered before.