NationStates Jolt Archive

I ran cross this article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=2&u=/afp/us_iraq_military_women) and I was wondering what people thought about women serving in the military being allowed in combat zones.

Now in adition I am not personally familiar with this "women-in-combat ban" so if anybody cares to expand on the specifics of it go right ahead.

If they can fight, then let them go in.

If women want to fight, I'm not the one to tell them they can't.

So what if guys don't want to shoot women...maybe that's a good thing. Or maybe that's just the pacifist in me acting up again.

Personally, I support equality between the sexes.

If men are put into combat zones, there's no reason not to put in women.

If men are drafted, there's no reason women shouldn't be drafted too.

Well, I once had this discussion with a friend in the army, yes a male friend.
He didn't have much of a problem with women in the army but the problem was they couldn't keep up overall.
Sure you could have women that were faster than men, but their speed and agility compromised their strength, they just couldn't carry as much.
Then the ones that were stronger or as strong, lost out on speed and agility.
It came down to the basic biology thing, women just aren't built the same as men and men are the fighters, the hunters.

That said, if women want to fight, why not. In this day and age of women's rights and equality, surely it should be encouraged...
Just make sure they can do the job before they get sent into duty.

in responce to Phaiakia's point which i totaly agree with there is also the fact that in modern combat physical strength is becoming less and less of an issue i mean yes back in the broadsword days a woman would have had quite a bit of trouble keeping up due to unfortunate biology but these days it more about hand eye and the mind which evens the chances quite considerably

in responce to Phaiakia's point which i totaly agree with there is also the fact that in modern combat physical strength is becoming less and less of an issue i mean yes back in the broadsword days a woman would have had quite a bit of trouble keeping up due to unfortunate biology but these days it more about hand eye and the mind which evens the chances quite considerably


The strength bit was more in reference to the ability to carry the same amount of equipment in their pack and to then be able to keep up with the group.

Personally, I support equality between the sexes.

If men are put into combat zones, there's no reason not to put in women.

If men are drafted, there's no reason women shouldn't be drafted too.

Well, there's the point that we don't NEED the draft, so that situation is better avoided.

Seriously, don't we already have two other threads where this is an issue?

in responce to Phaiakia's point which i totaly agree with there is also the fact that in modern combat physical strength is becoming less and less of an issue i mean yes back in the broadsword days a woman would have had quite a bit of trouble keeping up due to unfortunate biology but these days it more about hand eye and the mind which evens the chances quite considerably

military action requires a lot of long-distance hiking with heavy gear.

You don't need a penis to die for your country.

To clarify a few things:

Women are allowed to fight in combat.

The "ban" which people talk about is that when women enlist into the military, there are specific MOSs (Military Occupational Specialties, aka jobs) that they are not allowed to enlist for. Infantry, Artillery, etc. etc.

The primary (and official) reason for this is due to the training requirements for those jobs. Yes, in this day in age intelligence is winning over strength in terms of modern day combat, however and unfortunately, the training for these MOSs are still geared in a manner in which strength is a major component.

Additionally, the Army (for example) is testing units that are All-women Infantry, to test the combat effectiveness of female personnel, and certain special training companies are being trained as Coed Infantry units. One major concern, as always with the Army, is fraternization, but from what I read from the last few notes about the project, there haven't been many setbacks. In fact, the Army will be designing a new Rucksack specially designed for the female body frame, so it seems to be a very productive experiment.

All in all, I completely endorse women fighting. If the Gov't doesn't allow women to fight in combat with a combat-arms MOS, at least make women eligible for the draft, so that they can fill in on male filled non-combat MOSs, such as supply, administration, and maintenance. This way the men can be transfered into combat MOSs.

Well, that's my piece.

Out.

To clarify a few things:

Women are allowed to fight in combat.

The "ban" which people talk about is that when women enlist into the military, there are specific MOSs (Military Occupational Specialties, aka jobs) that they are not allowed to enlist for. Infantry, Artillery, etc. etc.WRONG!
Women are in both Field and Air Defense Artillery! They are not allowed into the rank and files of, Infantry, Armor, or Combat Engineers.

All soldiers regardless of MOS and gender are allowed self defense, hence, all soldeirs have weapons!

in responce to Phaiakia's point which i totaly agree with there is also the fact that in modern combat physical strength is becoming less and less of an issue i mean yes back in the broadsword days a woman would have had quite a bit of trouble keeping up due to unfortunate biology but these days it more about hand eye and the mind which evens the chances quite considerablyOH, REALLY? Here, take this 24lb IBA, go ahead, put it on, now, take this 8lb hat, put it on, here, put on this LBV with basic load ammo, come on, it's only 15lbs, take this 6.5lb weapon. Wait, take this new light field pack, there you go, it's only 25lbs, now go step on the scale. What, you mean you only weigh just 80lbs or so more? Now go run like somebody is shooting at you, NO I mean run around the block 1/2 mile or so.

Yeap, physical strength in modern combat is becoming more and more of an issue. So much so, that the Army has changed it's basic training routine.

I know quite a few blokes that couldn't do that. :p

Anyway, I think combatants should be chosen on the grounds of individual capabilities, rather than generalisations on the grounds of gender.

Unfortunately, as much as it pains me to say it, I think single-sex units might be a good idea, as fraternization (as has already been stated) is and always will be a problem, whether we like it or not.

If women want to join the armed forces, why not?
It could break up the "bastardization" culture embedded in the armed forces.

The female and male bodies are different (by design) but it does not mean one is better than another in general.

Well, I once had this discussion with a friend in the army, yes a male friend.
He didn't have much of a problem with women in the army but the problem was they couldn't keep up overall.
Sure you could have women that were faster than men, but their speed and agility compromised their strength, they just couldn't carry as much.
Then the ones that were stronger or as strong, lost out on speed and agility.
It came down to the basic biology thing, women just aren't built the same as men and men are the fighters, the hunters.

That said, if women want to fight, why not. In this day and age of women's rights and equality, surely it should be encouraged...
Just make sure they can do the job before they get sent into duty.
exactly
not all women have the physical strength to do combat duty, those that DO should be treated same as the men.

i hate it that the only reason they are considering this is because they have messed up their grand "war on terror" so badly that they cant keep to their conservative ideology.

If they make the cut, let them in. If cannot do the job, kick them out.

Well, I once had this discussion with a friend in the army, yes a male friend.
He didn't have much of a problem with women in the army but the problem was they couldn't keep up overall.
Sure you could have women that were faster than men, but their speed and agility compromised their strength, they just couldn't carry as much.
Then the ones that were stronger or as strong, lost out on speed and agility.
It came down to the basic biology thing, women just aren't built the same as men and men are the fighters, the hunters.

That said, if women want to fight, why not. In this day and age of women's rights and equality, surely it should be encouraged...
Just make sure they can do the job before they get sent into duty.
Right, but there are also gonna be men who can't keep up, right? So why don't you have an EQUAL standard that everyone has to be up to?

Does anyone else wonder if this u-turn (heaven forbid calling it a flip-flop ;) ) is because they've come to the realisation that there isn't enough soldiers to successfully control Iraq (Hell, they've even asked Britain to send some soldiers up from Basra).
Have things gotten that bad over there, as of late?
Or perhaps because they're looking ahead to the next war, where troop numbers will be seriously stretched to deal with that invasion.

I heard someone suggest super PMT units, with women with staggered menstsrual cycles, cos apparently there was evidence to suggest that they performed incredibly well in combat.

It doesn't take stength or intelligence to pull a trigger.

I heard someone suggest super PMT units, with women with staggered menstsrual cycles, cos apparently there was evidence to suggest that they performed incredibly well in combat.
Just before going into combat, are they told the enemy thinks they look extra-puffy and have gained weight?

It doesn't take stength or intelligence to pull a trigger.

Being a soldier involves more then pulling a trigger. It does take strength to carry 100 pounds for 10 miles then 100 yards charging an enemy position after your friends have been shot. It also takes intelligence to coordinate anything military.

Being a soldier involves more then pulling a trigger. It does take strength to carry 100 pounds for 10 miles then 100 yards charging an enemy position after your friends have been shot. It also takes intelligence to coordinate anything military.

Then explain to me how Chinese women are so capable of doing what you claim American women can't.

Just before going into combat, are they told the enemy thinks they look extra-puffy and have gained weight?
I don't know, quite possibly. I think that witholding cigarettes and chocolate rations wouldn't be a bad idea for that purpose either.

Seriously though, people talk about segregation so as not to disrupt the unit, but don't you think they were saying the same things about black people in the 40s? How will you have an integrated, cohesive army unless you go through some point of disruption?

Then explain to me how Chinese women are so capable of doing what you claim American women can't.
Let's see.
1. They don't care, therefore they don't wear 24lbs of body armor.
2. They don't care, so they don't wear gear with extra ammo, or water.
3. They don't care, so they don't carry extra gear for the climate.
4. They don't care.

A Chinese soldier goes on the assualt with a uniform, weapon, and helmet.

A American soldier goes on the assualt with 80+ pounds of armor, weapon, water, extra ammo, helmet, and gear!

What was your question again?

Let's see.
1. They don't care, therefore they don't wear 24lbs of body armor.
2. They don't care, so they don't wear gear with extra ammo, or water.
3. They don't care, so they don't carry extra gear for the climate.
4. They don't care.

A Chinese soldier goes on the assualt with a uniform, weapon, and helmet.

A American soldier goes on the assualt with 80+ pounds of armor, weapon, water, extra ammo, helmet, and gear!

What was your question again?

My mistake I thought I was talking to someone with some intelligence.

Then explain to me how Chinese women are so capable of doing what you claim American women can't.

I did not claim that.

Put simply:
The presence of females in a combat zone alters the actions of valiant men. Their presence would adversely effect combat actions. Add to this the inevitable personal conflicts over a potential sexual prize between macho male soldiers and there will be a breakdown of unit cohesion resulting in decreased efficiency. More people will die in every combat action which includes mixed sex units. (people don't have genders, by the way. That's a misuse of the word)
Perhaps this is not the way it should be, but it is nonetheless.
While the russians made good use of female soldiers in WW2, they were just pouring bodies into the meat grinder.

That being said, I would still be FOR females volunteering for combat arms assignments. No citizen who wants to fight should be denied the opportunity to do so. The wise general would take the above limitations into account regarding their use on the battlefield. (and probably be criticized for it) It's a no-win situation for battlefield commanders, which probably explains their opposition to it.

Right, but there are also gonna be men who can't keep up, right? So why don't you have an EQUAL standard that everyone has to be up to?

Because an "equal" standard is a decreased standard for the men. How is it helpful to have all soldiers equally incapable?

It should be the desicion of the women if they want to fight in the military or not. Isnt America supposed to be full of choices? So I think they should choose wether{sp?} or not they want to be in the US military.

Of course there are sexual relations in the military, but why would anyone believe that a woman is going to be a distraction during battle? The last thing on anyone's mind when bullets are flying over your head is how to score with the lady in the foxhole with you.

It's not a question of where she grips it!
It's simple power to weight ratios! A four ounce bird cannot carry a 2 pound coconut!

The technology upgrades in the military make strength MORE of an issue, not less. Sure, we now have sights for the anti-tank guns (as an example) which make it easier to hit the target in darkness and other low visibility conditions, but it weighs five times as much as the old telescopic sight. And the gunners now have to carry both, since the fancy sight can't be used in daylight.

And yes, there are men who can't meet the standards too, and always will be. These men are flunked out of training units regularly, or must repeat the training until they are capable. With strenuous training, most humans can be brought to a level of fitness where they can pass the standard. There should be one standard for all, but it should be the higher standard. Those who cannot meet this standard, regardless of sex, should be eliminated from combat arms positions. We should not saddle our soldiers with any person who lags the unit and increases mortality.

It's not a question of where she grips it!
It's simple power to weight ratios! A four ounce bird cannot carry a 2 pound coconut!

The technology upgrades in the military make strength MORE of an issue, not less. Sure, we now have sights for the anti-tank guns (as an example) which make it easier to hit the target in darkness and other low visibility conditions, but it weighs five times as much as the old telescopic sight. And the gunners now have to carry both, since the fancy sight can't be used in daylight.

And yes, there are men who can't meet the standards too, and always will be. These men are flunked out of training units regularly, or must repeat the training until they are capable. With strenuous training, most humans can be brought to a level of fitness where they can pass the standard. There should be one standard for all, but it should be the higher standard. Those who cannot meet this standard, regardless of sex, should be eliminated from combat arms positions. We should not saddle our soldiers with any person who lags the unit and increases mortality.
http://www.femalemuscle.com/galleries/bicep/images/bicep03.jpg

Ewww...

She's probably on steroids though.

Being a soldier involves more then pulling a trigger. It does take strength to carry 100 pounds for 10 miles then 100 yards charging an enemy position after your friends have been shot. It also takes intelligence to coordinate anything military.

Women have been warriors since the beginning of recorded history (see Herodotus' writings about the Sarmatian women). During WWII Soviet women fought as snipers, partisans, bombers, and fighter pilots. The 588th Night Bombers (commonly called the Night Witches) was composed entirely of female pilots, navigators, and mechanics. Liliia Litviak, an Ace fighter pilot who won her nation's highest award - the Hero of the Soviet Union, was the first woman in history to shoot down an enemy aircraft. She registered 11 personal kills and three group kills before she herself was shot down and killed at the age of 22.

For more check out Reina Pennington's two volume Amazons to Fighter Pilots: A Biographical Dictionary of Military Women. For information about Soviet female pilots during "The Great Patriot War," as the Russkies call it, visit: http://pratt.edu/%7Ersilva/sovwomen.htm

I have no problem with women being in the military, and I know quite a few very capable female soldiers myself. The only problem I and several of my male military buddies were and remain worried about, is capability. We don't want to see some political movement like affirmative action bringing people in who "should get the chance to serve" but aren't as capable. I'll point out the PFTs (personal fitness tests) that we had to undergo in the Air Force. I know many women in that group that could keep up with or even outperform their mail counterparts. However, they were not required to. The standards were lowered for female officers and enlisted (I don't think this has changed, but this was 4 years ago). For example, I had to do 55 sit-ups, where a woman had to do 49. I had to do 65 push-ups and a woman had to do 40. I had to do a 9.5 minute 1.5 mile run, a woman had to make it in 11 minutes.

This is not the way to build solidarity or confidence in your team members. If a woman had to pass the same physical test as any man, most (90%) men wouldn't have anything negative to say about women in the military. The ones that would have something negative to say, probably wouldn't remain in service.

If women want to fight, I'm not the one to tell them they can't.

So what if guys don't want to shoot women...maybe that's a good thing. Or maybe that's just the pacifist in me acting up again.

fortunately enough the people we are currently fighting don't mind chopping the head off innocent women much less shooting an armed one

fortunately enough the people we are currently fighting don't mind chopping the head off innocent women much less shooting an armed one

And you can be sure that if someone's shooting at me, I'll shoot back. No, I don't think unless you have bikini models running around in said bikinis doing the fighting that it'll make much difference to the soldiers. They (or we) would still be the enemy and would still be shooting at us (or them)

You don't need a penis to die for your country.

No, you don't, but to be qualified to fight, which may mean death, you have to be able to meet certain physical standards. If a woman can keep up with a man with 50 pounds of gear, then let her fight. But besides the physical thing, women tend to be more emotional, and plus, enemies like terrorists we are fighting now, don't care about shooting women. Therefore, a penis isn't necessary, but a definite plus. And by the way, I am female and come from a military family, so I've heard a lot about the subject. I'm not claiming to know everything, but I don't think women should be in a combat situation.

Women have fought in the Israeli, Russian, and Vietnamese armies. Why not ours? Right now women don't have to meet the same exercise or strength level as men in boot camp. But if they make it where women do have to be equal in those fields to see combat, then women should be able to be in combat.

My mistake I thought I was talking to someone with some intelligence.Typical obtuse reataliatory response from someone who just got smacked down. Why is that on this forum? If you can't or choose not to handle reality, then why even make an appearance here?

Naturaly, men are stronger then women, but if women can (and most of them can) reach the standards needed to get into the militry than I see no point in stopping them.
So, I'm for women being allowed into the military.

If Women can meet the same standard as Men, the go for it. They have shown they have the capability to fight.

Craig

I support the Bill Hicks view of army recruitment:

Anyone dumb enough to want to be in the army gets in!

Right, but there are also gonna be men who can't keep up, right? So why don't you have an EQUAL standard that everyone has to be up to?

Yes, there should be an equal standard, as in the SAME standard for everyone no matter what gender. I don't think the standards should be reduced for females either as Mac the Man raised above.
The men that can't keep up shouldn't be sent in either, just like the women that can't keep up.
If the women can keep up, they can be sent on in with the men they were up there with.

I wouldn't want to send into combat any person I didn't think had the capability to carry out their job description in entireity.
I don't feel women should be given lesser standards of achievement because then the rest of the team has to shoulder what they can't and that is not fair and can only hinder everyone else.

in boot they said

woman cant be allowed in combat becouse if they are cought and raped and have a baby the enemy could use the chields life as a way to extract info

in boot they said

Hmm, I'm thinking that would only be a possibility if the mother were held captive for the whole nine months and after the baby is born. Otherwise, I'd assume that if she were rescued before then she would be sent home.

So my question is, would you really have the required emotional connection with the child of your rapist captor especially when you've been a prisoner for that long, would there even have been an opportunity to get the emotional connection once the child was born...
Maybe I'm just a cold-hearted b*tch, but they certainly wouldn't be getting anything out of me, hell, what would I know after nine months anyway.

Women in the army? Lol.

Women belong in the home. I want my ho in the kitchen, not on the battlefield.

Hmm, I'm thinking that would only be a possibility if the mother were held captive for the whole nine months and after the baby is born. Otherwise, I'd assume that if she were rescued before then she would be sent home.

So my question is, would you really have the required emotional connection with the child of your rapist captor especially when you've been a prisoner for that long, would there even have been an opportunity to get the emotional connection once the child was born...
Maybe I'm just a cold-hearted b*tch, but they certainly wouldn't be getting anything out of me, hell, what would I know after nine months anyway.
yes the conection forms well the chield is still in the womb

yes the conection forms well the chield is still in the womb

Yeah, but with all the other factors that would make you less excited about having a baby...
Also, why would you wait nine months before trying to extract information...surely you'd just go hard all the way and if info wasn't forthcoming in that nine months, how likely is it that it'll be forthcoming after that...
I just don't see that it would really be used as a tactic.

Yeah, but with all the other factors that would make you less excited about having a baby...
Also, why would you wait nine months before trying to extract information...surely you'd just go hard all the way and if info wasn't forthcoming in that nine months, how likely is it that it'll be forthcoming after that...
I just don't see that it would really be used as a tactic.

Specifically, when's the last time you heard about POWs that were held up to 9 months? Korea? Vietnam? I think we're beyond that with our 2 month wars now.

Women should be allowed the right to serve in the military as long as they meet the same standards as the men. Hell, I'd say the same thing if it were reversed. If there's a job that needs doing, then you need a person that meets the qualifications, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or religion. The same standards should be applied. Affirmative action is nothing but painful to all parties.

As to the people who keep saying things like "whoever can pull a trigger" or "whoever is dumb enough to enlist" ... it's too bad we don't live in a society where military service is required before political envolvement like the book Starship Troopers recommends (required reading at the Air Force Academy in the US, btw). If you don't care enough to stand up for your country's rights and don't care enough to claim physical responsibility for their actions, I don't know why you earned a say in what they do.

Women in the army? Lol.

Women belong in the home. I want my ho in the kitchen, not on the battlefield.

Trung Trac and Trung Nhi (led Vietnamese rebellion against China in 1st century), Melitta Stauffenberg (recipient of Luftwaffe Gold Pilot's badge and Iron Cross I and II), Kit Cavanaugh (foot soldier, 2nd Dragoons in English army for 13 years), Artemisia I (commander of naval forces under Xeres during Persian Wars), Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote (modern U.S. Army), Rachel Stahl (combat commander in Israeli War of Independence), and Liliia Litvyak (Soviet Ace fighter pilot, recipient of Hero of Soviet Union for shooting down 14 enemy aircraft) are all women who could have kicked your ass.

Have any one of you seen a woman fight? They are vicisious, vindictive and down right evil. Women make very effective fighters and they have at least two advantages over a male in combat.

I tend to agree with Josef Stalin on this regard. That is, females are weak and inferior soldiers in close combat, so they should be used as cannon fodder and in roles where they have a substantial stand-off range (ie, snipers).

The problem with using them in the US military is that Americans are hyper-sensitive to casualties. People react with substantially more concern when a cute blond girl is eviscerated by an RPG than when an equivalent male is laid low. Thus there are PR concerns to consider.

Then again, sometimes a Jessica Lynch or two can be beneficial.

Naturaly, men are stronger then women, but if women can (and most of them can) reach the standards needed to get into the militry than I see no point in stopping them.
So, I'm for women being allowed into the military.
Speaking as someone who is in the military, and who has participated in PT tests, I can safely say most women cannot meet the standards that men do. A woman has to run a slower mile and do fewer push ups and situps. Why do they get a lower standard? Because women's bodies physically cannot grow the same way as a man's. That's why steroids are so much more effective on women; the male hormones in steroids allow women to grow muscles in places they are biologically incapable of growing normally. Let women into the military, but don't pretend the average woman is nearly as physically capable as the average man.

Have any one of you seen a woman fight? They are vicisious, vindictive and down right evil. Women make very effective fighters and they have at least two advantages over a male in combat.

Yeah... until you hit 'em. :rolleyes:

It should be the desicion of the women if they want to fight in the military or not. Isnt America supposed to be full of choices? So I think they should choose wether{sp?} or not they want to be in the US military.
So shouldn't illiterates "choose" whether or not they can be writers? Shouldn't blind people "choose" to be able to be airplane pilots? Shouldn't a child molester be able to "choose" to be a kindergarten teacher? Some people are not fit for certain roles, choice has nothing to do with it.

Yeah... until you hit 'em. :rolleyes:

At which point the preferred method is to resort to psychological warfare...

At which point the preferred method is to resort to psychological warfare...

Ah yes, the infamous "tantrum defense" ;)

I tend to agree with Josef Stalin on this regard. That is, females are weak and inferior soldiers in close combat, so they should be used as cannon fodder and in roles where they have a substantial stand-off range (ie, snipers). *Good use of someone who can hide behind her charms*

The problem with using them in the US military is that Americans are hyper-sensitive to casualties. People react with substantially more concern when a cute blond girl is eviscerated by an RPG than when an equivalent male is laid low. Thus there are PR concerns to consider.Cute blondes and those women who can project innocense are more likey to be defended, and don't we *all* like to think of our women as innocent ?

Then again, sometimes a Jessica Lynch or two can be beneficial.

*Yeah, Hurt an innocent woman.*

**ever Notice that Lynch was a cute blonde?**

Have any one of you seen a woman fight? They are vicisious, vindictive and down right evil. Women make very effective fighters and they have at least two advantages over a male in combat.
Well, this might be relevant if soldiers actually had to fight hand to hand or with swords.

Well, this might be relevant if soldiers actually had to fight hand to hand or with swords.

Or in figher planes where they have the advantage in better reaction-time and g-force resistance. The Russians learned this in WW2.
:rolleyes:

Women should only be cooks in the army. Women are shit fighters, just look at that Jessica Lynch, what a loser.

I hate war anyway. I kind of like the Bill Hicks line "anyone dumb enough to want to join the military should be allowed to."

The polls conducted on this place show a high level of stupidity.

I tend to agree with Josef Stalin on this regard. That is, females are weak and inferior soldiers in close combat, so they should be used as cannon fodder and in roles where they have a substantial stand-off range (ie, snipers).

The problem with using them in the US military is that Americans are hyper-sensitive to casualties. People react with substantially more concern when a cute blond girl is eviscerated by an RPG than when an equivalent male is laid low. Thus there are PR concerns to consider.

Then again, sometimes a Jessica Lynch or two can be beneficial.

And yet Stalin instituted three all-female aviation regiments: the 586th Fighter Regiment, the 587th Short-Range Bomber Aviation Regiment, and the 588th Night Bomber Regiment, under the command of Marina Raskova. The latter, the Night Bombers (later awarded elit status as the 46th Taman'sky Guards Bomber Regiment) flew over 24,000 combat missions and had 23 women awarded the Hero of the Soviet Union.

Also representative of Stalin's army were Irina Levchenko, who served as a tank driver and platoon commander; Neonila Onilova, a machine-gunner; Liudmila Pavichenko, a sniper with 309 kills; and the 27,000 women who made up 10% of the Soviet resistance fighters.

More than 800,000 women served in the Soviet Armed Forces during WWII. They were hardly just canon fodder.

Women should only be cooks in the army. Women are shit fighters, just look at that Jessica Lynch, what a loser.

Well, that was informed.

My personal view on this is that women should be allowed to fight in combat if they wish to. The idea that this cannot be so because some women are not of the same physical strength as male soldiers is absurd because all soldiers, regardless of gender, have to go through basic training which involves a hell of a lot of exercise. I doubt many women who come out the other side of basic training are any less stronger than the men.

The other idea is that the use of women in the army, particularly in mixed combat units with men, is that they will reduce the cohesion of the unit and make it less able to do a job - this is also one of the major arguments against homosexuals in the military. In both respects, the critics may have a point - this may reduce the effectiveness of the unit by reducing cohesion.

The problem with that criticism is that it is the same argument people used against allowing ethnic groups into the military, and the armed forces didn't fall apart after they began accepting those groups. The point I'm trying to make is that either this loss of cohesion would be short-term as society adjusts itself to the acceptance of new siutations, or based on stereotypes or ill-educated assumptions about an entire group of people. Women in combat will not turn entire units into a group orgy, nor will they create tensions by soldiers having relationships. Discipline in the armed forces is essential, and I doubt that many soldiers, regardless of gender or ethnicity, do not recognise this.

Women should be allowed to fight in combat. If they can pass the grade in physical training, shoot to the required degree of accuracy and have the neccesary skills in leadership and command, give 'em a gun and point towards the enemy.

So shouldn't illiterates "choose" whether or not they can be writers? Shouldn't blind people "choose" to be able to be airplane pilots? Shouldn't a child molester be able to "choose" to be a kindergarten teacher? Some people are not fit for certain roles, choice has nothing to do with it.

Probably the most sensible post on this topic.
Stop trying to lower the bar and make everyone equal.
Jessica Lynch was shit, I agree - she got captured and other soldiers had to risk their lives to rescue her!

By the way, if women ever do get into the army, men need not worry about being distracted by their good looks, as they will be butch masculine ones, there to 'prove a point'.

EQUALITY DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

God doesnt want women to talk or learn in church. I genuinely doubt he wants them to fight in wars.

Women are shit fighters

If you were the kind of person inclined to disturb your preconceived notions with factual information you might try reading something about the history of women warriors. If you did you would learn that women made up half of the army of the West African kingdom of Dahomey in the 18th and 19th century and were renowned for their valor with guns and short swords. You might also discover that the Cimbrian (Germanic) women fought the Roman Army in the 1st century and when faced with defeat killed their children and committed suicide rather than be taken prisoner. Just a little research would show you that during World War I the First Russian Women's Battalion of Death led a charge when their male counterparts hesitated and took the first two lines of German trenches. And that the Rosa Luxmberg Women's Battalion fought for the Republican forces in the Spanish Civil War.

However, given the shallowness of your posting I don't hold out much hope that you are interested in looking beyond your prejudices.

Some of you people remind me of a convocation of the flat earth society. If you bothered to read any history beyond that found in a 10th grade textbook you would realize that the "debate" over women's fitness to serve as warriors was settled long ago. Women have been fighting as soldiers in nearly every culture throughout recorded history, up to and including the present.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

God doesnt want women to talk or learn in church. I genuinely doubt he wants them to fight in wars.

Take a look at the books of Joshua and Judges, which describe the conflicts between the Hebrews and the Canaanites in which Deborah led the Hebrew army in defeating the Canaanite general, Sisera, on the plain of Esdraelon.

Also, the book of Judith describes the demoralized Israelites ready to surrender to the Assyrians when Judith made her way to the camp of the Assyrian general and cut off his head with a sword. When she returned with the general's head the Israelite army, inspired by her courage, destroyed the Assyrians.

Don't be so quick to proclaim what God wants.

Look.. Combat is about killing the enemy before he kills you. It is an extreme situation and you have to rely 100% on your squad mates.

I just want to make clear that I have no problem what-so-ever with women in the military, as long as it works. The biggest problem I see today is that in the more "elite" units, such as the diffrent types of ranger units in my country, the men often feel threatened by women who are accepted into training. It is a man's world, always has been, and the women are often subjects to "bullying" and so on. To this day, no woman has completed this type of training in my country (atleast to my knowledge). This, unfortunatly, doens't have to be a bad thing. If the men in a unit can't handle having a woman alongside them, they souldn't have to. These guys are going to war...They are going to kill people or be killed. Equality isn't first priority here. The most important thing is that the soldiers work as a unit. However, as I said before, IF it works..why not? If the women can make the same standards as the men can, and that they are accepted by the other members in the units. Then there souldn't be a problem.

Anyone who doesnt think that women can, or should fight, should read about Bodeacea.

(I think thats how its spelled.)


When she was raped, beaten, and her daughters were killed by Roman soldiers, you know what she did?

Went to Rome and sacked it.

Let em fight if they want to.

Anyone who doesnt think that women can, or should fight, should read about Bodeacea.

(I think thats how its spelled.)


When she was raped, beaten, and her daughters were killed by Roman soldiers, you know what she did?

Went to Rome and sacked it.
She never left the British Isles actually. And the Romans eventually defeated her rag-tag army (once they brought the troops back from the north of Britannia).

Agree with those who say that women should be allowed to do whatever men do (and vice versa), but the bar should be set at minimum requirements. If women really want to get into the army and fight then, they can take steroids, testosterone and genetic engineering (in the future) to make it. Seems fair to me.

Although women are -usually- not as strong as men, as men -usually- don't have so good reaction times, there are always exceptions. I'm male, and I have sod all strength and physical endurance, and I have no intention whatsoever of being a solider. I know girls who are strong and have great endurance, and could well become soldiers. Don't judge based on gender, for or against. Keep current standards for all army work. If an individual can cut it, then they should be let in. If they can't, they shouldn't. It's perfectly simple.
And as for the distracting nature of attractive women, surely it's the natural instinct for many men to prove themselves when women are around. They'd want to fight better and harder to show the women near them how macho and great they are. Caveman style thinking, but effective. I'm sure the same is true for some women too.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

Earlier in the thread the physical demands were discussed, but as threads go, towards the end it becomes a lapse of the begining.
Just a reminder that US soldiers add roughly 80 lbs to total body weight while in combat, with that said, let's review the Army APFT charts.
Here we have the push-up. Females are not held to the exact physical challenge as males..
http://atiam.train.army.mil/portal/atia/adlsc/view/public/296749-1/fm/21-20/image15.gif

Review of the the sit-up. Equality abounds in this challenge.
http://atiam.train.army.mil/portal/atia/adlsc/view/public/296749-1/fm/21-20/Image16.gif

Final event, 2-mile run. Again, the physical demand for females is not equal to that of the male.
http://atiam.train.army.mil/portal/atia/adlsc/view/public/296749-1/fm/21-20/image17.gif

Once more this question comes to mind. If a pair of medium sized soldiers, 1 male and 1 female, were to don their battle rattle, what would be the outcome.
Male, 5'9'' 165lbs, add 80lbs gear =245lbs.
Female, 5'5" 130lbs, add 80lbs gear =210 lbs.

Here will be examples of large people. I fit into the XXL category.
Male, 6'3" 245lbs, add 89lbs gear =324lbs.
Female, 5'9" 160lbs, add 80lbs gear =240lbs.

The physical demand alone is arduous. Furthermore when the mental challenges are factored in, the stability becomes off balance.

My personal opionion is our society, and the women of it, are not prepared to face Direct Combat at this point in development.

Understand WWII the Russian women were faced with rape, pillage, and plunder by an oppsoing army that had an objevtive. Given the options, I think we all agree they chose the right path to victory.

She never left the British Isles actually. And the Romans eventually defeated her rag-tag army (once they brought the troops back from the north of Britannia).

Agree with those who say that women should be allowed to do whatever men do (and vice versa), but the bar should be set at minimum requirements. If women really want to get into the army and fight then, they can take steroids, testosterone and genetic engineering (in the future) to make it. Seems fair to me.


The Romans eventually did defeat Boudicca, Queen of the Iceni people of Briton, but not before her "rag-tag" army of 120,000 captured and put to the sword Roman garrisons at Camulodunum, Londinium (London), and Verulamium (see Roman historians Tacitus and Cassius Dio).

The point is not that the Romans eventually defeated her rebellion. After all, the Roman Army was the greatest force of it time and defeated almost every army it encountered. The point is she is another example of a courageous and qualified female military leader that can be found all throughout history.

My personal view on this is that women should be allowed to fight in combat if they wish to. The idea that this cannot be so because some women are not of the same physical strength as male soldiers is absurd because all soldiers, regardless of gender, have to go through basic training which involves a hell of a lot of exercise. I doubt many women who come out the other side of basic training are any less stronger than the men.

Well, being one of those guys who /did/ go through basic, your statement simply isn't true. First of all, simply exercising the same amount or going through the same routines does /not/ mean both people will come out the other side with the same strength, endurance, or toughness. I can point to the many different sizes of /men/ that leave basic to make that point, let alone the women.

But like I said, if the standards are equalized and some women /can/ keep up, then by all means, let them prove themselves and join the army just like the men have to.

The other idea is that the use of women in the army, particularly in mixed combat units with men, is that they will reduce the cohesion of the unit and make it less able to do a job - this is also one of the major arguments against homosexuals in the military. In both respects, the critics may have a point - this may reduce the effectiveness of the unit by reducing cohesion.

The problem with that criticism is that it is the same argument people used against allowing ethnic groups into the military, and the armed forces didn't fall apart after they began accepting those groups. The point I'm trying to make is that either this loss of cohesion would be short-term as society adjusts itself to the acceptance of new siutations, or based on stereotypes or ill-educated assumptions about an entire group of people. Women in combat will not turn entire units into a group orgy, nor will they create tensions by soldiers having relationships. Discipline in the armed forces is essential, and I doubt that many soldiers, regardless of gender or ethnicity, do not recognise this.

Don't you think there's a reason why inter-office romances are discouraged? Let's create just a few immaginary scenarios.
1) There's a woman in the squad, and 2 guys are interested and begin competing for her attention
2) There's a woman who has been in a romantic relationship with one of her squadmates (whether this is under the radar or not is a separate issue) and eventually they break up, or alternatively, she simply refuses the attentions of one of the guys. No hard feelings?

That's just two situations right off the top. Yes, the soldiers realize discipline is essential, and that's a big reason the "don't ask / don't tell" policy is working. The military recognized that having homosexuals in your squad /would/ create disturbing group dynamics, so told them if they want to serve, they have to keep that part of their life separate. You can't exactly /hide/ being female in the same way.

Would soldiers get over it? Some do, some don't. We have plenty of non-com mixed units that work very well together which I've been in, though I've never been in a mixed combat group. There's a lot more testosterone flying around in those groups. I still think it works, but it would definately take some getting used to, and the biggest problem (in my opinion) is going to be the sexual harassment suits. This happens even just in the divisions of desk pilots. Some woman walks in on a rowdy conversation two guys are having and feels offended. She then sues the government. Well, that's going to be a /lot/ more prevalent in the field.

Women should be allowed to fight in combat. If they can pass the grade in physical training, shoot to the required degree of accuracy and have the neccesary skills in leadership and command, give 'em a gun and point towards the enemy.

Abso-f'in-lutely. That's the biggest issue. If we can work that out, the rest should fall in line.

Trung Trac and Trung Nhi (led Vietnamese rebellion against China in 1st century), Melitta Stauffenberg (recipient of Luftwaffe Gold Pilot's badge and Iron Cross I and II), Kit Cavanaugh (foot soldier, 2nd Dragoons in English army for 13 years), Artemisia I (commander of naval forces under Xeres during Persian Wars), Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote (modern U.S. Army), Rachel Stahl (combat commander in Israeli War of Independence), and Liliia Litvyak (Soviet Ace fighter pilot, recipient of Hero of Soviet Union for shooting down 14 enemy aircraft) are all women who could have kicked your ass.

How do you know they coulda kicked my ass? You don't know me.

Even if they could, don't mean no thing. I'm not gonna do the damn dishes.

Anyone who doesnt think that women can, or should fight, should read about Bodeacea.

(I think thats how its spelled.)


When she was raped, beaten, and her daughters were killed by Roman soldiers, you know what she did?

Went to Rome and sacked it.
Maybe a woman can fight. It's a fallacy to quote an exception and try to make it the rule. Women, on average, have lower stamina than men, have less places to develop muscle than men, and have more compunction about killing than men.

i support exactly what the US military is doing now: allowing women in most fields but not all like special forces(if you've ever seen the intense training and combat they go through you would probably agree with me); submarines, infantry, artillery, and tank and amphibian tractor crew members(because of the tight quarters were sexual harassment could be a problem); etc.

i support exactly what the US military is doing now: allowing women in most fields but not all like special forces(if you've ever seen the intense training and combat they go through you would probably agree with me); submarines, infantry, artillery, and tank and amphibian tractor crew members(because of the tight quarters were sexual harassment could be a problem); etc.

I agree to an extent. I support what they're doing currently /except/ that the physical standards are not equal. I think once they equalize those standards, then wait another 30 years or so for everything to settle down and the forces to get used to the idea, you might start seeing the first women in those combat arenas as well. Productively, even!

(people don't have genders, by the way. That's a misuse of the word)



Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neuter,” but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.

i support exactly what the US military is doing now: allowing women in most fields but not all like special forces(if you've ever seen the intense training and combat they go through you would probably agree with me); submarines, infantry, artillery, and tank and amphibian tractor crew members(because of the tight quarters were sexual harassment could be a problem); etc.

Some men are jerks and some women cause trouble bringing suits when there is no reason to. These possibilities can't allow women not to be allowed into all fields. If they are qualified let them in. Not bar them because of the possibility of some jackass harassing a woman.