Thread: women in the military, specifically combat

Yeah, why not? I find the exclusion of women to be sexism. Why can't the ladies be sent out to fight if they really want to? As for ruining team cohesion, why not just separate the men and women? They do it in sports, so why not the military? I know the two are not the same thing, but many aspects are similar (strength, stamina, and skill are all needed. Or something. I know little about the military and its workings).

If women want to fight, I say let them. They have just as much to offer as men. So yeah, let 'em join. If there actually are enduring issues, then separate the men from women. But Christ, don't bar them from combat entirely.

"[Women] in the military...here's how I feel about it, alright? Anyone...DUMB enough...to want to be in the military, should be allowed in. End of fucking story. That should be the only requirement." - Bill Hicks (but edited to change "gays" to "women").

I can understand the equal rights things you guys are stating, but there's just certain physical attributes that most women lack. Even after that's over, look at the hygienic issues women have to face if they're out in the sand, brush, or woods for extended amounts of time. I remember in basic training I was on a 3k road march, and some female had to hold on to my rucksack so she could keep up with everyone else. We had some of our gear...not even all of it. Didn't have our flack jackets, our NBC suits, knee pads, protective masks. Just had a rucksack with some MREs in it, our LCE's and our soft caps inside. In a combat situation, we would have both been dead.

What I'm saying, is there are so many physical aspects to combat arms jobs, that either chivalry is going to kick in and cost someones life, or units are going to have a lot of weak links in them...costing more lives. Most of the jobs in the military are available to women including "combat engineer". And that's just an infantryman who blows stuff up. I don't see why they would want to be a grunt, and I don't think think would make it in special forces due to the physical and hygienic stress they go through.

They say that guns are the great equalizer. People can say that our army is the greatest in the world and every single man is in peak physical condition, but at the end of the day the job of a grunt is to stand there with a gun and shoot people, a task any woman could do just as well. That said, I don't know why anyone would want to be a grunt. Personally I would consider it one of the worst jobs you could get.

If women want to go out and get them self killed in some pointless war, I don't see why we shouldn't allow them. After all we don't care about what happens to the men we send out to die.

Originally Posted by Alric

They say that guns are the great equalizer. People can say that our army is the greatest in the world and every single man is in peak physical condition, but at the end of the day the job of a grunt is to stand there with a gun and shoot people, a task any woman could do just as well.

For how long and how accurate wearing all of that equipment? Who would you want carrying all that equipment? If the machine gunner dies, who's going to pick that up and carry it? A: "Not her, she's a woman". Or B: she ends up being incapable of the task. This thread is probably going to make me sound like a sexist, but war doesn't wait for menses, and I wouldn't want to ever hear about how some mission was compromised because some woman flipped out on her period.

It's only 10% of the of the jobs anyway, and all of them are hardcore. Soldiers in combat arms roles are all held at a higher physical standard than the rest of the army. Modifying or lowering that will only make them less effective.

I say let them join. We can play "averages" and say that, statistically, there may be some physical level that a woman in peak condition can't get to, which a man in peak condition could. But, I believe that women, physically, have the potential to match a man in good physical shape.

If they can pass the same basic training required of a man, I say let them in. If they can't, then they should be treated just like any man whom doesn't meet the basic requirement. I don't think that the requisites for a soldier should be lowered, to allow women. I think the women who want to fight should be able to show that they are just as tough as the boys.

And I honestly believe that there are plenty of women who could do it.

That's the thing about about, basic training isn't even the same. It's been downgraded since women started to integrate training with men. The combat arms basic training is still all male, and still at a higher standard than the rest of the military on a physical level. Google the physical fitness tests (PT tests) and look at the difference of runtimes pushups and situps for males and females. There's a huge difference, because if the government held the women to those same standards, most of them wouldn't make it.

Originally Posted by Akono

That's the thing about about, basic training isn't even the same. It's been downgraded since women started to integrate training with men. The combat arms basic training is still all male, and still at a higher standard than the rest of the military on a physical level. Google the physical fitness tests (PT tests) and look at the difference of runtimes pushups and situps for males and females. There's a huge difference, because if the government held the women to those same standards, most of them wouldn't make it.

Regardless of whether or not they can max out at the same number of reps as the boys, if they can still prove themselves to a degree that is figured to be effective on the battlefield, then they should be allowed to fight. Should they just "usher" in women, for the purpose of equality? No. But all combat actions are assessed, before people are given their positions. If a woman has proven herself to be physically fit enough to be an effective soldier - regardless of whether or not that standard is the same for a man - then she should be allowed to fight.

An effective killer is an effective killer.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Regardless of whether or not they can max out at the same number of reps as the boys, if they can still prove themselves to a degree that is figured to be effective on the battlefield, then they should be allowed to fight. Should they just "usher" in women, for the purpose of equality? No. But all combat actions are assessed, before people are given their positions. If a woman has proven herself to be physically fit enough to be an effective soldier - regardless of whether or not that standard is the same for a man - then she should be allowed to fight. An effective killer is an effective killer, regardless of gender or related, physical differences.

Yeah, I see your point. As long as the standards don't get lowered like they did for the rest of the military, I wouldn't see any harm in it.

It should be noted that the type of women who would want to be in straight up combat are not going to be your stereotypical, emotionally explosive, PMSing women. Let it also be noted that a good chunk of women don't even go through PMS.

I agree with what O said, especially that first sentence. If a woman wants to join, give her the choice, if you doubt her, give her the chance to prove herself. Same goes for LGBT folk.
I admit, I think it would be great if the PT tests were equal. If it weeds out a hefty number of women, so be it. At least they're given that chance to prove themselves on equal footing with the boys.

To be fair, lower standards are likely a result of the average American being less healthy and over weight, and because we need more soldiers, not just because woman were let in. That is how it usually is when you need more troops, instead of having better training you lower standards so more people can join. Honestly I would suspect the real reason they want to remove the ban is to get more troops, and not because they feel the need for equality.

I think PMS is exaggerated, unless I experience it differently from most women. It's little more than a good excuse for some women to get away with being mean for a few days a month. There tends to be a bit more emotion during those days, but not that much, and it's definitely controllable, no different from happening to be in an edgy mood during any other time of the month.

If certain physical requirements need to be met, then they need to be met. I don't think the requirements should be lowered just for women. They'll filter out unfit women just as they do unfit scrawny men, and if not many women get through the training, so be it. As long as the requirements aren't set specifically with the intention of allowing very few women to get through.

As for heigenic issues, I'm not really sure what that means, besides periods, and dealing with those would take less time during a day than relieving oneself which everyone has to do. There's another thing: women can piss faster than men, wasting less time!

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I think PMS is exaggerated, unless I experience it differently from most women. It's little more than a good excuse for some women to get away with being mean for a few days a month. There tends to be a bit more emotion during those days, but not that much, and it's definitely controllable, no different from happening to be in an edgy mood during any other time of the month.

If certain physical requirements need to be met, then they need to be met. I don't think the requirements should be lowered just for women. They'll filter out unfit women just as they do unfit scrawny men, and if not many women get through the training, so be it. As long as the requirements aren't set specifically with the intention of allowing very few women to get through.

As for heigenic issues, I'm not really sure what that means, besides periods, and dealing with those would take less time during a day than relieving oneself which everyone has to do. There's another thing: women can piss faster than men, wasting less time!

But women have to wipe afterwards. So...

Anyway, when it comes to the military, I say women should be allowed in general infantry but not special forces. I know there are a number of studies out there saying that while women are weaker then men, they have more dexterity and are able to think about shooting a gun in a different way. Essentially, if these studies are valid, women have slightly better natural skills when it comes to shooting a gun. Yes, they will never be as good at hand to hand or at packing out gear as men. But they can shoot as good and possibly better. As far as day long hikes- that is largely conditioning. You don't need bulging biceps to have good endurance. You need a good heart and a working pair of lungs. Both sexes have that. Many young children who run a couple hours a day can outlast reasonalby healthy adults in a long distance race. Women are fully capable of doing what our boys in Afghanistan do. (We would lose the right to say, "Our boys in X" though. That would be a shame.)

But when it comes to special forces I still say no and I have two reasons. First, strength is more important to special forces, if nothing else because the training programs standards would have to drop. Anyone hear seen the 6 hour documentary on SEAL training? Or Marine Recon? Or SWICC? I would be willing to bet that even the strong outliers among women couldn't make it, (save a very few.) Why? Because even most of the strong outliers among men fail. And if you had to get out of your 5 man boat and push it against the current in cold waters for hours on end, who will be the first person to collapse? Because that person is a liability. Next, consider the types of missions and locales special forces may have to trek through. They are far more likely to be away from a base for days or possibly weeks on end then an infantryman. And when you are away from anything familiar for long periods of time, under the constant strain of hostiles threats, and you just watched two of your friends die and have had no time to grieve, funny things happen to your head. Look at Vietnam. You know how much rape of native Vietnamese natives went on in that war? More then most Americans care to think about. I am not saying rape would be common. Most of the special forces guys would likely never consider it. But it would happen and when it did not only would it be terrible for the girl butit reached the public the bad press would hurt the military far more than the handful of women who were able to become SF would aid it.

Well saying woman can't compete with men is one thing, proving it is another. Why not remove the ban, and let them compete. If a woman can keep up with the special forces in training, then they should be allowed in. As simple as that. If you honestly believe no woman can compare, then there is no reason not to lift the ban, because nothing will change.

Originally Posted by Alric

Well saying woman can't compete with men is one thing, proving it is another. Why not remove the ban, and let them compete. If a woman can keep up with the special forces in training, then they should be allowed in. As simple as that. If you honestly believe no woman can compare, then there is no reason not to lift the ban, because nothing will change.

I believe a very few could compare. But the extra money spent to train them as far as they get, (which would mostly be wasted, I think,) on top of the inevitable rape case that may reach the media, would make the whole thing more trouble than it's worth.

I do not think women should be allowed into the infantry. It isn't an issue of equal rights or political correctness, it's an issue of performance. An infantryman/woman who underperforms not only holds their team back, but they get their team members killed. The infantry is a tool. You want that tool to be as sharp as it can possibly be. If you seriously ask yourself the question of whether adding women to the infantry would make it better, the only answer you could honestly give is "no." You couldn't even safely conclude that it would stay the same. All evidence and common sense says they would be an unecessary burden, endangering the lives of everyone around them. There isn't a shortage of men willing to fight, men are stronger and more capable than women, it is therefore a waste of time to even entertain the question. Equal rights and political correctness are moot points in my opinion.

I don't buy the argument that "if they can 'pass' the same training as men, then they should be allowed in." It's relatively easy to slip through the cracks as far training goes, depending on what area of the military they work in. Just because a woman can graduate from boot camp and infantry training does not automatically mean she is fit to stand next to me on a battlefield. She may be able to run fast and jump through obstacles well, but can I depend on her to carry me off the battlefield after I've been shot? Can she be depended on to carry a hundred pounds of gear for miles through the mountains? Even if she can physically do it, can she do it as well and as fast as a fit male? It's just a fact of the universe that men are naturally stronger than women. I honestly don't think a woman can be depended on to perform to the same level of her male counterparts. As a future military officer, I can tell you that I don't want that extra burden. I don't want to have to constantly worry about whether this female can really have my back. It's just easier to leave it to the men, the way it has always been and the way it was intended by nature. (As a side note, it is a myth that any civilization has ever existed where the females were more agressive than the males.)

Originally Posted by spockman

inevitable rape case that may reach the media, would make the whole thing more trouble than it's worth.

Silly spockman, you should know by now that even though rape in the military isn't uncommon, it's rarely ever reported in the news.
-----
Test all hopefuls, filter out the unfit, keep the ones that do well. If a woman can perform just as well as a man then she should be let in, it's just that simple. If she meets all the training as well as the physical requirements, only an idiot would have a problem with her on the force.

"But what if she's not strong enough?"

Then she wouldn't have met the physical requirements and wouldn't have been allowed in. (Assuming a high standard was kept)

Is there a need for more combat soldiers? If not, don't fix what isn't broken.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Silly spockman, you should know by now that even though rape in the military isn't uncommon, it's rarely ever reported in the news.
-----
Test all hopefuls, filter out the unfit, keep the ones that do well. If a woman can perform just as well as a man then she should be let in, it's just that simple. If she meets all the training as well as the physical requirements, only an idiot would have a problem with her on the force.

"But what if she's not strong enough?"

Then she wouldn't have met the physical requirements and wouldn't have been allowed in. (Assuming a high standard was kept)

Eh, maybe, but if rape cases were increased by women joining special forces the odds that it would reach a media outlet who would report it would increase and without a substantial benefit gained from allowing women it would really be more trouble then it is worth.

There has been a shortage of combat troops for years. It is what happen when a country is almost always at war. As for falling through the cracks. If you are so worried about woman getting in when they don't meet the requirements, what does that say about the men? There are probably tons of men who are getting in without meeting the requirements. Which means you can't really trust the guy standing next to you, to drag you out of the combat area either.

On a side note, I had an uncle in the navy, who was out of shape. He couldn't meet the requirements to stay in the navy for years, but he knew the doctor, and got him to just say he passed anyway.

Originally Posted by Alric

There has been a shortage of combat troops for years. It is what happen when a country is almost always at war. As for falling through the cracks. If you are so worried about woman getting in when they don't meet the requirements, what does that say about the men? There are probably tons of men who are getting in without meeting the requirements. Which means you can't really trust the guy standing next to you, to drag you out of the combat area either.

On a side note, I had an uncle in the navy, who was out of shape. He couldn't meet the requirements to stay in the navy for years, but he knew the doctor, and got him to just say he passed anyway.

I'm not talking about the military in general. I know for a fact there are tons of lard asses in the military. I'm talking about infantry. The standards are different for infantry. The infantry requires a standard of fitness, which includes brute strength and endurance, which I am not convinced any woman can satisfactorily meet. Lets say a woman works out like fucking crazy so that she is as strong as a fit male, but then she lets herself go after she gets into the infantry. A default male is stronger than a default female in that case. A man doesn't need to workout like ronnie coleman to do the job, but a woman does on the other hand. Look at women's sports for evidence. Obviously the men compete at a much higher level. Even female bodybuilders lift about as much as an average male who works out frequently. Im not saying there aren't some freaky women out there who can beat the lower tier soldiers, but there are so many factors that need to be considered. A military isn't about fairness and it isn't about equal rights and political correctness, though the media can make it out to be. It has one simple job, and that's to fight for it's country, whether that's defending at home or fighting for it's interests somewhere else. So looking at the issue from an objective viewpoint with the one goal in mind, does it make any sense to allow women, who are not evolutionarily built for fighting, to serve in our infantry? I don't see how it can do anything but weaken our force.

If you are going to limit people by averages instead of actual results, why not just limit the infantry by body type? If you have a mesomorph body type you get in, everyone else is banned. Sure you can be strong with any body type, but using your logic it just makes sense to only allow people in with the ideal body type, as the others are more likely to let them self go and drop below standards.

That doesn't make sense. A mesomorph male is still stronger than a mesomorph female, right? In fact, just about any male body type would be stronger than a female mesomorph. If we want the best of the best, we shouldn't encourage sub par candidates to apply. The best of the best can only be men, and despite what you may believe, there is no shortage of men who are willing to fight, at least not in this country. The military as a whole may be desperate at times, but infantry is not.