Women in combat.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41083172/ns/us_news-life/

I am a woman, but I think this is a bad idea. Women are very fragile and lack the strength to deal with most of what goes on in combat situations. I found this article quite interesting though.

What are your thoughts?

I think that if a woman can meet the requirements for combat, then she should be allowed to serve alongside men. Equality is good, sure, but we should not be risking unprepared lives.

If a woman want to serve, let her serve. The physically unfit to serve are weeded out well before entering the combat zone, so I say let women serve in combat if they so wish to.

There's also the question of...

How would the enemy react?

I mean, right now, we're fighting against guerrillas that don't take prisoners, so it doesn't apply, but...

If we were to go to war, how would woman POWs be treated?

And no, they're not going to follow Geneva. They never do.

Miluiel said:

I think that if a woman can meet the requirements for combat, then she should be allowed to serve alongside men. Equality is good, sure, but we should not be risking unprepared lives.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, women aren't given the same requirements as men so that's moot.

Is physical strength the only factor?

I mean, really? Most people don't even know when men are going to snap under the line of fire. Now, I'm not saying women are emotionally weaker, but they're a whole new set of personalities that the military has to study and consider.

Just hold everyone to the same physical and mental requirements. Sure, it may not be 'fair' but it's the best way to determine who's fit to serve without having anyone useless get through because they get special allowances due to their gender.

Personally I am a man however, I think it depends on the person. Combat is not 100% about who can over power who in terms of physical strength. It also takes a lot of planing and stragiy which women are very good at from what I can tell. It all comes down to a person to person choice and situation.

I can name 5 women that could probably, with the proper training, practically outclass the entire collection of men in combat.

Women are built less heavily and are less strong... on average. There are always people who will defy the mean, and those who are strong enough to withstand the tests of training should be allowed to enter combat.

donavannj said:

If a woman want to serve, let her serve. The physically unfit to serve are weeded out well before entering the combat zone, so I say let women serve in combat if they so wish to.

Click to expand...

They have lower standards for women in the military, so those that would be considered physically unfit as men get to serve anyway.

They should be aloud to serve if they so wish. Even if one is not physically capable of serving in an assault squad (or whatever you want to call 'em), she could serve as a sniper or in recon or what have you.

Eh why not. It's not a bad idea after all and if there was a war I'd want to join to the military. Also I'm not sure what you guys are thinking but I do believe most women are entered to the battlefield for medical, search and rescue missions, aids, ammo supplying, etc. Only few women are found physically fit as men like in WWII. The government shouldn't be sexist about this especially when defending a country. All should participate except those unwilling and ill-health ones.

If someone willingly agrees to put themselves in danger, knowing they could be injured or killed or tortured, then they're crazy why shouldn't they be allowed to?

You might say "Oh, but what if she has to carry back a wounded soldier? Could she do it with her statistically lower average strength?" but I might say "What if your soldier gets wounded - wouldn't you want someone who has a statistically higher tolerance for pain so they wouldn't pass out as quickly and who could still fight and/or defend themselves?" It's all hypothetical. Wars aren't won by arm wrestling matches (although that would cut down on the bloodshed) so the argument that women are physically weaker doesn't really hold up, especially since there are still plenty of women out there who are stronger than most men.

First of all I'll state the obvious: women ≠ men.

Legally we're both equal, and in the vast majority of cases, justly so. However, we cannot deny the fact that, on average, there is a difference physically. This is why we have separated Men's and Women's teams in the Olympics and other sports venues.

Now I'm not really supporting an all-female platoon, though I'm not really against it either. What I think would be best is to keep it as equal as possible. Many women may be physically weaker than the average man, though it can also be said that many women can be physically stronger than men. Perhaps she worked harder to get to that point than her male counterpart, but if the end result is the same, and if it meets any requirements given, she should be given the same chance. It's as simple as that.

The bigger problem, in my opinion, is that fact that some men may feel offended by the fact that a woman has exceeded them in any given area. Replacing that offence with admiration and inspiration is what is needed. And for that to have any possibility of happening, women need the same chances as men.

Oh boy, this is just asking for trouble.

The problem is, this is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. If they aren't allowed, then we're just being evil and sexist, if we do, then we'll catch hell how we aren't doing enough to protect the women once reports start coming about them getting raped/tortured/killed.

Not to mention it's MUCH easier for a woman to get an infection or have something go wrong than it is for a man. At least men don't have to take a break to use hygen stuff.

I think that if the ban is dropped, then the women should be able to choose a supportive role or a more combative role. I get what people are saying, and honestly I don't think most women could handle being out on the field fight in extreme combat. Their mentality in those types of situations wouldn't be controlled as well and I could see women coming home with shellshock worse than a man. The only problem with what I'm saying is that if they give that option to women, then it would only be fair to give it to men.

kidpunk said:

I think that if the ban is dropped, then the women should be able to choose a supportive role or a more combative role. I get what people are saying, and honestly I don't think most women could handle being out on the field fight in extreme combat. Their mentality in those types of situations wouldn't be controlled as well and I could see women coming home with shellshock worse than a man. The only problem with what I'm saying is that if they give that option to women, then it would only be fair to give it to men.

Click to expand...

Not to mention, men have an instinct to protect women. Men see a woman go down and crying/begging for help most guys would be irrational and try to save her even more than if another man was wounded that might be worse.

In the military, especially in combat, it's all about brotherhood. You throw a woman into the mix and it destroys that.

Now this is NOT women's fault, it's just the way we men are wired and we can't help it.

Granted, I would be fine with an all-female squad or whatever, but again, we'd get flack for that, to. We can't win.

We were having an argument about this over lunch after reading an article in the Marine Corps times, so I might as well put in my two cents. I apologize before hand if I offend someone.

Before they let females into the infantry, they better make the PFT/CFT(Physical fitness test/Combat Fitness Test) standards equal. Us Grunts have to hump with a minimum load (roughly 80 pounds for a Rifleman, more for a Weapons Marine, not taking into account extra gear used during deployments like radios), there is no double standard in the infantry world, and before females can be allowed to go 03, they should have to prove that they can go toe-to-toe with males in POG (Personnel other than Gunt, or non Infantry) jobs. The average female, cannot hump the necessary equipment that a grunt needs to, for as long as a grunt needs to. sure, this is a blanket statement on my part, but there are more women who CANT than those who CAN. Their bodies just arent built the same, its scientific fact. to argue that they are physiologically (SP?) equal is idiocy. then theres the need for hygiene that females have that males DONT. In Afghanistan, we could go months without a shower because the only water we had was the water we drank.

Also Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers. In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered. Similarly, Iraqi and Afghani civilians are often not intimidated by female soldiers. However, in such environments, having female soldiers serving within a combat unit does have the advantage of allowing for searches on female civilians, and in some cases the female areas of segregated mosques, while causing less offense amongst the occupied population.

Don't get me wrong, there are tons of men in the infantry that honestly can't hack it either.

Alakazam17 said:

First of all I'll state the obvious: women ≠ men.

Legally we're both equal, and in the vast majority of cases, justly so. However, we cannot deny the fact that, on average, there is a difference physically. This is why we have separated Men's and Women's teams in the Olympics and other sports venues.

Now I'm not really supporting an all-female platoon, though I'm not really against it either. What I think would be best is to keep it as equal as possible. Many women may be physically weaker than the average man, though it can also be said that many women can be physically stronger than men. Perhaps she worked harder to get to that point than her male counterpart, but if the end result is the same, and if it meets any requirements given, she should be given the same chance. It's as simple as that.

The bigger problem, in my opinion, is that fact that some men may feel offended by the fact that a woman has exceeded them in any given area. Replacing that offence with admiration and inspiration is what is needed. And for that to have any possibility of happening, women need the same chances as men.

Click to expand...

Legally speaking, women are superior to men. There are laws in place that enable women to sue men should they change their mind about getting married:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_promise

There was a case recently in the news where a woman had successfully sued a man for this very thing.

At the same time, it is impossible for a man to sue a woman should she change her mind. All such cases are thrown out.

Women are also exempt from military conscription should it ever be reinstated, yet they enjoy all of the benefits that men receive, but some might say that they receive even more when laws governing maternity leave are taken into account. There is no such thing as gender equality when it comes to law.