Women on the Front Line

[Reality]

In the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and many other countries, female soldiers are currently not permitted to join direct-combat units in the military including infantry (foot soldiers), armour (tanks), some artillery jobs, and special operations units such as the British SAS, British SBS, U.S. Navy SEALs, U.S. Green Berets or Australian SASR. But they are currently allowed into every other job, such as Military Police, combat engineering and the medical fields.

However, the Canadian Forces and New Zealand military have fully gender integrated militaries. The CF lets females into it's infantry units and JTF-2, whilst New Zealand lets females into its' infantry and NZSAS.

United States Army Infantryman 11B - "(!) Closed to Women" (http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=47)

Australian Army Commandos - Scroll down to "Gender Restrictions". (http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/army/jobs/Commando/GeneralRequirements/?entryTypeId=10)

British Army Infantry - "Sex: Male" (http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/jobs/pages/JobDetail.aspx?armyjobid=INF101%2f501%2f601&category=)

Do you think having gender restrictions in this day and age in many modern First World militaries is justified, or do you reckon these bans should be lifted?

For many of the arguments established on this subject, Read This. (http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=425)

Personally, I believe women are definitely fit and strong enough for these units, however, I think men and women aren't really an effective duo in combat. I think women should be let into special forces, but not in regular infantry units, strangely enough, unless it's a female-only unit.

Why? Because men are biologically prone to protect women in these circumstances, and in a war situation, it can lead to men taking irrational risks to protect or save women. Also, cohesion between men and women in closed in, and unprivate situations wouldn't work properly.

I agree with them being in special forces because although they are tight-knit, combat units, they operate more darkly and unconventionally and in much smaller units, although the tasks untaken are much more difficult than your average grunt.

I also think women should be definitely let into the tank and artillery units, too, though. I don't really see the justification for their exclusion besides the fact artillery and tank equipment are "heavy". But this is nothing to do with strength or fitness, as I said.

Thoughts?

[punkjake]

I think if they want to do it they can,but i think the guy or girl at home(husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend)should take care of the kid's while she is gone.

[Skeln]

Well I think women are just as worthy as men to be alloowed into combat. I do also agree with you about the fact that women and men should be kept more seperate though for several reasons.

1-When you're in years of combat with only guys around you, you have increased urges and they can take ahold of you and the male cxan end up raping the female.

2-As you said, men might be more protective for the women, but really they'll also be protective about their friends and fellow soldiers so this reason isn't as great

Those are about the only reasons I can think of at the moment, but yeah women should be allowed to fight because in a war you need everyone you can get.

[sebbie]

I asked this question to a recruitment officer.

The main reasons for women not being able to serve in the combat units like the ones you are mentioned is due to physical reasons. Despite what people say, there is a difference between the physical performance of men and women. Men are generally physically stronger. [There is science behind this, one of the main factors is men have more testosterone in them, thus more muscle mass] Also you have to consider things like women get their periods, this can affect duty.

Now there is also the psychological impact that can be created from women serving in certain positions, as someone said before, men are stereotyped as the protectors of women therefore if they are serving next to men, it can distract, and affect moral of troops.

I do not think it is descrimination to not let women in, if they do not meet the requirements, or will have an adverse effect on others, for example if the question was "Why can't fat people be in [units]" Everyone would answer, because they cannot perform the task, its not descrimination, it is reality.

However the army does allow women to serve where they can do to the best of their ability.

[Sapphire]

If equipment etc is heavy then it makes common sense to only employ people you are sure can deal with the weights involved. I don't pretend to know the average weight of equipment used in the artillery and tanks, but if women are restricted from joining these ranks then it must be too heavy for them to deal with. It isn't a sexist thing, rather an accurate observation and appropriate selection of employees.

Female-only units might pose as a greater target for attacking forces. When attacks are carried out in conflict zones the men are typically killed while the women are raped. Being able to degrade near enough an entire unit like that is going to be appealing to those types of groups.

I can see the need for some skills that are more prevalent among women than men. However I don't think that putting them in arms and on the front line as the best way to draw on these strengths. Different units can be put together for that sort of thing.

[INFERNO]

I would think that the military would prefer people who are stronger and on average, men are stronger than women. I would even go as far as to say if a man and woman were equal in height, weight, age, etc... and exercised the same duration and intensity, the man would probably still be stronger. The woman would by no means by a limp noodle, she would also be strong but probably not as strong.

If women were to be in, then I'd say it would be best to have them in a separate unit from the men mostly because there's a greater risk if they are together of having sex, getting pregnant, etc... .

I think there may also be a historical reason in that men traditionally were the fighters and women were not. Some militaries may still wish to carry this history with them, whereas others may be more flexible.

There may also be an issue with a conflict of gender roles. Typically, an average man can yell at another average man and insult them but feel worse if they do that to a woman. The male soldiers may also show remorse and be more irrational to protect the woman simply because she is a woman.

Although, if a woman was strong enough both mentally and physically to compete with the men, and if they were willing, then I'd say to let them in, as long as they were in separate units. Perhaps also have woman officers and such.

[Camazotz]

If any person proves to be mentally and physically capable of the task, he/she should be allowed any position in the army, regardless of gender. However, there is a much a higher chance that a male will receive the roll because they are generally physically and mentally stronger than women. I am not too upset about the current restrictions only because I haven't seen a woman that can do this job, but over time this will most definitely change. When it does, this woman (or women) deserve to be able to join these special regiments.

[UnholyConfessions]

If any person proves to be mentally and physically capable of the task, he/she should be allowed any position in the army, regardless of gender. However, there is a much a higher chance that a male will receive the roll because they are generally physically and mentally stronger than women. I am not too upset about the current restrictions only because I haven't seen a woman that can do this job, but over time this will most definitely change. When it does, this woman (or women) deserve to be able to join these special regiments.

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. :)

[Whisper]

I disagree with it
not on the front line
I don't care how sexist that makes me seem

[Atonement]

I think if they are capable to do the same job, they are worthy to do the same job. If they are not physically able, then no, they shouldn't be there. I didn't read the links but I have to presume that there isn't a RULE that women can't join, but rather a non acceptance in the leaders assuming that the women can't do the same physical job.

[Reality]

I think if they are capable to do the same job, they are worthy to do the same job. If they are not physically able, then no, they shouldn't be there. I didn't read the links but I have to presume that there isn't a RULE that women can't join, but rather a non acceptance in the leaders assuming that the women can't do the same physical job.
No, not just a rule. It's actually government policy in the U.S., U.K. and probably Australia not to let women into combat arms in the military.

For instance, a woman passed the British Royal Marine Commando training in something like 2000, which is a 32 week hard training course, but thanks to the current laws, she wasn't let into the actual Marines themselves (we don't have the same sort of Marines as the U.S. bear in mind, ours are a small elite unit rather than a branch of its' own), but she was given their decoration and they let her in a support role. Something like as a combat engineer or something, I forget, but still not the fighting force itself.

You know what's funny about issues like these, we all say we disagree (or disagree to an extent), but if women were let on the front line tommorow, although some people would complain, it'd be accepted and forgotten about in 10-20 years time by 90% of people. It's like pre-WWI, they never imagined that women would be allowed in the military at all, but after WWII, the military slowly began to accept women, which leads us where we are today with women in 70-80% of military jobs. It looks to me more like a long process, I'll bet any money that women will be in combat arms in these countries within 50 years with the way things are going now.

[Sage]

We could always just wait until soldiers are equipped with super-neato sci-fi combat armor that makes their voice and physical features almost completely identical to one another. They'd be like Stormtroopers or Spartans.

[Church]

Men on average are stronger and tougher than women, and women would have a safety issue with their armor if they were infantry because of their breast because Interceptor armor is a block of material that if used by a woman would be pushed outwards and not give as good protection. I heard that mental processing for women in stress is different than men in war situations, as in women have trouble handling it more than men do, but I'm not exactly sure.

[Sage]

Men on average are stronger and tougher than women, and women would have a safety issue with their armor if they were infantry because of their breast because Interceptor armor is a block of material that if used by a woman would be pushed outwards and not give as good protection. I heard that mental processing for women in stress is different than men in war situations, as in women have trouble handling it more than men do, but I'm not exactly sure.

Average strength isn't an issue because everyone needs to have a certain amount of strength to get through military training in the first place. Breast size generally isn't an issue with armor and I have yet to seen a study that says women are not as good at coping with stress.

[Whisper]

Average strength isn't an issue because everyone needs to have a certain amount of strength to get through military training in the first place. Breast size generally isn't an issue with armor and I have yet to seen a study that says women are not as good at coping with stress.

The Canadian military
has separate standards to take into account the fact that statistically women are physically weaker and slower, and don't have the same endurance something to do with heart muscles and lung capacity
Point is these are a biological fact
the male body burns hotter and faster its why our life spans shorter
keeping women off the front line isnt sexist


if they meet there separate standards
they're allowed in and are sent to the front
I disagree with that GREATLY
That will and probably already has resulted in dead soldiers

I'm all for equal rights
But physically there are limitations that have to be accepted
like its acceptable to get into a bar fight with another guy
But when will you see a dude get into a fist fight with a chick? -shrug- equal rights man (get the point?)


There are HUNDREDS of jobs women can do in the military
all of which are very vital and can be dangerous or challenging
But not in the firestorm

FUBAR

[Reality]

^ I don't agree with the separate training standards in the military. They should be exactly the same. Every single number of pushups and such should be the same for men and women (to the mens standard), that goes for any role in the military.

The fact that women have passed infantry tests worldwide and even the Royal Marines 32 week course means there are some well able to handle stuff like that.

[ShatteredWings]

The Canadian military has separate standards to take into account the fact that statistically women are physically weaker and slower, and don't have the same endurance something to do with heart muscles and lung capacity
Kodie that makes NO sense whatsoever.
If you're being expected to do the same jobs, you should be expected to be just as strong. If the person isn't capable of holding the standards, THEY SHOULDN'T BE IN THE MILITARY. If you can't defend your own freakin self, then what position are you in to defend a country?

I do think women should be allowed to be on front lines. HOWEVER, there shouldn't be any "alternate" requirements because of gender. Yes there IS a difference, but it really seems like the 'gap' is simply because an extremely strong man is being compared to a very small woman. Not every girl is 5'0 & 99lb, and certainly not all men are 6'5 200lb brick wall.

Go by ability, not gender.

[Lizey the Supergirl]

Oh my gosh, I have heard so many ridiculous reasons against women fighting in the front line I almost didn't write this.
Women do deserve to fight in the front line. People can ramble on about men and their little sexual urges and needing to immediately protect the women instead of their comrades and their country, but I think higher of men. I do not believe that they train so hard for long to get into the military and defend their country just to be thrown off like that. If they do, then the men would be the problem, not women.
Women have the ability to fight. It all comes down to protecting their country, and they won't get they distracted when that's on the line. And for the record, women aren't going to be thinking 'oh those people are about to shoot me but that guy looks hot so as if i care'. Let's get practical.
This IS a complicated world. And every decision brings complications and debates. But come on, HALFof people are banned from the frontline and there is no good firm reason for that. If an extreme decision like this is made, it should be made fully correctly. Clearly, it hasn't, and that is why we are having this debate.
Women want to fight!

[Lizey the Supergirl]

Due to the idiocism around me, I must now breifly write another point.
Generalizations can be made about women and about them generally not being as strong blah blah blah. You TRY OUT for the military. They TURN YOU DOWN if you're not good enough. I for one, would never want an incapable woman fighting, nor an incapable man.
Women deserve the opportunity to try out for the military. Not randomly walk into a war when they feel like it.
Don't let generalsations turn assumptions. THAT is raw discrimination.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

i think that women do have the right, but in same sex only units excluding special force units. in WWI the russians used a women sniper company and it was one of the best companys in the entire russian army, evidence that women are capable fighters.