Should Women be allowed to see frontline service?

[Storm]

Or co-ed facilities.

 

[Caladan]

But not only that, but I think (and yes this may sound daft because war in general gives people severe Psychological affects), but I think it may have a negative Psychological affect on both Sexes having to fight together under immense combat conditions etc. I read a while ago that Israel tried dual-Sex combat groups and in the end cancelled it 'cause basically one Sex was not coping well with the specific sights of the opposite being wounded (but then again, regardless of what sex the wounded is, no-one would cope well seeing someone wounded, right?). Also I read somewhere that it's believed that Men would abandon mission objectives purely to protect the Women - however even then couldn't you say that Soldiers would prioritize the safety of their Comrades first anyway, equal or opposite Sex? So it leaves me confused about it, but my best reason would be for things like in the Submarine example.

I believe what you are saying is taken from an American action movie
Israel DOES have dual sex combat units. true, although these are combat units, they are not of the most front line units. however, women can reach other combat units, such as fighter pilots, flown medics, border guard etc. recently an Arab Muslim girl was admitted into an elite search and rescue Israeli unit.
Israel is pretty advanced when it comes to society and the military, unlike the USA, Israel is one of the few nations who openly accepts members of the gay community into its armed forces, some high ranking American military personnel wish to bring the Israeli model of taking in gays into service to the American armed forces.

 

[England my lionheart]

I say yes with a proviso,without being sexist a Woman may struggle in hand to hand fighting so i think they would be good combat pilots or in Tanks.

 

[Arkholt]

I haven't ever heard any reasonable arguments against having women in the front lines (and believe me, I've heard quite a few). I say equality all the way.

 

[Wookiemonster]

Ah yeah I see. Yeah especially with such technology and war seeming more "distanced", then there really isn't much of a difference between the Sexes. I dunno where to stand on this issue, personally I think that only one Sex should see it, and not both - regardless of which one (although naturally I'm more inclined to it being the traditional Male force). Although I'm not totally decided on it yet....

War seeming more distanced? Do you not realize that the War currently being fought in Iraq is done by mostly my ground troops? We've actually become less distanced since the Gulf War, not more.

Why? We all eat, poop and sleep. 16 women, 16 men or 8 women and 8 men eat, poop and sleep about the same amount?

Why would a combination need more space?

Do you not know the amount of sexual harassment claims that are filed DAILY in the American Military? If we put 8 women and 8 men on a sub for 6 months at a time I would be willing to bet that there would be at least 3 pregnancies and 8 people claiming sexual harassment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Why? We all eat, poop and sleep. 16 women, 16 men or 8 women and 8 men eat, poop and sleep about the same amount?
Why would a combination need more space? "

Well yeah but I'm thinking of like seperate Male and Female Showers etc. But then again you're right, rather than having a larger single Sex facility, you could just have two smaller Dual-Sex ones and still have the same amount of personnel, unless of course there is a major difference in the number of personnel from each Sex - e.g. like a 4:1 ratio of Men to Women etc.

Canada has allowed women to serve on submarines since 2002. Unfortunately, I can't find any info on how many women actually do serve on submarines, or what their experience has been.

I say yes with a proviso,without being sexist a Woman may struggle in hand to hand fighting so i think they would be good combat pilots or in Tanks.

Then wouldn't the sensible thing to do just to create requirements for each job that address the skills and abilities that are actually required for the job and leave gender out of it?

I mean, if you set up the acceptance criteria properly, then if you're correct, you wouldn't need to explicitly exclude women; they'd just end up not getting the job because none of them would meet the requirements.

OTOH, if you're wrong and there are women who can handle hand-to-hand fighting with the men, then what's the sense in excluding them unnecessarily?

 

[England my lionheart]

I see your point Penguin,i am only speaking from my Army experience,i have no doubt of Womens bravery and willingness to fight,one only has to look at the Women who fought in WW2 for the SOE against the Nazis or the Jewesses who fought in Warsaw and the Maqui in France.
But i agree that if the requirements for front line Service can be met then why not.

 

[Aquitaine]

"War seeming more distanced? Do you not realize that the War currently being fought in Iraq is done by mostly my ground troops? We've actually become less distanced since the Gulf War, not more."

I think maybe "distanced" was the wrong word. But what I mean is, generally speaking and with regards to our technological advancements, modern wars don't seem to require as much physical "presence" as say to 500, 1,500, 2,000 years ago. It's no longer really a case of massing a huge army in the open and slowly pushing forwards with swords and shields, that's what I'm trying to say. Plus the second Gulf War was over a long time ago, it's now more of an occupation, rather than a war.

Although your mentioning of sexual harrasment raises more potential issues with a combined force. I don't know of the statistics, but I can imagine there are a lot of pregnancy and sexual harassment cases in say, a commbined US army in Iraq, for example.

 

[Caladan]

"War seeming more distanced? Do you not realize that the War currently being fought in Iraq is done by mostly my ground troops? We've actually become less distanced since the Gulf War, not more."

I think maybe "distanced" was the wrong word. But what I mean is, generally speaking and with regards to our technological advancements, modern wars don't seem to require as much physical "presence" as say to 500, 1,500, 2,000 years ago. It's no longer really a case of massing a huge army in the open and slowly pushing forwards with swords and shields, that's what I'm trying to say. Plus the second Gulf War was over a long time ago, it's now more of an occupation, rather than a war.

I dont think a few years ago measure to a long time ago. the 2006 war in Lebanon, the fight with the insurgents in Iraq, there is a lot of close quarters combat involved.

 

[DallasApple]

I have mixed emotions about this..I think it would be the "exception" that a woman would be as physically qualified as a man in front line combat.The standards definately shouldnt be lowered to accomodate her wish to serve thats for sure.

I also agree that wether we like it or not the sexual tensions/issues would be there to complicate matters.

Im not saying it cant be done.Its complicated.Its not as simple as "equal" rights.

Women are better at many things..so are men.

I suppose it woudl be truly equal if who you were fighting was same sex..male or female.

Love

Dallas

 

[Oberon]

I wholly support equality and all, but one thing that would probably concern me is the potential treatment female POWs might face.

Because male POWs are treated so well...

 

[Oberon]

The standards definately shouldnt be lowered to accomodate her wish to serve thats for sure.

Definitely. Because it is not just the soldiers *** on the line, but he or she is responsible for his or her fellow soldiers. You have to be able to count on the other guy too. That means not lowing standards until everyone qualifies.

 

[Riverwolf]

I say both sexes need to have equal rights in terms of how they serve.

HOWEVER, I am not against having individual single-sex units, considering sexual harassment these days.

In an ideal world, where WARRIORS fight wars rather than mere soldiers (and I don't mean the romanticized warriors from 300; I'm speaking of those who follow actual Warrior Codes from actual warrior cultures like Japan), then gender should not even be regarded on the battlefield; there are no men or women on the battlefield.

 

[Wookiemonster]

"War seeming more distanced? Do you not realize that the War currently being fought in Iraq is done by mostly my ground troops? We've actually become less distanced since the Gulf War, not more."

I think maybe "distanced" was the wrong word. But what I mean is, generally speaking and with regards to our technological advancements, modern wars don't seem to require as much physical "presence" as say to 500, 1,500, 2,000 years ago. It's no longer really a case of massing a huge army in the open and slowly pushing forwards with swords and shields, that's what I'm trying to say. Plus the second Gulf War was over a long time ago, it's now more of an occupation, rather than a war.

Although your mentioning of sexual harrasment raises more potential issues with a combined force. I don't know of the statistics, but I can imagine there are a lot of pregnancy and sexual harassment cases in say, a commbined US army in Iraq, for example.

That is exactly what the Marine and Army infrntary units have been doing in Iraq since we got there, except with kevlar (in the cases where they can get it and the plates aren't expired) and M16's.

Yes their are. Remember the saying "Out of the frying pan and into the fire"....

 

[darkendless]

Women are treated as sexual objects whether they're POW's or whether they live in Western Society. They should be allowed to fight if they want to, they're no weaker or less adept then men. Their inclusion may help control ego masturbation and hero moves that get soldiers killed.

 

[Oberon]

they're no weaker ...then [sic] men.

Only this isn't true. Women are in general physically less capable than men are. There are plenty of fit, strong women, and plenty of physically incapable men, but in general the above holds. Now, the military in general tends to require a high level of fitness, but nowhere more so than the various combat units. Typically, the physical standards are lowered for women during training and tests. This won't happen in combat, when lives are on the line.

 

[Storm]

Only this isn't true. Women are in general physically less capable than men are.

THIS isn't true. Women have different physical advantages than men, not less.

Typically, the physical standards are lowered for women during training and tests. This won't happen in combat, when lives are on the line.

I don't know if this is true or not, but I don't approve of it, and I'm not advocating it.

 

[Oberon]

THIS isn't true. Women have different physical advantages than men, not less.

They aren't as strong in general and are in general less physically capable in the ways important in combat. I'm not exactly sure what "different physical advantages" women have you are referring to.

 

[Wookiemonster]

THIS isn't true. Women have different physical advantages than men, not less.


I don't know if this is true or not, but I don't approve of it, and I'm not advocating it.

I think what Oberon was getting at is that in the case of activities required of frontline Military troops, women are generally less capable that men.

And yes it is true, the standards for women are less than those of men.

 

[Storm]

They aren't as strong in general and are in general less physically capable in the ways important in combat. I'm not exactly sure what "different physical advantages" women have you are referring to.

Higher endurance and stamina levels, for instance. As an illustration, I've heard that the Air Force encourages women to become fighter pilots, because we handle the G forces better.

In general, it's fair to say that men have more brute power. It is not fair to say that women are weaker. We have different forms of strength, that's all.