Women in combat

[Eofaerwic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8065604.stm

The British armed forces are currently conducting a review of women's roles, particularly in the army, which has inevitably raised the question - should women be serving in front-line positions?

Women currently make up about 10% of our armed forces (with highest levels in the RAF) and can do pretty much any role except for those involving 'closing and engaging the enemy', effectively barring them from Infantry, Armour, RAF Regiment and the Royal Marines but not combat support roles, such as combat medics, artillery or even special forces intelligence (the recently created Special Reconaissance Regiment), so it's hardly as if they are kept well out of danger and away from the front lines.

So my question to NSG, should women be allowed to serve in all roles in the military? If so why or why not?

My personal view is yes, they should. Recent evidence has indicated that they can manage well under combat conditions and they do have the capabilities of working alongside their male colleagues. However, the physical tests and requirements demanded of them should be the same as a male infantrymen, they need to be able to do the job but then even the army won't argue they can't physically do it - they are going with the "unit cohesion" argument, as usual.

[Brogavia]

Have a vagina does not impair a soldiers ability to hold a rifle.

[TannerFrankLand]

Go get 'em Sarah! lol

[Barringtonia]

Of course, the danger is that soldiers will turn into heterosexuals, lose the ability of coordination, reject the fancy uniforms make love not war...

The horror, the horror.

[Risottia]

Criteria for roles in the armed forces should be based on functionality only. So, if a woman meets the same criteria of men for the role, what's the problem?

And about "unit cohesion" etc: what the hell, we trust soldiers to the point of giving them deadly weapons, but we don't trust them to keep their sexual instincts at bay if ordered to do so? Schizophrenia is taking its toll.

[NERVUN]

I have yet to see any good reason why not. The ONLY thing that has come close is the problem of hygiene out in the field, but I'm a bit dubious about it.

[Heinleinites]

This is going to be a massively unpopular opinion, but what the hell, that's not stopped me yet.

I don't think that women should be serving in the armed forces in general. Not because they can't hack it, or because they're weak or because they're not good enough. Serving in the armed forces is dangerous and dirty and all kinds of hazardous and it's something that women shouldn't have to deal with, not when there are more than enough men to fill the ranks.

Now excuse me while I go get my asbestos long-johns.

[Risottia]

Serving in the armed forces is dangerous and dirty and all kinds of hazardous and it's something that women shouldn't have to deal with, not when there are more than enough men to fill the ranks.

Really? Ok, serving in the armed forces is dangerous and dirty. But why should a woman who's willing to cope with danger and dirt be forbidden to serve if she wants to do so? I really don't understand your argument, seems a non-sequitur to me.

edit: by the same reasoning, women should not work in steel mills, chemical plants, mines, construction teams... they should not be policemen, firefighters, truck drivers, astronauts... should they stay at home and raise the children? Not even that! Most injuries and deaths by accident happen at home.

So what are we going to do: seal each woman in a room lined with mattresses, and take them out just for theatre and dinner? Life is dangerous, for both sexes.

[NERVUN]

This is going to be a massively unpopular opinion, but what the hell, that's not stopped me yet.

I don't think that women should be serving in the armed forces in general. Not because they can't hack it, or because they're weak or because they're not good enough. Serving in the armed forces is dangerous and dirty and all kinds of hazardous and it's something that women shouldn't have to deal with, not when there are more than enough men to fill the ranks.

Now excuse me while I go get my asbestos long-johns.

Ever see a woman give birth?

[Eofaerwic]

Criteria for roles in the armed forces should be based on functionality only. So, if a woman meets the same criteria of men for the role, what's the problem?

And about "unit cohesion" etc: what the hell, we trust soldiers to the point of giving them deadly weapons, but we don't trust them to keep their sexual instincts at bay if ordered to do so? Schizophrenia is taking its toll.

It's funny they used the same arguments about ten years ago when they repealed the ban against gays in the military and the big surprise for that was that there was no surprise - no one gave a toss and the whole thing went through without any fanfare. I suspect fully integrating women may give a little more teething problems simply on a practical level but give it a year and everyone will start wondering why on earth they didn't do it earlier.

[Sorgan]

just because they are different doesn't mean they can't join the military. Not like we reject blacks,jews,and gingers from the military

[Eofaerwic]

I don't think that women should be serving in the armed forces in general. Not because they can't hack it, or because they're weak or because they're not good enough. Serving in the armed forces is dangerous and dirty and all kinds of hazardous and it's something that women shouldn't have to deal with, not when there are more than enough men to fill the ranks.

Surely that's the woman's decision? There isn't conscription in this country and given the decent social security net poverty is rarely the primary motivating factor to join up, and woman who joins wants to be there and has made a career decision, surely they should be given the choice.

Also there aren't enough men, the British forces have up until this year been under performing on their recruitment targets, the current economic recession is helping but not enough. They need as many qualified people as they can get and as much as there is resistance to women serving in the front lines, there is even more to the ideas of dropping recruitment standards.

[Eofaerwic]

just because they are different doesn't mean they can't join the military. Not like we reject blacks,jews,and gingers from the military

Although with Prince Harry that might have been an idea

[Sorgan]

This is going to be a massively unpopular opinion, but what the hell, that's not stopped me yet.

I don't think that women should be serving in the armed forces in general. Not because they can't hack it, or because they're weak or because they're not good enough. Serving in the armed forces is dangerous and dirty and all kinds of hazardous and it's something that women shouldn't have to deal with, not when there are more than enough men to fill the ranks.

Now excuse me while I go get my asbestos long-johns.

You don't know how much of a sexist bastard you sound like right now -.- there's women in The U.S military and they are actually doing good

[Heinleinites]

Really? Ok, serving in the armed forces is dangerous and dirty. But why should a woman who's willing to cope with danger and dirt be forbidden to serve if she wants to do so? I really don't understand your argument, seems a non-sequitur to me.

It's not really an argument, more just an opinion. I don't really have any 'sources' or studies or historical examples or big scholarly points lined up. Eofaerwic asked what I thought, and that's it. I've always thought that it's the man's responsibility to protect the home and the family. If he fails to meet that, or falls meeting it, then yeah, I could see a woman doing it. But that should be the exception, not the rule.

[Allanea]

As far as I know Prince Harry served his homeland with great bravery and distinction.

To the OP:

I am of the belief that the military, above all structures, should be free of all prejudice. Prejudice can kill you.

People who join the military must be evaluated according to standardized tests - being free of certain diseases, being able to run X miles, and so forth. If they can't hack it, they shouldn't join, but if they can hack it, they should join, male, female, or sapient lobster.

[Eofaerwic]

As far as I know Prince Harry served his homeland with great bravery and distinction.

I know, it was a joke, hence the smilies. I think the army has in fact been very good for him, it's a shame the press (and tbh I think Drudge needs to take more responsibility for this as the UK press were voluntarily keeping the gag order up) feels the need to report his every move and thus ensure he can't serve to the best of his abilities.

To the OP:

I am of the belief that the military, above all structures, should be free of all prejudice. Prejudice can kill you.

People who join the military must be evaluated according to standardized tests - being free of certain diseases, being able to run X miles, and so forth. If they can't hack it, they shouldn't join, but if they can hack it, they should join, male, female, or sapient lobster.

Hmm, now I have the image of lobsters in uniform with rifles.

[Heinleinites]

Also there aren't enough men, the British forces have up until this year been under performing on their recruitment targets, the current economic recession is helping but not enough. They need as many qualified people as they can get and as much as there is resistance to women serving in the front lines, there is even more to the ideas of dropping recruitment standards.

Unless you are actively at war, how large a military is really needed, though? I'd think that an army in peace-time wouldn't need the kind of man-power requirements that would make it necessary to enlist women. If they are having troubles meeting their quotas, maybe they should review their enlistment incentives before they do anything else.

You don't know how much of a sexist bastard you sound like right now

Name-calling, even obliquely, isn't generally a good idea. I'm fairly thick-skinned, but others around here are not so blessed, and you may find yourself in trouble sooner or later. Word to the wise, eh?

[Chernobyl-Pripyat]

as long as they pass the same stuff my squad went through [not hard, actually, some of them are damn fools..], I've got no problem with them in the field, provided they follow orders. Mostly, they're drivers here though. If I recall correctly, there was a female BMP commander in my old regiment in Chechnya, and she was the only person you could understand over the radio with all the shooting and chatter.

could have been a dude with a high voice, though..

[Eofaerwic]

Also there aren't enough men, the British forces have up until this year been under performing on their recruitment targets, the current economic recession is helping but not enough. They need as many qualified people as they can get and as much as there is resistance to women serving in the front lines, there is even more to the ideas of dropping recruitment standards.

Unless you are actively at war, how large a military is really needed, though? I'd think that an army in peace-time wouldn't need the kind of man-power requirements that would make it necessary to enlist women. If they are having troubles meeting their quotas, maybe they should review their enlistment incentives before they do anything else.

We are actively at war - Afghanistan, which is resulting in both overstretch and lower recruitment than we'd get in peace time. Also I'd argue that increasing incentives to effectively bribe people to join (and probably have quite a low retention rate) or lowering standards just to get men in is going to result in a significantly worse military. Woman can and want to join - why get a worse quality of man when you can get a good quality woman?

It's also notable that a lot higher percentage of women serving in the forces are officers compared to men, meaning that woman are probably some of our more qualified members of the armed forces.

On another note, found quite an interesting article about the review here: http://www.defencemanagement.com/featur ... p?id=11997

[Barakania]

Recent evidence has indicated that they can manage well under combat conditions

What evidence?

[Non Aligned States]

If they can't hack it, they shouldn't join, but if they can hack it, they should join, male, female, or sapient lobster.

Lobsters can't join. No fingers to pull triggers.

[Eofaerwic]

Recent evidence has indicated that they can manage well under combat conditions

What evidence?

Women have been finding themselves in combat situations through the current wars in Iraq and Afganistan and have acquited themselves well, including a number winning medals for valour and bravery.

Also, from the link I posted just above: There is also no evidence from a number of psychological studies to prove that combat is anymore mentally stressful on women than it is on men according to Professor Carreiras.

[TannerFrankLand]

If they have children at home this could also cause problems.

EDIT: Having said that it's not the Government's job to make family decisions like that.

[Biteme]

Have a vagina does not impair a soldiers ability to hold a rifle.

Wow, that's the only criteria? Perhaps we should also lower the age of eligibility for military service for the same reason. Most 15 year olds can hold a rifle, maybe some as young as 13. We should also lower the basic physical standards, as many obese people who are currently excluded from service can also hold a rifle. Actually, so can someone bound to a wheelchair; surely something can be found for them in combat too. Maybe you should consider your simple-minded criteria. Of course, you must also support the natural extension of your position, which would be fully equal treatment, i.e. in the U.S, women would also be required to register for selective service and in nations with compulsory military service. women would also be required to serve. Doubling the pool would be a big boon to those countries, eh?