Women on the front lines in Combat

[st_99]

"The Pentagon said Thursday it will open more battlefield jobs to women, placing them closer to war’s front lines, but two women who have served in the Air Force said female troops have demonstrated that no restrictions are necessary."

"The Pentagon is unveiling plans Thursday to allow women to serve in thousands of military jobs closer to the front lines, reflecting the realities of the last decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan"


I don't have any military experience but I get the feeling this is not a good idea and more so a hindrance and added burden to male troops. Simply because a female simply does not have the testosterone to keep up physically. What do you guys think? Is this stupid more or less?

 

[Lexington]

This is in large part due to the lack of qualified men these days. It's the same reason why the Navy recently started allowing women to serve on submarines; there weren't enough men with technical degrees.

These women still aren't quite on the front lines. They are closer than they ever have been, but they still won't be doing the heavy lifting just yet.

 

[wait_out]

It depends on the professionalism of both the men and women of individual units.

There are exceptional individuals of course (ie. the women detached to SF acting as Cultural Support Teams) who could probably outperform a lot of the male candidates. That said, if you're looking to put thousands of people into the combat arms, the majority will be average joes and janes. A platoon of 60 guys is going to last longer than 60 women when you put them through training. Mental stress correlates to physical stress and women are at a disadvantage physiologically.

This is not to say individual women are incapable... it's to say men and women have certain biological differences that makes training women less cost-effective. The problem here is the issue of individual rights vs. the effectiveness of the organization. Some might say that's not a problem, it's a victory of democracy -- the twist being the well-being and even survival of the individual in war may depend on how well the unit functions.

This argument is for the most part theoretical wankery. In the IDF (Israel) all trades including infantry are open to women. I think female representation is still very low in the combat arms, and it always will be. It doesn't really NEED to be restricted because at the end of the day, women either don't really want to dig trenches with a pickaxe for days or are smart enough to know better. A lot of girls will yap about equality but let's get real... the reality of the infantry will turn off 98% of women when they actually have to face it, much less ground combat and killing in war. This will always be a man's world, and young at that.

I've never seen feminism advance a theory of how to direct armed violence, beyond the obvious fact of stating that war is bad for all of us. This really interests me. It's an uncomfortable thing to admit as a woman that your most powerful foreign policy influencer is organized violence effected by males, and that women want no part of it. It's also your most essential, frontline means of protection of women (ie. the 150 SF advisers sent to Liberia to tackle militias using rape as a weapon). This is an ugly, ugly paradox when you're trying to convince men (well, the ones who listen anyway) to renounce violence in general as your key strategy to reduce the vulnerability of women.

Anyway that's quite a tangent! The point is that theoretical wankery usually dies when it's time to walk the walk. Women and men are different, and always will be. But hey I'm sure the guys don't mind the girls on the morning PT formation right?

 

[Jitterbug]

Women stop bullets just as well as men. You seen the fat huge ones on those slvt walks? The more of them on the frontline, the less likely that men will have to die for the profits of the elites and the export of feminist ideologies to random poor countries.

 

[Dust 2 Dust]

My opinion of Fatties in foxholes.

I'm personally 100% against putting women into combat. If you're putting women and children into combat then the war is already lost in my opinion.

In a state of total war of attrition you want women on the home front tending to the home and giving birth and raising the next generation of soldiers.

 

[BMX]

Just read this in the paper moments ago.A lot of women have been into combat with combat arms support branches. Those jobs/ratings/MOS's do tend to get involved as the frontlines of combat have become blurred.

I have met some of these women who told me things like "I pissed my pants being shot at in combat" but in the same conversation tell me "I don't regret serving, the camaraderie was amazing." Just like when I was a law officer, I served with numerous females but they ultimately proved that they wanted to be there and were good at what they did but still were at a disadvantage with some of these criminals who were physically stronger/faster. If they can hang with the guys, then I suppose they should go for it. I am trying to enlist in a support field myself but am toying with the idea of going into a male-only field.

 

[Nutz]

Believe it or not, if you're in-country during wartime you ARE on the front-lines. You can be ambushed at any point, and many have, both during the shooting war in Iraq, and well after during the occupation. Men, women, it doesn't matter. Nor does it matter which service or MOS/AFSC you have. As a Comm troop I was performing perimeter security and my friend who is in AF life support (takes care of pilot survival gear) was kicking down doors in Falluja. The services were flattened out in terms of functionality during OIF/OEF--the days of AF being put up in the 4 star hotel while the Army sleeps in the mud are long gone. So too are the days of "safe" jobs. Everyone is a front-line soldier if you're at an FOB.

 

[Blackmm]

Here is the real reason why you don't have front line females fighting and it has to do with hygiene. In certain combat zones, soldiers may have to be in a single spot for weeks at a time if not months. Men can go without taking a bath or shower for a long time without any serious health effects. Women are a different story. If they don't wash there on a regular basis, they can attract a host of health problems that can make them seriously ill, if not kill them. You can't douche with summers eve while under artillery fire.

 

[Warrior74]

A friend of mine told me how he had an 18 year old girl killed by a road side bomb in iraq while on patrol. IED blew half her face off. She didn't die immediately. He said it was the most horrible thing he had seen. He's shot and killed men, he's been shot. He he's seen men blown apart. He does not want women on the front line, he said it disturbed his entire unit for months.

It's our instinct to protect women and children. I think it's something that men will have the hardest time getting used to.

 

[Knight's Cross]

My experience from the Army was women serving in the combat arms was not a good idea. I was in Aviation, so we had female soldiers in our unit. Like others have posted, women had to be rotated out for hygiene. This created a disturbance in unit cohesion. The,"why does she get to" mentality. I can only imagine it would be worse if they were actually allowed in infantry. People that haven't been in the situation, should not be allowed to force the military to do something that's bad for unit cohesion. Let the military decide whats best for units. Not politicians.
KC

 

[Strelok]

My experience from the Army was women serving in the combat arms was not a good idea. I was in Aviation, so we had female soldiers in our unit. Like others have posted, women had to be rotated out for hygiene. This created a disturbance in unit cohesion. The,"why does she get to" mentality. I can only imagine it would be worse if they were actually allowed in infantry. People that haven't been in the situation, should not be allowed to force the military to do something that's bad for unit cohesion. Let the military decide whats best for units. Not politicians.
KC

Exactly, some people simply dont understand that technical issues cannot be solved with moral solutions.

 

[zekko]

A friend of mine told me how he had an 18 year old girl killed by a road side bomb in iraq while on patrol. IED blew half her face off. She didn't die immediately. He said it was the most horrible thing he had seen. He's shot and killed men, he's been shot. He he's seen men blown apart. He does not want women on the front line, he said it disturbed his entire unit for months.

It's our instinct to protect women and children. I think it's something that men will have the hardest time getting used to.

Interesting. Compare this to the thread about "women and children first" in sea disasters. Most guys who posted didn't seem to have any problem with leaving the women behind on the boat to drown.

 

[Warrior74]

Interesting. Compare this to the thread about "women and children first" in sea disasters. Most guys who posted didn't seem to have any problem with leaving the women behind on the boat to drown.

Yah well. It's SS. I take most of it with a grain. I'd like to leave one of their mothers or sisters to drown and tell them all about it. I wonder how many would try to kill me for it and how many would give me a high five.

 

[Mike32ct]

I'm sure there are some great female soldiers. But my concern would be if she were captured. Sadly, she'd be gang r a ped by the enemy.

 

[runner83]

I'd much rather shoot my load into a chick's mouth, than shoot her in the head..case closed./

 

[5string]

As a former Army Scout, Infantryman and Track Commander in the mechanized infantry, I can say hands down this is a bigtime bad idea.

Of course if they are on their periods, or in the middle of menopause, we might wish to send them into combat. They would certaily strike fear into the hearts of our ememies.

 

[C-quenced]

I don't have any military experience but I get the feeling this is not a good idea and more so a hindrance and added burden to male troops. Simply because a female simply does not have the testosterone to keep up physically. What do you guys think? Is this stupid more or less?

Women just don't posses the mental and physical traits necessary for wartime tasks. These are traits which generally come naturally to most men.

I'm all for women serving in the front lines. Since they're not smart enough to learn the easy way that they aren't men, why not just ship all their ****ing asses out and let them learn the hard way?

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear ST99,
The Red Army tried Batallions with mixed sexes...Problems...They then formed female only units,which served throughout WW11...I am informed that the Wehrmacht Soldiers were Queasy about facing them,so where possible SS units would handle the situation...read something interesting the other Day,an Englishman on Gallipoli in WW1 tells how his unit was being sniped at from a particular tree...Five Soldiers were detailed to ferret out the offender...Eventually they captured a Turk who turned out to be a Woman....Around her neck were a dozen or so dog tags from previous kills...they pinned her to the ground with bayonets and raped her...When each had done the deed,they each shot her...Hmm....nasty business War!

 

[VinceV]

I'm sure there are exceptions, but on the whole it just sounds like a bad idea.

 

[Jeffst1980]

As long as they meet the same training requirements as men, I don't think there's any problem with it.

Sure- biologically, women aren't as suited for combat as men on the whole. But, there is no question that we are dealing with outliers here, and not a typical female. Sex/ gender alone should not be a reason for disqualification.