If women were unable to perform in combat situations, then why do some militaries have them? Israel has a pretty good record when it comes to winning wars and, IIRC, they’ve been in combat for most of that time.
Most of the problem seems to be a lot of pre-judging w/o facts (especially all this talk about “instincts” and, um, stuff).
PC
I do see what you mean, Shodan.
Actually, I got carried away by the desire to write a funny poem. It was all I could do withhold the first version, about women fighting at the front.
I think that we should only let women fight, to make up for keeping them out of the last few wars.
Oh, if I judge by Mrs. Bdgr, she would be better in combat during her period…I just try to stay out of her way around then…
I have to question the fairness of the test. Since woment aren’t allowed in direct combat roles, it would make sense that they wouldn’t perform as well, because they wouldn’t have as much training or experience for it.
Um… Israel has NOT had women in the Combat Arms units most of its history.
Apparently the role of women in the IDF until the 90s had been similar to the role of women in the U.S. Armed Forces, with the difference that they are subject to mandatory service. But it seems the purpose is to be able to channel as many of the males as possible into Combat Arms by filling the support billets with women. In another place I read that they were actually behind the USA in the sense that they kept a separate “Women’s Corps” long after the USA dissolved the WAC/WAVES/WAF and that it was only in 2000 that all careers were opened for women.
In this article in an Israeli site a staffer of the research office for the Knesset writes (near the end of the page) :
“Yes, they are capable of doing anything a man can if not better!”
i really like this quote, i wonder how many gold medals women would win, if they only had mixed olympic events…
Going back to the OP & the question :
"What specifically are the reasons they will not let women fight in direct ground combat squads and do these reasons make good sense or are they mainly based on sexist sentiments about what women should and shouldn’t do? "
One might be that removing women from combat squads would remove one objection in some people’s minds to reestablishing the draft in the US…(if I were to take a cynical view I would add : especially since the President has 2 daughters who would be prime draft age).
To take a different slant on this, what about the political effects of incorporating women into direct combat roles? Do you believe That morale during a war would be more adversely affected by seeing women chewed up and spat out by combat than it currently is?
Operational requirements from soldiers aren’t just sitting around and shooting at people. You have to be able to haul around 90 pounds on your back for 20 miles a day, for starters. You have to be physically fit enough to drag your 200 pound buddy off the field. Most ‘real’ combat type situations require extended endurance under conditions that mistreat the body, where men’s biology makes them more capable than women.
You might say that women need to carry less because they consume less, but the weight carried by troops isn’t primarily food. They need to carry around a minimum combat ammo load, a rifle, a blanket, a belt or two for the squad MGs, spare radio batteries, flashlights, extra boots, extra uniforms, etc. They’re not carrying this stuff as a luxury, no one wants to haul around 80 pound packs, but it’s necesary. If you start reducing the weight per individual, you have to give up critical mission gear.
Women will have to effectively carry around the same loads as men, and they’re simply not as physically capable of doing so for the same periods of time.
So by integrating women into platoons, we’re effectively limiting the amount of crucial gear that that platoon can fight with.
SenorBeef, let’s make sure we don’t confuse group tendencies with individual differences. You are basically saying that women as a group are not as strong as men. No one would argue that point, but there are plenty of women out there who could have kicked my scrawny 150 pound ass when I was 18 and prime military age.
So given that distinction, do you object to individual women who pass legitimate physical standards to serve on the front lines?
Greetings to all -
My post was based on a book from Brian Mitchell called Weakest Link: The Femininization of the American Military.
http://www.cspc.org/books/reviews/mitch.htm I hoped the coding worked.
Of course all of those who pointed out that averages don’t apply to everyone are correct. The question remaining is, if some women can meet the same minimum standards as a man, should she be sent into combat? Some of the factors that need to be considered in answering this are:
Are you reducing standards in order to be politically correct?
Is the extra overhead of segregated facilities that many women require worth the increase in the pool of available recruits?
Are you taking into consideration all the factors that may apply to women that affect their combat capability that don’t affect men? (Sick leave due to pregnancy, increased injury, whatever)
Sorry I can’t post more, but I will see if I can return later.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not seeing a lot of soldiers posting here. Especially soldiers who served in combat situations with women.
Well, I did and that is why I ABSOLUTELY think women should serve as combat troops.
First off, we don’t fight those “let’s go marching around in the jungle for 8 months killing Charlie” wars anymore folks. If you can beat basic training, you got it licked.
I spent 42 months of 48 in the field, 18 of those in country at the forward edge of the battle area (FEBA).
The women in my company kicked ass. Seriously.
They never had any issues that was any different form any other soldiers because they were trained…AS SOLDIERS. We ate , slept, pissed and shat with them like any other troops. You form a bond, a unit with these people, no matter who they are. And you quickly come to realize their shortcomings. We all have them, but these soldiers could hang.
Those men out there who have some issue with fighting next to a women need to grow up and put away their blankies. Most of those “men” couldn’t be bothered to join the Military, much less actually see combat. REMFs.
I have the highest respect for female soldiers. You wouldn’t believe the shit they have to put up with simply to serve their country.
For those of you who haven’t been in the situation, no offense, but you don’t have a clue what your talking about.
OK, this was totally a knee jerk reaction, but it irks me that we still have these ridiculous mindsets especially when the majority haven’t been in a situation to determine what really does happen.
Of course, your milage may vary. Thank you.
::crawls back under soapbox::
Well, damn. I think Obidiah just nailed this question.
sorry i totaly dissagree that women in cmobat is a good idea. after service in the us navy with about 10 women i was responsible for was a absolute nitemare. the fact is that in the field the sailors want to screw them and the minute they want out they are pregnent .
the ship that was spoken of as the LOVE BOAT during the gulf war was the USS VULCAN. as a repair vessel she had recieved a huge amount of women, like 80% of the crew was female , when i went aboard her to get some dental work done i had a guard/escourt to keep me from the women onboard , they had had that much trouble with the crew . at one point in the war the navy put a seal team aboard the ship one month later a couple hundred of the crew were pregnent . they had to sent the friggin ship home. women dont belong in the military. sorry but its true
Oh, please…
CITE?
Otherwise, in re “The Love Boat…”
(underlines mine)
sources: http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/15/reviews/military-gulf.html
http://www.militarywoman.org/academic.htm
NO news report to be found about: [ul]
If you’re going to make the argument, make it with verifiable information. Now, these numbers may lead us to legitimately question if the pregnancy rate is a deployment problem, if the military’s definition of what is a “normal” pregnancy rate for the 20-24 demographic (10% over a 7 months period?) is right, and what is an acceptable dropout rate.
Much more useful than saying " trust me, sailors will want to screw, you’ll need to assign armed ‘escourts’ and there’ll be hundreds of them ‘pregnent’ ".
Sounds like obidiah says it all. I could probably make it through basic training, though I run so damn slow, I can’t imagine any platoon leader would want me in front line combat. Give me a sniper rifle, though, and I’m all over it. I’m also very short, and I could be used in places that need a smaller framed person. I always wanted to be spec ops.
I detest any kind of lowering of standards for women. That only makes weaker soldiers. Set one standard that you want your soldiers to achieve, and then let anyone who can meet those standards fight.
What about combat pilots, CIC, etc.?
From what I remember (Rather vaguely, I’m afraid), while males generally rank higher for physical strength and endurance, females generally rank slightly higher for reaction speed and dexterity (And pain tollerance, though that one seems to be debated a lot…). If that’s true, it seems females might make -better- combat pilots and the like. For high-speed fighters, though, physical endurance might come into play again (To ward off the effects of high gee forces), but I’m not sure about that. Wouldn’t be nearly as much of a factor for slower fixed-wing aircraft or rotary-wing aircraft.
[celestina stands and applauds obidiah’s post.] Amen, preach it, brother! 
Now I ain’t military, nor do I plan on becoming military anytime soon because I know that I would make a terrible soldier, and it doesn’t have a goddamn thing to do with my period, Squish. I despise killing, although I know it happens and must happen in warfare. I also object to war on the grounds that it is illogical and counterproductive. After the dust clears, you still have to clean up the mess you made AND deal with the original problems that started the fighting in the first place. Why not just deal with the problems from the getgo and quit wastin’ time blowing up shit? It just doesn’t make any sense. :mad: But I digress. I think that if women want to serve their country in front line combat or whatever, then they should be able to do so. I think it was Triskademus who said something about the current training standards needing to be changed, and I must say that I agree. But I would add that the changes should be made not just to allow the military to maximize its potential with different capabilities men and women could contribute. More importantly it’s just that the nature of warfare is changing. We’re dealing with terrorists now who engage in guerilla war tactics and some tactics we aren’t used to dealing with (e.g. flying planes in buildings). Plus warfare is becoming much more hightech. The military needs to be more flexible in its thinking, and it needs to adapt to allow for different genders who can bring different strengths and perspectives.
An old fogey here. first of all, I,ve come across some very tough women in my time, and I have no doubt that a lot of women could do as well as men as fighter pilots and seamen.
However my concern is this. If Nancy and I are both seriously wounded in a ditch under a cross fire, who is Trevor going to come for and drag back to the chopper first?
There might be some equality of the sexes concern as far as combat eligibility, but until men can look at a woman in the same way they look at a man, there will never be sexual equality in the fox hole.