sum1

Women as combat soldiers. Basic equality principles say the option should be open to women. Similarly, equality principles say that the obligation to be combat soldiers shouldn't rest on one gender only, so if men are drafted to be combat soldiers then women should be too (note: I'm not in favor of anybody of any gender being drafted into combat). There are lots of arguments made against women being combat soldiers. One classic type of argument is that women lack ability in some particular area (such as strength) or have brain functioning that is different and less effective in stress situations (I've heard claims that women have less ability to remain calm and react fast in stress situations, due to different biological functioning of the brain). My answer to that type of argument is find an appropriate minimum level of ability for your combat soldiers in those areas and then test prospective combat soldiers to see if they measure up in those areas. Those that pass (of either gender) are in, those that fail are out. If some women don't qualify then obviously they shouldn't be allowed in, but it makes no sense to keep out women who are good enough in those areas (and it doesn't make any sense to let in men who don't qualify either). No matter how many biological differences (or other supposed differences) that people can point to between men and women, you can generally find women who are better than the male average in whatever ability men are supposed to be better at and you can generally find men who are better than the female average in whatever ability women are supposed to be better at. The military should be taking in account the ability of the individual, not the supposed ability of a gender.

One problem that can come up with this sort of thing is when standards are lowered to let women in or exceptions are made for them. The classic example that jumps to mind is with firefighters. They have to be strong enough to carry people out of burning buildings but you can have situations where women are allowed into the job who can't do that. Nobody, male or female, who can't carry a person out of a burning building should be allowed into a job where they might need to do that. People's lives depend on this. Those who aren't strong enough (of either gender) shouldn't be allowed in. No exceptions, no lowering the standards. Only allow in people who are qualified. Apply the exact same standards for both genders. Equality isn't about having equal numbers of people of both genders in the job or having some specific minimum amount of people of a specific gender in the job, equality is equal opportunities, equal requirements, equal restrictions. All women or men who can make the grade should be allowed in, those who can't shouldn't. This should be the case with military or firefighters or whatever. Let's not have any unqualified soldiers or firefighters and let's apply exactly the same standard to both genders.

As regards the claim that women function less well under stress... think about nurses. Yes there's much that nurses do that's quite calm, but there's also nurses who have to work with emergency patients and emergency situations. In stressful situations they have to remain calm and react fast. The majority of nurses are female and you don't hear about them all falling apart in emergency situations or being too slow. You don't hear about people being told they can't be nurses because they're women, do you?

As regards the claim that women lack physical strength, that's obviously a gross generalization. There are plenty women around with lots of physical strength. And not just big brawny women. Muscle works differently in many women than in the majority of men, they can have more muscle power than their muscle bulk would imply, strong muscles that aren't big.

One reason people are resistant to the idea of women as combat soldiers is because they're not comfortable with the idea of women being tough or good in a fight. Fighting women are popular in media but somebody being ok with it on the screen doesn't mean they're ok with it in real life. And I'm not talking about just male attitudes here, you get women with attitudes like that too. And I'm not just talking about attitudes people are conscious of having either, unconscious attitudes can be crucial. I once came across a woman saying women shouldn't have any muscle (even toning) but should just soft and vulnerable. People of both genders have dumb sexist attitudes about women. Another reason for resistance (to the idea of women as combat soldiers) is that many people of both genders aren't comfortable with putting women in danger (again this can be a conscious or subconscious attitude). Women are felt to be fragile vulnerable creatures that must be protected (yes, there are many women who feel that way too, not just men). The idea of women going out there into harm's way and maybe even protecting other people (even men -god forbid! ) is seriously disturbing to a lot of people. This is treating women as as if they're children, helpless and needing protection (like the cliche phrase "women and children") . But women are adults and they can make their own choices about whether they want to be in harm's way and if they want to be that's their choice.

TheAngel

I can play with two different sides of this story, having a past with the military and having a number of friends that serve, both male and female. So, here's the "against women in the military side"

There have been studies that show that male soldiers react differently when women are in combat than when other men are there. They are more likely to disobey direct orders and superiors in order to protect a woman from harm. They are more likely to abort mission objectives if they think that a women will be harmed by the action. Men are more likely to suffer PTSD if they see women killed in combat. There's just that archaic idea of chivalry, that women are weaker than men. Though, while those men are willing to go out of their ways to save women, many of them seem to have no problem having affairs when they're away from home, but I digress. There is the issue of physical strength, most of which has to do with muscle endurance. Men are stronger, a women averages about 14%-20%+ body fat. In fact, if women drop below a certain percentage it's dangerous. Men can have 0% body fat and be fine. Male muscle is longer and thicker. Female muscle is shorter and thinner. If you have a man of good fitness and a women of good fitness that weigh the same the man will have more muscle mass and will probably stronger. There may be some women that can carry 70lbs backpacks and wear 30lbs body armor and carry a 15lbs weapon on top of all of that, but there are very few, many less than men. There are also hygiene issues of women being in combat. What happens if a women starts her period and she's two or three days out of base and they won't be back for four more days and she doesn't have enough tampons? Women have more body hair, they're more prone to things like lice and can go less time without showering. Also, if you have 75 men and 15 women in a unit, something is going to happen to at least one of those women. Is it right? of course not. Will he be punished? Probably, but her military career will still be over. Rape is a huge problem over in Iraq you don't hear about, be it male contractors that are raping female soldiers, male soldiers that are raping Iraqi women, or male soldiers that are raping female soldiers. Because of the military rank structure, many women don't say anything because they're raped by superior officers.

Now, on the reverse
I think women aren't allowed in combat because men are the weaker sex. Women actually stay calmer in stressful situations, they have a higher pain threshold, and they can keep track of more things both visually and mentally than men can. And indeed, not all combat roles require you to leave the base and travel for days at a time. Women ride in convoys all the time and do OK, excepting the Lynch fiasco. Now, in saying all this, women are in a number of combat situations anyway, and we're doing alright. We're patrolling with men, we're racking up kills, being killed ourselves, winning medals, and putting ourselves in harms way with no extreme breakdown of the American system in the US, or in the military system in Iraq. Allowing women into combat roles will not result in all women in the US suddenly joining the military. There will be plenty in the states to keep pumping out children. And it won't result in the breakdown of American values. It's not my fault than men are more fragile creatures and they have problems seeing me in fatigues with a gun in my hand. But training has been identical for some time, it's time military roles reflected that.

sum1

.

JohannafromIHJ

One would think that most of this this would go in the "reasons men shouldn't be allowed in the army" column, rather than count against women.

Maybe I'm being too logical, but you'd think that any woman going on a longer mission would either going on the pill or the shot to minimize or stop their period (temporarily).

sunnykerr

It's an interesting subject.

I personally think that it doesn't matter what studies regarding who's more likely to be stronger, calmer, tougher... in battle. First of all, there's way too many differences from one person to the next (independent of gender) to put any weight into any kind of study that would have one quality belong more to either gender. Second of all, even if you could, who cares?

Strenght is obviously an asset in a warzone, but I'm sure there's other things that count. Isn't that why we send a group as opposed to separate individuals?

Besides, we can theorize about it all we want, until we've actually done it and seen the results for ourselves, whatever we have to say about the realities of women combatants is worthless. Experience is where the truth comes out, not in hypothetical scenarios.

And I wouldn't bother asking the men, myself. They used to say integrating the armed forces would cause destabilization and mayhem. The armed forces got over it. They used to say gays in the military would cause destabilization, mayhem and harrassment. Well, in Canada, our military's been integrated that way for 15 years. As far as I know, the whole institution hasn't gone to hell in a handbasket.

If women want to fight, if they're willing to make that personal sacrifice, who are any of us to tell them they can't?

sum1

So there may need to be some retraining of male soldiers to get them out of this behavior, but it's not a justification for keeping women out of combat.

Many men are stronger than many women but a blanket statement that "men are stronger" is simply not true. Many women are stronger than many men. Also, the issue of strength is something I already dealt with. Set a minimum for strength for combat soldiers and test all prospective combat soldiers for strength. Those who pass the minimum can be allowed to be combat soldiers, those who don't can be kept out. That way you end up only with combat soldiers who are strong enough but you also get some combat soldiers who are female.

Probably. Only probably and room should be made for those exceptions.

Of course there are women who can do that, many more than you seem to think, I'd say. So what if there are many less than men, is that any reason to disqualify the women who are strong enough? Let those women become combat soldiers.

On the contrary men have more body hair than women. And I can think of reasons why men need to shower more often than women -men sweat more.

Women can make their own choices so they should be allowed to choose whether they want to enter the army and face the risks of rape to be found in it. And, as you've said, rape is already a problem in the army, so making women combat soldiers isn't going to create the problem.


Calling any gender "the weaker sex" is insulting sexist nonsense.

I've also heard claims that it's men who are better in those areas, so I don't place much trust in claims that one gender is better than the other at something like that. Anyway it's not the supposed ability of a gender that matters, it's the ability of the individual recruit that matters and individuals vary. Even with physical strength (which is something that one gender does tend to be better at) you can find women who are far better than the male average. With anything men are supposed to be better at you can find women who are better than the male average and with anything women are supposed to be better at you can find men who are better than the female average. And stress on the "supposed" in "supposed to be better at", people love to "prove" that one gender is better than the other at something and it's usually bull.

Again, the ability of the individual is what matters, not than the supposed ability of a gender.


Why the sexist remarks? There's no need to insult a whole gender or generalize a whole gender as if all of them are the same.
As I said, it's ability of the individual that should matter, not the supposed ability of a gender.

Strength is essential for modern combat soldiers because of the gear they have to carry, but there are plenty women around who are strong enough.

Whatever we have to say is not worthless. Just because it's not as good as views based on experience of women as combat soldiers doesn't mean it's worthless.

And there have been instances in history of women as combat soldiers. The Romans recorded that in some celtic groups the women fought alongside the men. In the Israeli war of independence Israeli women fought as combat soldiers and in the Algerian revolution women fought fought as combat soldiers.

Canada has an army?

sunnykerr

Well, yeah, Canada has an army. Go to Rwanda, go to Kosovo, go to Afghanistan, heck go to Somalia, and ask them if Canada's got an army. There's ten times as many Americans as there are Canadians, and we don't have mandatory army service (as other countries, though not the United States either, also have) so of course ours probably isn't the biggest army out there. And it'd be a very un-Canadian thing of me not to have a sense of humour about your obvious teasing... but, there you have it. Yeah, we have an army.

And I'm sure strength is essential because I'm sure the equipment is that heavy. But I'm also sure that you don't need to be the strongest or the biggest person around to be a soldier. Just as I am sure that, should a person want to join the army, they can always develop their strength. That's all I meant to say.

I know there have been women soldiers and warriors. That's what I meant by experience is where the truth is. And I certainly didn't mean to imply that debating an issue or a subject is ever a worthless pursuit. Obviously, I couldn't think that and be here right now. I just mean that I'm personally tired of politicians and pundits taking about the pros and cons of something like female soldiers instead of actually trying it out. There's nothing wrong with caution, but I do think that debating about the merits of putting women in the army is a bit silly. Mind you, that may be just me.

As far as I'm concerned, whomever wants to join and whomever is fit to join should be allowed to join. Sure, I can see how people could want to look at the word "fit" and make it a big thing. I don't think any part of it should be a gender issue. But, again, maybe that's just me.

cookiely

Doesn`t the US Army already have female combat soldiers for quite some time?



lol
never been at a mediterrean beach huh?

while I disagree with the body hair part I do think that men tend to be less bothered
by unhygienic conditions.


or the russian women battalion

TheAngel

lol, I'm not talking about body hair, I'm talking about head hair. Unless they instituted the same hair requirements for men and women, in other words, very short hair, women still have longer hair.

The US army doesn't have female combat soldiers. Women sometimes end up on the front lines in support roles, but still aren't considered combat soldiers, though in Iraq there are plenty of women going on patrols and doing the same things men do.

sum1

They should institute the same requirements for hair for men and women. There's no justification for applying different rules to different genders on that. Longer hair for men too or short hair for women too. Anything else is gender discrimination.

LittleMilkJug

I don't see why not. If the women are up to strength and apply and pass the tests etc they should be allowed. If men are asked to shave their heads or get a crew cut then women should be too. The armed forces are having a hard time recuiting new soldiers etc they should be more open to recruiting shorter and weaker people, whatever the sex.

fetch

Women in the Israeli army have to have their hair in ponytails, but aren't required to cut it.