Should Women be allowed to see frontline service?

[Storm]

They why didn't you say that instead of repeating the same thing over and over? If someone doesn't understand the first time making it bigger is not going to help.

I don't appreciate being browbeaten with strawmen. I said quite clearly, several times that I did not support such practices, and that they were irrelevant to my argument.

 

[Panda]

I don't appreciate being browbeaten with strawmen. I said quite clearly, several times that I did not support such practices, and that they were irrelevant to my argument.

I disagree that they are irrelevant. It is clearly support against your position if standards have been lowered to allow woman into the military then that is indirect proof that woman are not as physically capable as men.

 

[Storm]

I disagree that they are irrelevant. It is clearly support against your position if standards have been lowered to allow woman into the military then that is indirect proof that woman are not as physically capable as men.

No, it isn't. It's proof that the military is misguided in regards to women.

 

[Panda]

No, it isn't. It's proof that the military is misguided in regards to women.

Or it could be that they found it was needed to lower the levels to allow woman into the military. Either way some research needs to be done to find out the reasons.

 

[Oberon]

No, it isn't. It's proof that the military is misguided in regards to women.

The problem is that without the lowered standards too few women could qualify. What does that tell you about your endurance theory?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem is that without the lowered standards too few women could qualify. What does that tell you about your endurance theory?

If the women in their jobs are doing those jobs well, then maybe it says that the standards were inappropriate.

I can understand how requirements for physical strength apply to some combat roles, but even when we're talking about soldiers in combat roles, not everybody is going to be engaging in hand-to-hand combat with a bayonet and a knife. Do the armed forces demand that, say, a tank driver or artillery crew member meet the same standards for physical strength as a SEAL?

Just curious, since I don't really have any idea what the stanards that we're talking about are.

 

[Oberon]

If the women in their jobs are doing those jobs well, then maybe it says that the standards were inappropriate.

I can understand how requirements for physical strength apply to some combat roles, but even when we're talking about soldiers in combat roles, not everybody is going to be engaging in hand-to-hand combat with a bayonet and a knife. Do the armed forces demand that, say, a tank driver or artillery crew member meet the same standards for physical strength as a SEAL?

Just curious, since I don't really have any idea what the stanards that we're talking about are.

Of course standards should and do differ. And although I'm not exactly sure how I feel about women on the front lines, I'm definitely not completely opposed to the idea.

I don't know exactly what a tank driver or any number of jobs would or could entail physically. I do know about the guys on the ground in combat, and the loads they carry, and the physical demands of that type of job. It requires a lot.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As far as general physical capabilities go, the average man is stronger, faster, and has more stamina than the average women. This is simply a result of men being larger, having considerably more muscle mass, more lung capacity, larger hearts, and less body fat.

That being said, if any particular job has specific minimum criteria in order to be able to physically perform it, then anybody who does not meet the criteria should not get that job, male or female - and anybody who does, should.

I've also heard of some districts where the physical standards test for firefighters is more lax for women than for men. I understand the social reasons why this is the case, but when it comes to jobs where peoples' lives are on the line, I think capability should trump political correctness.

However, physical standards are not a reason to block all women from any job. Only inability to meet those physical standards - male or female - should matter.

 

[Oberon]

That being said, if any particular job has specific minimum criteria in order to be able to physically perform it, then anybody who does not meet the criteria should not get that job, male or female - and anybody who does, should.

I think I agree with you. However, in my experience there have been a few problems with this approach. For example, I would be suprised if there were any women who could meet the standards required form most of the special operational forces (Special Forces, SFOD-D, Force Recon, Rangers, etc). Even if there were one or two, I am skeptical of the whole "G. I. Jane" scenerio working out, where one or two female SOF soldiers are intergrated into an overwhelmingly male population. That could be VERY problematic, and my understanding is that there were some attempts within SOCOM to integrate women that were unsucceful, mainly because of the physical requirements but there were plenty of other issues as well (this is personal communication and I cannot verify its accuracy, and I suspect that it is probably not public anyway). I certainly think that if it is possible for women to join combat ground forces without lowering the physical standards required than attempts to be made to see if this will work, and if it doesn't, why not (for example, sexism by fellow soldiers is not an adequate reason for cancelling such a program).

 

[DallasApple]

Nothing handy, but a quick google turned this up:

The information presented in the previous two paragraphs leads to the prediction that women might compete against men most successfully in events lasting several hours, where overheating and glycogen depletion are particularly common. The limited data we have so far provide preliminary support for this idea. It has been shown that women can sometimes finish ultramarathons in times similar to those of men who can beat them in "short" (26.2-mile) marathons (Bam et al., Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 29: 244-7, 1997). And when men and women with equivalent marathon times are pitted against each other in ultras, the women tend to win (Speechly et al., Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 28: 359-65, 1996).
​

How many times do I have to say I don't approve of this?

That sounds about right to me.

Love

Dallas

 

[Duck]

I see. Well regardless of the "traits" of both sexes, do you think that combining the two together for frontline service would be good/bad?

I think the reason I've started this thread and chosen this topic is because in regards to it, I tend to rely on my own personal opinion - which isn't the best thing to do since it's subjective of course, so I think that by asking other people I can try to identify the "right answer" for it, rather than just laying it on my own opinion - if that makes sense ><

I agree that women should be allowed frontline service if they wish.

That said, having attended a "co-ed" or "integrated" boot camp during the early days of allowing more combat oriented roles for women (specifically in the US Navy) I have some anectodatal experience that leaves me...pensive...about the manner in which the "equality" was achieved.

I recognize that today's armed forces are NOT quite as physically intensive as the 'good ole days' of sword and shield fighting, so perhaps the following story has no real bearing. I further would like to state that I do recognize the physiologic differences between the sexes, particularly in terms of muscle mass, skeletal structure, etc, that leads to some of these regulations. My primary issue was with the implementation.

So, on to the anecdotal experience: Attending boot-camp in one of the first (the 12th actually) integrated companies, we did our morning physical fitness training as a unit (all training was integrated, the integrated companies were paired and the males of one company and the females of the other swapped barracks rooms for sleeping arrangements) with a recorded cadence for the exercises. So as we do the pushups the sequence goes like this: (recording) "Down...Up....Down...Up...(repeat a number of times increasing as bootcamp drags on)...Ok Ladies, stop....Gentlemen...Down...Up....Down...Up...(several more repetitions, you get the point)".

Deep down in my heart of hearts, I found it difficult to reconcile the "equality" between the sexes in light of this kind of treatment. No matter how hard I try, I have yet to fully accept that someone that is only required to do 12 repetitions of an exercise is equally as fit as someone that is required to do 20 of that same exercise.

I am not sure what the resolution of this dichotomy would have to be, but there you go, my one personal hang up with women serving on the front lines is mostly a perception of unequal training.

 

[Oberon]

I recognize that today's armed forces are NOT quite as physically intensive as the 'good ole days' of sword and shield fighting, so perhaps the following story has no real bearing.

This I have to take exception with. I would guarentee that SOF groups are more physically fit than the vikings in so many ways, as are (i'm sure) many infantry guys. I know a little bit about ancient warefare, and I make chain mail as a hobby. I doubt the loads carried by modern infantry grunts are less than the armor of the old warriors. Moreover, there is a lot more running around with these full combat loads. Old battles tended to take place in one location, and they just went at it four a while. Modern battles, you could be in the combat fields for hours, or days, or weeks, all depending on the operation.

 

[Caladan]

Most men couldn't, either.

Actually combat soldiers are required to do more. however, I dont know if this may still be a good enough reason to deny fit and capable women entrance to a wider range of combat units with a program which readies the military for it.

In the first gulf war a team of British SAS were dropped behind enemy lines with 210 lbs strapped to their backs, they were to patrol for scud launching sites.

during my service, at one time, we were ambushed and a guy next to me took a bullet and we had to carry him to safety under fire.

Now, I dont have all the answers, I cant say that these examples are physically too much for women to handle, because I honestly dont know if the entire fighting force needs to be in the 'savage' physical shape to deal with such conditions.
What I mean is, women can be fit, but do they need to wage brute force in order to complete the fighting force?
Usually the first criteria I think of that are needed of a good combat soldier, is someone who is normal, not a superman, doesnt stress under harsh conditions, and is level headed. sure, fitness is a must, the question just how much brute force are we looking for.
as I mentioned earlier, about a year ago or more, a woman was accepted into an elite combat unit in Israel which specializes in search and rescue missions behind enemy lines, I wish I had enough information about this to shed more light.

 

[Buttons*]

If women want to, they should be allowed to do so. But I think if we want true equality, we should not descriminate between women and men when passing out service.

 

[DallasApple]

Actually combat soldiers are required to do more. however, I dont know if this may still be a good enough reason to deny fit and capable women entrance to a wider range of combat units with a program which readies the military for it.

In the first gulf war a team of British SAS were dropped behind enemy lines with 210 lbs strapped to their backs, they were to patrol for scud launching sites.

during my service, at one time, we were ambushed and a guy next to me took a bullet and we had to carry him to safety under fire.

Now, I dont have all the answers, I cant say that these examples are physically too much for women to handle, because I honestly dont know if the entire fighting force needs to be in the 'savage' physical shape to deal with such conditions.
What I mean is, women can be fit, but do they need to wage brute force in order to complete the fighting force?
Usually the first criteria I think of that are needed of a good combat soldier, is someone who is normal, not a superman, doesnt stress under harsh conditions, and is level headed. sure, fitness is a must, the question just how much brute force are we looking for.
as I mentioned earlier, about a year ago or more, a woman was accepted into an elite combat unit in Israel which specializes in search and rescue missions behind enemy lines, I wish I had enough information about this to shed more light.

Thats true..you can have the right amount of brute force but be as crazy as a loon under pressure and get a bunch of people killed despite your physical strength.

Its a balance.

Love

Dallas

 

[Boiled Brain]

Have you ever seen a female boxing? Now emagine hand-to-hand combat where women are fighting against men. It would look funny. Well, no! It would be terrible. Women are weaker than men. Could weaker soldiers win on a battle field? No. Women are not fearless and courageous (in general) because of differences in hormonal physiology. It's also not a good reason to be on edge of an attack.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I voted "other" because i.m.o. whatever is the most effective allocation of human resources should be done. People who have expertise in this area should make these decisions based on facts and experience, not prejudice or political correctness, about what makes the most combat effective front line unit given available resources.

 

[Storm]

Have you ever seen a female boxing? Now emagine hand-to-hand combat where women are fighting against men. It would look funny. Well, no! It would be terrible. Women are weaker than men. Could weaker soldiers win on a battle field? No. Women are not fearless and courageous (in general) because of differences in hormonal physiology. It's also not a good reason to be on edge of an attack.

Sexist bull****.

 

[Aquitaine]

Sexist bull****.

Meh......

Atleast he was the first (and only) one who voted "We should only have all-Male" instead of the usual Yes/No/Other which seem to be the only ones voted in.

LOL it makes the Poll results look more diverse

 

[Boiled Brain]

Sexist bull****.

Great! You didn't know that women are weaker (in general) than men and have different hormonal profile?
Feminist bull****.