Should women be allowed in the military?

I'm of the opinion that they should not only be allowed in the military, but should be allowed to take combat roles. However, they need to be able to meet the exact same requirements that the men have to accomplish. Whither a woman or man, I don't want an inferior Infantry [wo]man(for example) out their fighting on the front lines

One of the stories my dad has told me is when he was in jump school, there was a women's jump school right next to his and the women there did less physical training than the guys did(i.e. doing "Girl push ups" instead of normal ones, running fewer miles each day). Things may have changed since then though.

Don't think they should be allowed in combat, not until they can get rid of a few physical setbacks.

They want to vote like men, they can fight like men.

I think if women can keep up with the men (IE same training) then there isn't a problem but,

by that same note if they can't keep up with the 'man' performance level being a woman can't be used has an excuse to git to the front lines

Yes, they should be allowed in the military, but not in combat roles, I can almost garuntee the majority of them would flee from combat..

Questionable grammar, but still expresses my opinion.

I think women should be allowed in combat roles if they can hack it with the guys in terms of infantry or even more advanced special forces stuff. There shouldn't be a lower standard for those women though.. I think they can handle positions like combat pilots, planes or helocoptors, and such with out any trouble.

I know there would be issues with men and women serving in hte same unit and stuff, but police and fire firefighters have gender integrated units and the women seem to do fine there.

Besides, everyone was equal in Amiens and Starship Troopers, so it's all good :p

...is everyone forgetting that women won't be able to stop fighting once a month in a real war? Do you not realize we can't just pull them off the front lines for three days because of their natural cycles? I really hope Maevie jumps in, I do believe we've had a discussion on this. What if the women were deployed to a wetland battlefield? Do you realize the health risks for a woman to be waist-deep in a swamp for a few days?

And yeah, women perform just wonderful as firefighters. Oh yeah. I'd rather be burn to death than to be dragged feet-first down a stairwell and left with brain injuries because a woman can't carry me.

I think they should be in the military if they want, but definently not in combat. For this reason...

Contrary to popular "What you can do, I can do" argument, the majority of women can't do combat do to physical and psychological reasons. Physically: Men are stronger and more durable. There are exceptional "manly" women of course. If they can do the same training, then by all means knock yourself out. Psychologically: men can kill easier. Its that simple. Men have a better capacity for violence than women. Serial killers are notoriously men. There are exceptions but that's just a good theory right there.

Then there's the issue of women as POWs, captured by the enemy. They're in for one hell of a rough time.

The Army realized that women will rationalize things much more quickly than men in combat. They will see the enemy as a threat to someone they care about (their fellow soldiers) and will do anything to protect them. Men tend to go into a pseudo-philosophical dilemma about why they should kill, and if it's the right thing to do.

Sure

Yes, but not in combat roles.

Women ask for it themselves. They want to fight in combat. It's the logical next step in the feminist movement.

Oh wait.. I forgot.. women want the benefits of social equality but none of the responsibility.. silly me. I'm telling you, if the draft gets reinstated, the first young man to get drafted is going to sue for discrimination and he's going to win. There's no reason in today's age that women aren't as capable soldiers as men, and if you think differently, you're a sexist.

Also, I'd like to add that I voted for none of the choices because they're worded wrong. Every single one of the choices says "women should be allowed..."

Not only should they be allowed, they should be forced like the rest of us.

It depends on if they want to go there.

To touch on what Freelancer said, I find the draft to be horrible. Not only is it manditory for men to sign up for the lottery before they gain their rights as a citizen, women are given their rights anyway, and a choice to sign up for the lottery. The problem is, I don't believe women should do anything outside of logistics and medicine, and those roles don't need the draft.

Okay, if we can't sway you toward the infantry option, surely you must believe women are capable fighter pilots? Russia used women fighter pilots in WW2 and some even aced out. You only mentioned medicine and logistics, so I just want to make sure. You gave arguments as to why women aren't capable infantry (though some might disagree), but what could possibly be wrong with a woman fighter pilot? Or a tank pilot? You get my drift. No fellow soldiers to carry if they get wounded, no swamps to wade through, and the nature of the missions will put them comfortably behind the front lines 99% of the time.

Seeing how their brain is not developed for spatial understanding (the room is used for linguistics instead), and their eye-sight is worse during the day (can't see as far, though their peripheral vision tends to be at a higher degree), I tend to dislike the idea of women pilots (more so with rotary-wing aircraft). Not only that, but women pilots put PJ's in high-risk, high-stress rescue situations when downed because of the fact that they are alone, armed with only a 9mm, and the USAF isn't prepared to let the U.S. public know what may be happening to a lone female P.O.W.

And female tank drivers? Sure, if they can manage to do the work of their male counterparts when it comes to field repairs and maintenance, go ahead, but what about if the tank is damaged, and she survives (as the driver compartment is separate from the commander, loader, and gunner) and say only one of the other crew members survives, but is horribly wounded? Can she get them out of the tank and drag them to safety?

Didn't Russia use women as snipers in WWII?

Women soldiers won't rape civilians as easily, I'd wager

want...to...swear....so...much....

ok, I am certainly a feminist (anyone who thinks that feminism is redundant in today's society needs to spend some time being female), and what you said there is utter crap. sure, I'm all for complete equality between the sexes, but in case you hadn't noticed, we're built slightly differently.

For Roach's points - it's not necessary to take three days off a month, otherwise how would any woman make a living?! but you are right that menstuating would add extra things to worry about, though I don't see it as any reason to stop women fighting.
Being more susceptible to infection is a very valid point though, there is no point having someone fight for you if they're going to be incapacitated almost instantly by the environment.
And let's face it, women have less upper body strength. Sure, many women, with training, can make it to a point where they can keep up, but you can't just throw every woman in the country into war when frankly, most of the girls I've ever been in contact with have never been in a situation more violent than a b****fight.
And yes, we tend to have somewhat inferior spacial relations. Plus most girls don't spend hours honing their hand-eye coordination on computers! :p

Ok, having said all that, I don't see any reason really to stop women fighting if they are truly willing and able. If you can prove yourself to be able to keep up with all your peers, then why not? The only issue that I can see that can't be sorted out with training is susceptibility to infection, but just because women are more likely to get certain things, doesn't mean that we're the only ones who will, there should already be vaccinations/treatments for most dangers.

As for the POW issue...well there's absolutely nothing that can be done there, and what's to say males don't go through the same horrors? *shrug*

Personally, I have absolutely no desire to ever, ever do anything that threatens the lives of innocent people.

Maev--hate to burst your bubble, but in America, feminism is just another way of saying "We're better than and/or want to be better than men." Don't know about britain.

And I'm starting to realize, maybe women wouldn't make the best soldiers.

Then whatever 'feminists' you've come into contact with don't know the meaning of the word. Trust me, the organisations that I've known want equality as far as possible.

That rigth there is the hypocricy Freelancer was talking about that seems to be inherent to feminism. You said it yourself, you're built slightly differently, so therefore we are different.

Now, I'm not saying that in a bad way. Women are no way inferior to men all in all, but there are things that women simply cannot do as well as men. The opposite is true as well. There are some things men cannot do as well as women. (boy are there ever!). As good as one another? Yes. Completely equal? In no way.


As for my opinion on women in the military, I'm not so sure. I definitely believe that women should be in the military, it's their role in combat situations that I'm undecided on. I do think that women should be allowed to (if not forced to?) have roles as pilots/engineers/medics/etc. I'm not so sure about infantry positions though. While I would like to see it just for the sake of putting the annoying, hypocritical feminists (only those annoying ones mind you, not all of them) in their place, I do wonder about their capabilities and reaction to combat.

On the other hand, men who are naturally docile and non-violent are forced to sign up for the draft, so it's a bit unfair if women are exempt because for those same reasons. I'm a reclusive/non-violent male myself and I will be forced to sign up for the lottery. That's really not fair ("Your life is hard I see, but mine is happening to me!" :p )



Ok, to recap, I think women should be allowed into the military, and should be included in the draft. But what they should be doing once they're in the military I'm unsure about.

I completely agree SMOCK!, I guess I just didn't word myself properly. Women and men obviously have inherent differences, but they can be used to an advantage, we can complement eachother. Equality as I see it is not about making everyone the same, it's about giving everyone an equal chance to prove themselves. If men are better in a certain field, there's no reason they shouldn't dominate it, and vice versa. The problem with society thus far is that women haven't had a chance to prove themselves. Of course, this has changed dramatically in recent years, to the point where we are getting reverse discrimination (and not just with gender) because companies/institutions want to look like equal opportunities recruiters as much as possible. The balance will take time to be found, but I don't see any reason why we can't one day come to a point when each different type of person is able to do whatever they're most capable of. (apart from all the bigotry, of course! :p)

Women are allowed in the Swedish military, even in combat roles, so why not?

I just happened to be rereading GPF and got to this comic, makes a reasonably relevant point!!

If a woman can meet the same physical requirements as a man to enter the infantry, why would she necessarily be incapable of hauling a fellow soldier out of burning tank wreckage?

I don't think women should be forced to register for the draft. Whereas most men have the potential to reach the physical requirements, not all women are able to match the standards of men. It would be more of a hinderance to the military than help.

That said, women should be allowed to apply for combat positions. If they can meet the same standards as men, give 'em a gun and a uniform. If not, eject them from training, same as you would do with a guy who couldn't make it (e.g., Private Pyle).

Alright, I'll just ignore the fact that menstruation may cause problems for now. But, your idea that most women could keep up with training seems a generous. Let's see, the average combat infantry soldier carries anywhere from 40-120lbs into the field. That's practically the weight of a well-trained woman. What do you suppose would happen if a woman were to complain? I'm assuming one of two things. Either the men will make hostile comments about her being so inferior, or chivalry will take over and some men will pick up her slack. We can't afford to let the men do this, it's not logical and it will cause problems for them. So how would we prevent that? Threaten them with punishment? That may change the overall attitude towards women in the military period, if punishment is associated with aiding them.

Simbachu, could it be because Sweden's military is primarily a defensive force?

Why do people keep bringing up women in the Soviet Military of WWII? In case you didn't notice, Russia suffered more casualties than Germany and Japan, that's not exactly something to brag about. Next you'll try to argue that 13 year old boys should be strapped into our fighter aircraft, because the Germans did it in WWII...

I love GPF, haven't read in a while to give myself a chance to have a nice, long read. Helps me relax sometimes.

I'm a few weeks out of date though.



Wolfy: THAT NAME SOUNDS LIKE ROYALTY ARE YOU ROYALTY!?

Whoever voted 'No, women should not be allowed in the military', you suck :p

<3 freelancer.

Damn right.

Yeah but in the past 200 years the Swedish military has seen about as much action as the Antarctic Fire Brigade.

Someone else posted something in the last one of these threads. Essentially it was a captain/major/whatever in the US army saying that he didn't want women in combat roles in his unit, because a couple of hundred men and a couple of women in the middle of nowhere for months on end was bound to cause problems and he wanted his soldiers thinking with their heads when they were shooting people, not with their ****s.

Saying the Russians had women serve successfully in WW2 means nothing considering everything else they got up to, ie "blocker units" whose job it was to shoot anyone who tried to do a runner. Was trying to find a reference to that on the net, and found the documentary I actually heard about it in.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6304547188/104-5382254-2891154?v=glance
It's an amazing documentary, although pretty harsh viewing most of the time.

I agree. You can't just say that a woman wouldn't be able to do the physical things that a man could do. If they can meet the same standards then they obviously could. There are some women out there who could kick your *** in a fight and in brute strength.

I heard of women undergoing the same physical training as men, and that the female cadets dropped out. they simply couldn't take it.

Besides, what if your unit gets ambushed. You and a female soldierr are the only two survivors, and oyu're trapped in a burning tank and the woman can't haul you out. You're in real deep s***, aren't you?

I don't think some women should be allowed into the military. On that same note, quite a few men are dead weight as well.

Consider the high school nerd that gets drafted... he's got allergies to everything in the war-zone, he hasn't had a day of training due to immediate need for soldiers, and he doesn't have a clue how to hold a gun.

I see this as no different from a weak woman.

The solvancy? More physical education REQUIREMENTS nationwide. You fail out of Gym class in highschool, (Or fail to pass some test or standard, perhaps theres 2 levels of passing; the class, and the physical requirements. The physical requirements wouldn't effect grade, but simply effect the following) male or female, you're not on the lottery list, and don't have some of the benifits of signing up. You do pass gym class, male or female, and you're on the lottery, and also recieve the benifits of being physically fit.

Another program could also be created, as sort of a 'home nursery' program, where a category of the military stays home, protecting our borders, raising our children, and supporting troops wherever they may be. You could be called into active duity to house a daycare in your home to take care of the children who need taking care of, or have lost a parent while the other goes to work. This would be the seperation line for the non-physical people, and the physical people. The military-type, and the parental type.

Of course, men and women aren't equal, less women would be in the military group, and more in the home regime. More men in the military, less in the home regime. That's just the truth, but at least now it will be a better categorization than 'male and female.' There are FAR more body types, and emotional types than just male and female.

JediKirby

Wouldn't happen. Both the Army and the Corps have very strict standards of marksman capabilities. If you don't know how to use your weapon, you're washed out. Not to mention, the day the military doesn't train soldiers due to the immediate need for them is the day the world ends in a nuclear blaze.

And what you just described sounds a lot like the National Guard.

Women should be allowed any role that men are allowed provided they can match the physical requirements and their unchangable differences (such as being more prone to infection in wetland) won't cause in problems in said role, and vice-versa.

So, women should be allowed combat roles in a desert conflict (assuming there aren't problems I haven't forseen and there aren't any spontaneous wetlands) provided they meet the physical and psychological standards required. For anyone who lacks comprehension, physical requirements would include the ability to move other members of your unit out of harms way.

Whether women would actually choose to enter a combat role if they are limited in the type of terrain they're allowed to fight in is another matter, I suspect most wouldn't.

On another note, the idea of a draft is something that should be scrapped (in my opinion).

Another point, directly mostly towards Maevie, though I encourage other female members to give input. The women that would be able to keep up with the men are in excellent physical condition and aggressive, correct? They'd have to be to make it through, right? So, they have higher-than-normal testosterone levels, and a mindset to get what they want. What happens when they have sexual urges? Don't say they won't, don't try to pretend that women are innocent, you desire sex as much as men. And these women would desire it more than the average woman. And they'd be more than capable of getting it, and without much hassle. The Navy already has the problem of female sailors taking medical leave after getting pregnant while away from port. Can the military afford to pay their soldiers to run around having sex with each other? Front line soldiers have the least amount of direct command over them. They have the ability to go AWOL for enough time to fool around before anyone would notice. Can we afford such distractions? Can we trust that all soldiers will be more worried about their objectives than wondering when their next quicky will be?