I’m an American, so I can only speak to our military, but I was under the impression that they were not permitted on the front lines. Is this true? Why not?
My military experience is entirely confined to ROTC, but I’d say the reason women are barred from serving in infantry combat positions is what upper body strength is quite important for such jobs, and the (possibly erroneous, I have no opinion myself) thought is that the average woman could not skillfully handle the gear infantry troops are expected to carry.
Don’t ask me. I worship Athena, and while She has nothing against brute force as such she experts her acolytes to think their way of our jams.
There is a basic assumption that the American public would not stand seeing their daughters come home in body bags.
As for the strength issue, I just can’t see how an average lower strength level in women can justify a blanket ban, affecting strong women along with their lighter fellows.
I imagine there’s some concern about a slow lowering of standards.
I don’t know what the official reason is, but at least partly it is to discourage romantic relationships from causing problems in completing missions.
Because killin’ is man’s work. That’s the way it’s always been, and that’s the way it’s always gotta be.
That’s the only real answer, in any case. Any other BS reasons were also trotted out for why women couldn’t join the military in non-combat roles, and they were all borne out to be wrong.
Does the IDF allow women to fight in combat?
I was in the Marines and we went through the same boot camp as the men with the exception to our run times (we got an extra 4 mins) and we only had to do a flex arm hang (men did pull ups). A few women needed the extra bump but there were also women that could run 16 min 3 miles and bust out a respectable amount of pull ups (I can do 5!!). While I believe the average woman could, with extra training mind you, do what is required to complete the infantry training. Now the vast majority of women would need to work up to this point and this would be something that I don’t see the military putting resources into it and I don’t see the average woman wanting to go through it. However, I don’t see any reason for not allowing women that pass certain strength and fitness test that want to pursue it.
Also, keep in mind that even though women can’t be apart of the infantry, they still have to be “battle ready” as sometimes the battle field comes to you. Also, there are combat roles that don’t necessarily require the physical strength of a grunt (sniper, tank operator, fighter pilot). People just need to let go of their old social norms and gender biases. The longer women (or any group) are limited in this way, the longer we cap our potential.
Of course, political correctness requires of us to suspend the obvious and state that there is absolutely no reason why women can’t be as capable as men.
Helpful in that argument is noting that some women are stronger then some men. (Ignoring the fact that this is a very, very small percentage of women, and an even smaller percentage of men)
Or…we can make the argument that the physical requirements should be gender neutral and that the highest possible physical standards should be held to achieve the needed staffing levels; and only lowered incrementally as needed to achieve staffing levels. (of course the vast vast vast majority of those who would qualify would be men.)
If I’m repelling off a Chinook 75 feet in the air, about to engage in a fire fight and close combat where I may be wounded, I want to the soldier next to me to be as physically capable as I am.
That will almost without exception be a man.
Romantic (if you want to call it that…) proliferate in high numbers already. Its the age. Late-teenage men will have sex with anything. It’s easy to go overcome with men hitting on you all day but this will subside as more women join. Giving women more jobs they could do just open up more opportunities for them.
If you think men have it bad as POWs, imagine what women would go through.
Men have orifices too. Women only have one more. And there have been female POW’s. If you don’t think men don’t get raped as POW’s you are naive. Standards should absolutely not be lowered BUT if women can rise to them, they should be given the opportunity to serve.
So what? It’s an all-volunteer army. I imagine that the vast majority of female enlistees give that at least a little thought, and I expect that any woman who chose to go for an infantry position would give it a great deal of thought. I fail to see why the suffering of women is of greater moment than the suffering of men.
Wow, that was a lot less paternalistic than is usual for Rhymers. Can somebody check that I’m really me?
sexism plain and simple. I was in the army five years and there were some women I wouldn’t want in combat with me and some men also. There were women that I would want in combat with me. It isn’t a function of gender but of ability and in both sexes some have it and some don’t.
The emotional distraction on the battlefield hasn’t been mentioned yet. Even hardened soldiers would have a hard time watching woman bleeding and dying beside them. It’s bad enough to lose a buddy in combat. But, there’s just something even worse about it being a woman that a guy knows.
I’ve read veteran stories from WWII where the experienced combat guys would ignore the replacement troops. They had learned it just didn’t pay to make friends with men that would probably be dead in a few days or weeks. Placing women into that kind of meat grinder is just not a good idea.
Sexual assault of male POWs isn’t unheard of, but it’s not nearly as common as it is for female POWs. They are not equally to be raped. This why Israel originally banned women from combat roles after the War of Independence, and why nowdays only women who volunteer for combat roles are assigned them. In addition to the reasons others have given it’s also been claimed that male soldiers under fire would become overcome with rage & impossible to control upon seeing a female comrade killed. Of course the entire concept of a front-line has become meaningless in modern warfare.
Now add the American News Media into the equation. You think this ‘plays in Peoria’? :dubious:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/us/female-pow-is-abused-kindling-debate.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
If you rounded up 1000 men and 1000 women from the general population I would be surprised if 5% of the women had the same physical capabilities as men. Five out of 100.
In the military I’d be stunned if 1% could perform in highly physical combat situations on a level of the men.
That’s not sexism. That’s the simple physical differences between men and women.
Why would it be harder to watch a woman go through this? There is certainly a higher percentage of those military men that go home and beat their wives or girlfriends. It just like when people said allowing gays to be open in the military would ruin everything. Or allowing women in period would. Men HAVE seen women in combat and have fought next to them. Maybe those men should be surveyed directly.