Should women be allowed in combat units?

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Report: Women should be allowed in combat units

WASHINGTON (AP) — Women should finally be allowed to serve fully in combat, a military advisory panel said Friday in a report seeking to dismantle the last major area of discrimination in the armed forces.
The call by a commission of current and retired military officers to let women be front-line fighters could set in motion another sea change in military culture as the armed forces, generations after racial barriers fell, grapples with the phasing out of the ban on gays serving openly.

The newest move is being recommended by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress two years ago. The panel was to send its proposals to Congress and President Obama.

It is time "to create a level playing field for all qualified service members," the members said.

Opponents of putting women in combat question whether they have the necessary strength and stamina. They also have said the inclusion of women in infantry and other combat units might harm unit cohesion, a similar argument to that made regarding gays. And they warn Americans won't tolerate large numbers of women coming home in body bags. Those arguments have held sway during previous attempts to lift the ban.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-14-women-combat_N.htm

i have never served, so it is hard for me to give an opinion on this. it seems to me this isn't as cut and dry as say, allowing gays to serve, which i did defer to the military leadership, despite the opinion they should be allowed to serve openly.

in this regard, i would think strength issues, combat ability among other issues would be a huge factor here....

what say you?
 
Barring a few chaps out there in internets land who've never actually had much contact with the fairer sex, i think the rest of us would agree that the worst hurt you've ever felt (apart from those gentlemen who have had their testicles compressed in some sort of closing door situation or similar) has been caused by a woman.

They fuck up men better than other men ever could...let them do what they want.
 
Yurt said:
Report: Women should be allowed in combat units

WASHINGTON (AP) — Women should finally be allowed to serve fully in combat, a military advisory panel said Friday in a report seeking to dismantle the last major area of discrimination in the armed forces.
The call by a commission of current and retired military officers to let women be front-line fighters could set in motion another sea change in military culture as the armed forces, generations after racial barriers fell, grapples with the phasing out of the ban on gays serving openly.

The newest move is being recommended by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress two years ago. The panel was to send its proposals to Congress and President Obama.

It is time "to create a level playing field for all qualified service members," the members said.

Opponents of putting women in combat question whether they have the necessary strength and stamina. They also have said the inclusion of women in infantry and other combat units might harm unit cohesion, a similar argument to that made regarding gays. And they warn Americans won't tolerate large numbers of women coming home in body bags. Those arguments have held sway during previous attempts to lift the ban.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-14-women-combat_N.htm

i have never served, so it is hard for me to give an opinion on this. it seems to me this isn't as cut and dry as say, allowing gays to serve, which i did defer to the military leadership, despite the opinion they should be allowed to serve openly.

in this regard, i would think strength issues, combat ability among other issues would be a huge factor here....

what say you?
Click to expand...

I suppose there is the possibility it could harm unit cohesion should, for example, two guys fall for the same gal or vice versa. On the other hand, let's be honest, there's nothing to match the morale boosting power of a gal.

Second, let's not forget their potential persuasiveness with their captors. They are more likely to be able to exploit the vulnerabilities of the enemy.

Finally, it comes down to a matter of equality.
 
Let them serve in combat. I see no problem with it, as long as we don't change the requirements to fit them.
 
charver said:
Barring a few chaps out there in internets land who've never actually had much contact with the fairer sex, i think the rest of us would agree that the worst hurt you've ever felt (apart from those gentlemen who have had their testicles compressed in some sort of closing door situation or similar) has been caused by a woman.

They fuck up men better than other men ever could...let them do what they want.
Click to expand...

It rather depends where the 'combat unit' is. If it's in the kitchen, we-ell.......
 
Actually it depends on the combat role. Piloting or co-piloting fighters,m attack fighters, and manning various stations of larger combat aircraft, certainly. Long range artillery and other similar "back of the front" roles, maybe.

But front line, in-the-trenches, I do not believe women belong there. In the front line, in contact with the enemy, there are too many potential circumstances that demand high physical strength and high endurance. And while I have known some very tough, strong women, on the average men are physically stronger than women. This is a basic fact. A woman can condition herself to the point that many can becomes as strong, or stronger than an average man. But a man who undergoes the same conditioning, if stronger before will remain stronger. In front line combat situations, that strength IS, almost invariably, called on for one purpose or another.
 
This has more to do with the definition of a combat unit, and what those units are tasked to do. I was under the command of 3/10 on my first tour, and 3/10 held an AO just like 3/4 (the grunt unit I was physically attached too), 1/6, 2/2, or any other infantry unit. Of course the Marine Corps works a little different than the Army in terms of artillery and other similar "back of the front" roles.

We did have "lioness" plts, that might from time to time attach to us for a few patrols only because the nature of the indigenous culture (ie, not having men talk to local women). But these females were not depended upon, nor could they be to perform combat related missions on their own or in support of anyone else.

There are three main reasons why women dont belong in combat units. The first is their immediate effect on unit cohesion, morale and discipline. The second is the psychological effects and unit effectiveness issues that arise with dead woman, mangled and blown up, littering the battlefield. The third is physiological. Women are not as physically able to perform to the necessary requirements for some combat units.

This is really only geared towards US Marine Corps and US Army ground infantry units, armor, or USMC Artillery units.

Most everyone else already gets the necessary uses out of female military members.
 
While it will always vary from individual to individual, the average woman's upper body strength will not be as great as a mans. That is a given.

But in positions where upper body strength is not the primary concern, they could serve quite effectively. Scout/sniper teams would be one place. Any pilot or mechanized unit position would be another.

My point is not that they have the capability to replace men in every position, but rather that they be disqualified based on performance rather than gender.
 
WinterBorn said:
While it will always vary from individual to individual, the average woman's upper body strength will not be as great as a mans. That is a given.

But in positions where upper body strength is not the primary concern, they could serve quite effectively. Scout/sniper teams would be one place. Any pilot or mechanized unit position would be another.

My point is not that they have the capability to replace men in every position, but rather that they be disqualified based on performance rather than gender.
Click to expand...

Scout/Sniper would be a place where you think a woman could serve? lol Did you just pick that because of a movie you saw? or were there actually some reasons you have observed in real life?

Pilot... yes.

The point is ENTIRELY about capability to do the job on an individual level, or on a units level to have that unit be capable of mission accomplishment, ... their GENDER is what is an enormous part OF PERFORMANCE...

Im not even going to get into the physiology of the differences between males and females... despite what you may see as effective performance the female body is not built for combat. The American female psyche is not programmed for combat.
 
SR_ said:
Scout/Sniper would be a place where you think a woman could serve? lol Did you just pick that because of a movie you saw? or were there actually some reasons you have observed in real life?

Pilot... yes.

The point is ENTIRELY about capability to do the job on an individual level, or on a units level to have that unit be capable of mission accomplishment, ... their GENDER is what is an enormous part OF PERFORMANCE...

Im not even going to get into the physiology of the differences between males and females... despite what you may see as effective performance the female body is not built for combat. The American female psyche is not programmed for combat.
Click to expand...


Why don't you get into the physiological differences that would preclude women from being effective scout/snipers?

I'm honestly curious. I know you've been in the recent wars and I have zero military experience.
 
I'm on the fence on this. On the one hand I've known women that are just as good or better then their male counter parts in all physical and weapons handling areas. In fact I lost range high score to a woman once. And I am a VERY good shot.

But on the other hand there are many complications with women. Namely, that guy want to have sex with them. And this leads to pregnancy. In a combat environment, where you learn to depend on a person for a long period of time to prefrom certain tasks or lead troops, their sudden loss is a significant force reducer. Now segregating units would solve this problem, but I won't even touch that idea for many reasons.
 
SR_ said:
Scout/Sniper would be a place where you think a woman could serve? lol Did you just pick that because of a movie you saw? or were there actually some reasons you have observed in real life?

Pilot... yes.

The point is ENTIRELY about capability to do the job on an individual level, or on a units level to have that unit be capable of mission accomplishment, ... their GENDER is what is an enormous part OF PERFORMANCE...

Im not even going to get into the physiology of the differences between males and females... despite what you may see as effective performance the female body is not built for combat. The American female psyche is not programmed for combat.
Click to expand...

I picked that because of what I know about the subject. If a woman can qualify for the scout/sniper duty, the heavy upper body strength is not as critical a requirement. The other skills can be learned by a female as well as a male.

Gender is an important part of combat because we have been taught it is an important part. There are many cultures throughout history that had their women fighting alongside the men.

In fact, the Israelis seem to be doing well with females in their military. And that is one military that does not fuck around. Do a little research about the Nahshol unit the Israelis formed. An all women unit doing front line reconn and combat intell work.

Or maybe read a bit about Lyudmila Pavlichenko. She was a russian sniper credited with 309 kills in WWII.

I found an interesting article concerning female sniper training:

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/sniper.html

From that article: ""Frankly, women are better suited mentally for this job than most men," said Dolan who has learned the sniper craft from the Marines and from the Army and who saw duty as a Marine sniper 10 years ago during the Persian Gulf War. "A woman is best suited to counter a woman sniper," he added. "That's important because more than 50 percent of the countries that have been considered hostile to the United States, including North Vietnam and North Korea, have used women snipers.

"Women can shoot better, by and large, and they're easier to train because they don't have the inflated egos that a lot of men bring to these programs," Dolan said. "Women will ask for help if they need it, and they will tell you what they think." Dolan has designed the countersniper program for Air National Guard security people, and he has no reservations about training women who can handle the 15-hour days of running and shooting and camouflage lessons in the woods."
 
WinterBorn said:
While it will always vary from individual to individual, the average woman's upper body strength will not be as great as a mans. That is a given.

But in positions where upper body strength is not the primary concern, they could serve quite effectively. Scout/sniper teams would be one place. Any pilot or mechanized unit position would be another.

My point is not that they have the capability to replace men in every position, but rather that they be disqualified based on performance rather than gender.
Click to expand...
The thing is front line combat DOES bear a strong possibility of demanding upper body strength even if the specific combat role does not. For instance, let's suppose a woman is in a scout team. They're out on a looksee, in pairs being the standard deployment. Her partner takes a hit. Now they are under fire, and she has to pull her 240 LB partner out of the way, get them both in cover, while calling for help. Upper body strength in action.

Ditto a sniper team. All is fine as long as they both remain unharmed. The man (or other woman if both are female) takes a hit and both are in higher danger than a two man team because a woman does not have the strength an equally conditioned man will have to get themselves and their injured partner out of fire and under cover.

It's not just combat role: it is ALL expected possible eventualities of combat itself, a large number of which could end up depending on strength.
 
Good Luck said:
The thing is front line combat DOES bear a strong possibility of demanding upper body strength even if the specific combat role does not. For instance, let's suppose a woman is in a scout team. They're out on a looksee, in pairs being the standard deployment. Her partner takes a hit. Now they are under fire, and she has to pull her 240 LB partner out of the way, get them both in cover, while calling for help. Upper body strength in action.

Ditto a sniper team. All is fine as long as they both remain unharmed. The man (or other woman if both are female) takes a hit and both are in higher danger than a two man team because a woman does not have the strength an equally conditioned man will have to get themselves and their injured partner out of fire and under cover.

It's not just combat role: it is ALL expected possible eventualities of combat itself, a large number of which could end up depending on strength.
Click to expand...

So they would be disqualified for specific reasons other than gender. Or they can be paired with another female sniper, giving them a 150lb partner to get out of the field if wounded.

My point is that they should be disqualified based on specific requirements, not something as general as gender.
 
Two reasons given for women not to be allowed in combat have been their inability to carry a wounded fellow soldier, and that pregnancy would preclude being prepared for long term dependency on certain people at certain positions. But doesn't that person getting wounded do the same thing? Does having a soldier be wounded or killed lessen the combat effectiveness because they were depended on to do certain tasks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top