Women In Combat Arms Roles

[Guybrush]

Not sure if this falls into the politics category since...well...the military is a dictatorship. But since it's a little dicy and some people have very differing opinions, let's try to keep it respectful and clean.

 

This is specifically directed towards the current and veteran members of the armed forces (US or elsewhere), but I'm sure others will have something to say.

 

Basically the Pentagon (more specifically Sec of Defense Leon Panetta) has stated that the ban on women in combat roles will be removed, allowing women to serve in combat roles like infantry, tanker, combat engineer, etc.

 

I think this could potentially have dramatic changes to the way we train up soldiers. I had a slew of classes to take before I hit the trail after DADT was repealed, simply because of well...actually I don't need to elaborate on that.

 

There's a couple different ways this could go. Either standards of physical fitness will be lowered in order to combat attrition (and allow more women to meet the requirements set), That or they could continue to remain the same regardless of sex.

 

Personally I am always of the opinion that the standards set by the Army (set forth by TRADOC, a beauracratic gaggle of idiots charged with creating policy on training, all due respect) are already lacking and in need of improvement. Combat roles need to have rigorous forms of training, and there should be no gender-oriented standard. They shouldn't be weakened simply because women are allowed to fill the ranks.

 

Thoughts? Pros, cons?

Edited January 24, 2013 by flashadvocate

[DorkNRok]

IMO standards are standards regardless of sex...however as a realist I am almost positive that for some of the main cobat career fields (infantry, artillery) the standards will be molded based on sex (just like current PT standards are). If or when (last I read is services may exempt certain career fields from this integration ie. Spec Ops) is integrated, I believe the standards will be across the board. In positions like that, where skill sets are a little more refined, the completion of the mission is what matters, not the sex of a person. Just my conclusions based on my experience.

[Guybrush]

IMO standards are standards regardless of sex...however as a realist I am almost positive that for some of the main cobat career fields (infantry, artillery) the standards will be molded based on sex (just like current PT standards are). If or when (last I read is services may exempt certain career fields from this integration ie. Spec Ops) is integrated, I believe the standards will be across the board. In positions like that, where skill sets are a little more refined, the completion of the mission is what matters, not the sex of a person. Just my conclusions based on my experience.

 

I haven't found any official documentation, memorandum or other, saying whether or not this is true, although im sure there will be some stipulation, there are direct references to the ban when it relates to special operations units (like SEAL, SF, etc). In other words, from what ive read, these too will be gender neutral.

 

Edit: heres a bbc news article. Supposedly will be 2016 before any definite decisions are made. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21172033

Edited January 24, 2013 by flashadvocate

[DorkNRok]

I read it on a USA Today article from my phone...I'll try and post a link if I can dig it up

[Steak]

Unit cohesion and male bonding in my opinion are critical factors that would be jeopordized if females actually ended up in the field along side of men. Not to mention the female "self maintenance" issues that would make them a liability. Amazing.

[Bogleg]

I don't have any problem with it as long as they can meet the same standards as the men in those roles. And if they DO have separate physical fitness requirements, let's not forget that the 40 year old infantry soldier does not have to meet the same physical fitness requirements as a 20 year old infantry soldier - something else I also consider wrong.

[Astronomer]

I did my Master's thesis on this 23-odd years ago when Canada began to integrate our services. Biggest impact: We found that we had capable female service members <gasps from the audience>

[Astronomer]

Unit cohesion and male bonding in my opinion are critical factors that would be jeopordized if females actually ended up in the field along side of men. Not to mention the female "self maintenance" issues that would make them a liability. Amazing.

 

Strong disagree here. "Male bonding" is really "unit member bonding". Under fire, gender means squat.

[eidolonFIRE]

IMO the women should have separate standards of fitness so the Men can stay their best... however, that would never happen... Women with different standards then men?! Isn't that the idea that everybody is in a tizzy about? Politics... I hate political correctness.

[Guybrush]

Under fire, gender means squat.

 

Good point.

[ENG4INE]

Let them fight. I can respect and work with anyone that is willing to fight beside me. If your shot your not dead, If your dead you don't know it, so battle on. We all bleed the same.

 

I work every night on the streets as a LEO with a female. She's no coward. She will fight the biggest man. She can shoot with the best. She can take your shit. She can give you shit. She is one of the guys. I know she has got my back and will do her damn best to get me home to my wife and child. I Can't ask for more than that. Not to mention I have had my fair share of male partners that are as worthless as tits on a boar hog.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Sheepdog45

[Twinkie 13]

I'm not in the military so please don't be too harsh on me but In my opinion as long as the person next to me has the ability to drag my wounded ass out of trouble then no problem. I would have a problem with someone next to me that could not do this. Regardless of sex. On the other hand as a man would you not want to be more aggressive in a situation where a female soldier was taken prisoner and the possibility of some really negative things that could be done to them as torture. I know that is a extreme example but one that is sure to come up at times. I would just feel so terrible if a female soldier friend had to endure such cruelty and I couldn't prevent it.

[Labob]

Well if there willing to take a bullet for me I don't care what they look like.

[Pharticus]

I guess I'm more traditional than most. I don't think women should be in combat. There is a huge difference in men and women that political correctness demands we ignore. I'm generalizing, so there will always be exceptions to the rule. By nature women are nurturers, which makes combat tougher for them. They also have weaker upper body strength, so if we are applying the same physical requirements across the board less women will make it (you see this in law enforcement, few women can do the push-ups). I think war is a man's "game", we are physically, mentally and emotionally better suited for it. Having women in combat also puts the men in their unit more at risk because we inherently want to protect our women. We have a deep seeded need to be the knight in shining armor.

 

I'm not saying there aren't women capable of combat and performing well. Just that men are better suited for it.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Pharticus

[hxtr]

there is no doubt their are women capable of doing the job.

 

BUT!!!!

 

if ever a day came when they started drafting women for combat roles and they tried to draft my daughter.... I will die making sure that never happens.

 

Let women volunteer all they want. Shit make the entire company or command full of women so they can prove what all they are capable of. I just have a hard time sending women in harms way.. and not even going to consider my daughter forced in that role.

 

So even if they let them fight as many women want to... the standards will still be different. If they dont draft women then their will always be a double standard.

[Robdiego]

is it a massphenomenon,because of a surplus of women within nations or an ongoing process of emancipation, which encourage women to be "just like men"

i mean in the perspective of free choice to be and to get what u want it is okay

 

but under the perspective of the most functional, effectiv army i say no. (a no to combat and frontlines)

on one hand, some said it already, the body differs a lot. ( its not a macho bad talk, it is a physical truth)

 

and than, particular examples. prisoner of war with tortue and brutal interrogation methods. i barely think that woman could take that as long as man

and when they do, then it seems that the woman lost the very femin type of emotions. (seriously i dont want a woman who is that could)

 

another, one well buried example are cases of rape within the army. sad but true.

 

 

 

so, is it just a freedom of choice or a lack of enlisting?

[hxtr]

is it a massphenomenon,because of a surplus of women within nations or an ongoing process of emancipation, which encourage women to be "just like men"

i mean in the perspective of free choice to be and to get what u want it is okay

 

but under the perspective of the most functional, effectiv army i say no. (a no to combat and frontlines)

on one hand, some said it already, the body differs a lot. ( its not a macho bad talk, it is a physical truth)

 

and than, particular examples. prisoner of war with tortue and brutal interrogation methods. i barely think that woman could take that as long as man

and when they do, then it seems that the woman lost the very femin type of emotions. (seriously i dont want a woman who is that could)

 

another, one well buried example are cases of rape within the army. sad but true.

 

 

 

so, is it just a freedom of choice or a lack of enlisting?

2 points....

 

if there is a suplus of women... i can handle 1 for every day of the week so I will take 7.

 

As for the torture comment.... i seen some pussies take a serious pounding and they can shit a watermelon then take care of that watermelon with love and care for 18 years. Now who can handle more torture and pain. Men or Women?

 

Increase the surplus of women.... kill more men.

[ROCKAPE]

[HarryWeezer]

If they can swear as well as the men and don't mind pissing beside them, and, if they can sling a wounded 200-pound guy over their shoulder and get him out of harm's way, all well and good.

[Guybrush]

Good points / discussion. Thanks for the input

[Guybrush]

I'm not in the military so please don't be too harsh on me but In my opinion as long as the person next to me has the ability to drag my wounded ass out of trouble then no problem. I would have a problem with someone next to me that could not do this. Regardless of sex. On the other hand as a man would you not want to be more aggressive in a situation where a female soldier was taken prisoner and the possibility of some really negative things that could be done to them as torture. I know that is a extreme example but one that is sure to come up at times. I would just feel so terrible if a female soldier friend had to endure such cruelty and I couldn't prevent it.

 

I would hope that you feel this way regardless of sex. POW situations are an unfortunate fact in the wars we are involved in, and especially with the kinds of enemies we face. Anyone interested in joining the military should be cognizant of the inherent risks taken overseas, especially in parts of the world where Americans (or more specifically NATO forces) are seen in such negative ways.

Edited January 24, 2013 by flashadvocate

[PingLo]

This is just bad, I've talked with several forward engaged females and unless you've been there you can't really imagine what it's like.

[Guybrush]

This is just bad, I've talked with several forward engaged females and unless you've been there you can't really imagine what it's like.

 

Can you be more specific?

[PingLo]

This is just bad, I've talked with several forward engaged females and unless you've been there you can't really imagine what it's like.

 

Can you be more specific?

 

Sure thing, just give me your perspective, are you military, have you been engaged in the front lines?

[Guybrush]

This is just bad, I've talked with several forward engaged females and unless you've been there you can't really imagine what it's like.

 

Can you be more specific?

 

Sure thing, just give me your perspective, are you military, have you been engaged in the front lines?

 

I am a drill sergeant in the Army (since 2010) enlisted in 2005. I have been fortunate not to have been deployed yet, but given that it's my job to prepare soldiers for life overseas in combat environments as well as garrison life, an understanding of our current mission as well as its objectives is imperative. What i will say is that there is no "front line". As far as the army goes, you may train to perform a certain job, but there's no guarantee you will be doing that job overseas. Where you go and who you go with will depend largely on the mission your unit is tasked to accomplish.