# Why aren't women allowed in front-line combat? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 31, 2012, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710 "2012-12-31T20:59:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/101 "2013-01-01T17:24:45Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I don’t think pilots are the best examples. As pointed out in the article linked upthread, the problem is that “combat” is nebulous. If you’re lining up across a field to fight the enemy, we’d currently just have infantry and artillery troops with no women. But what if you’re patrolling downtown Baghdad, kicking in doors and looking for explosives? You might have 6 infantry troops, a translator, and a dog handler (to steal the example from the article). The latter two troops might be women under our current rules. Is that combat? They might go out on 10 patrols and not fire a single shot, or have a single shot fired at them. Or they might get ambushed on the way in and have to shoot their way out. In that case, translator and dog handler are now combat soldiers, weak upper body strength and all. Does anyone have a problem with that right now? They might have to help carry a fallen comrade out, or lift a humvee tire off someone, after all. > > The point of the article is that you can’t exclude women from combat when you have no idea when or where combat might happen, unless you exclude women from deploying altogether. I think you hit it right on the head, except where you didn’t (and yes, I’ll explain). “Combat pilot” isn’t nebulous. It’s someone going into enemy territory with the explicit goal of killing someone or blowing something up. Non-combat military pilot jobs might include combat hazards but they are not something that are inherent to the mission. Ferry pilots do get shot down in hazardous areas, but not every ferry flight involves flight into such zones. Medivac pilots do run the hazard of getting shot down, but while they might operate in combat zones their mission is rescue, not engaging the enemy. Ditto for troop transport pilots. When I say Tammy Duckworth was a combat helicopter pilot I don’t mean she was transporting troops or evacuating wounded or moving a chopper from point A to point B and got shot down, _her job was to shoot at the enemy_. Combat was her primary mission. She’s flying into range of the enemy and pulling the trigger to kill them, that’s her _job_. There is nothing nebulous about that. And in fact women do perform that job just as well as men and the US military finally acknowledged that and stopped blocking women from those jobs. You’re right about “just lining up” artillery and infantry - although some people in this thread just don’t seem to get that in their current form those jobs are out of reach of almost all women due to physical requirements. That’s not nebulous either. I think you’re right, though, that the patrolling type of combat does appear nebulous to people. I, personally, would consider that scenario a combat position. There’s certainly no reason the translator or dog handler couldn’t be a woman, and probably some women could handle kicking down the doors (which utilizes lower body strength where women and men are closer in ability) even if we don’t currently have women doing that. And women are _clearly_ already doing those jobs so presumably qualified women are out there. The problem is that they aren’t _classified_ as combat when I think they should be. As far as dragging a comrade to safety or helping to lift something off another person - a physically fit woman is capable of burst strength efforts that would allow her to drag a 200 pound man even if she’s only 120 herself, and given an adrenalin burst will be able to do some pretty impressive feats. What she _can’t_ do is repeatedly lift 100 pounds as many times as a man. Sure, a woman might be able to load a large artillery shell but she is unlikely to do it as fast and as long as a man. One other reason for keeping women officially out of combat positions is also the issue of long-term disability due to injuries. Injuries incurred during combat are treated differently than those from chronic use injuries or non-combat injuries. Labeling women’s injuries as “non-combat” saves money under the current system, leading to a financial incentive to fail to recognize some combat jobs as combat jobs. ---
**Author:** ![lavenderviolet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/cdc98d/32.png) [@lavenderviolet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lavenderviolet)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/102 "2013-01-01T17:27:09Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I recall one of the women who had been in one of the infamous Serbian rape camps saying she was sorry for the men despite what happened to her, because she could here them scream as they were castrated. Men in such situations don’t necessarily have it better; people just care less. I think this is actually true. Because our society still has this concept of “women and children first”, it does bother people more to think of a woman or child being tortured, raped, or killed than it does if the same thing happens to an adult man. People expect men to be tough and be able to just deal with it. I also think a big factor is that even if you try your best to give them contraception, some of the women WILL get pregnant (possibly even intentionally in order to get sent home). That would be very disruptive, if some of the best fighters suddenly had to leave because of a pregnancy. From what I’ve heard from a military doc, in recent years they will sometimes keep men in combat under circumstances where you really wouldn’t think they should, because they need the bodies. However, I doubt they could force a pregnant woman to stay on the front lines. Another issue: rape **within** the military. A lot of female vets have experienced sexual assault within the military, and I do wonder if that is a concern by decision makers as well, since obviously it could seriously threaten cohesion if there was an allegation of rape in the midst of combat. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/103 "2013-01-01T17:34:03Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > I was using your numbers, I have no idea how many women are qualified or how many even want to. But the point is that if they are qualified, and they do want to, if the only reason you’re prohibiting them from being permitted to is because of their gender then yes it’s sexist. If they are qualified, the “lives of many” are no more at risk than if a man were in that position. But you’re arguing that even if they are qualified, their mere presence is going to put lives at risk for some nebulous unknown reason. If you can’t specify why they’re inherently less qualified even if they meet the male physical requirements for the job, then you don’t have an objective reason for excluding them. I’m not an expert, and **Gray Ghost** and **Bear\_Nenno** are clearly more knowledgeable than I am, so I’ll bow out. But I took the time to read the article Gray Ghost linked to (Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal). It’s written by a female Marine with combat experience. It’s worth reading. It’s [here.](http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal) ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/104 "2013-01-01T18:01:32Z")
On this thread lots of people seem to be equating damgerous/being under fire= combat. That is not the case. Most non combat position carry a risk of being under fire and many persons in non combat roles do come under fire at times even heavy fire. Some like logoistics and communictaions troops are a target anyway due to the nature of their duties and even medical staff can find fhemselves in danger, buttheir primary role is not to go and kill the enemy even though on occasion the may have to pick up arms. Indeed when the company clerks and the cooks are forced to fire their weapons, it’s a great sign that things have gone wrong. Even in today’s wars and the 125 female KIA, how many have been killed while hunting militants? It’s no fun being ambushed and subjected to IEDs. But it’s nit the same as being the tip of the spear in Ramadi or Nuristan province. ---
**Author:** ![rsat3acr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a3d4f5/32.png) [@rsat3acr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsat3acr)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/105 "2013-01-01T18:03:49Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > 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. maybe but I flew helicopters and strength wasn’t the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/106 "2013-01-01T18:07:03Z")
Meh. I had a long post but deleted it. It really isn’t worth it trying to discuss with people who have never been in the military or in combat. I have been in many all male units. I’ve been in several mixed units. I know who I would rather go back into combat with. I’m sure it will change. I have no doubt the combat effectiveness of combat arms units will go down. But I’m sure it will be good for some careers. As usual the duffel blog has their own take on it. [http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/07/women-in-combat-activists-celebrate-mediocre-war-experience-to-bolster-calls-for-female-infantry/](http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/07/women-in-combat-activists-celebrate-mediocre-war-experience-to-bolster-calls-for-female-infantry/) ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/107 "2013-01-01T18:07:56Z")
> [@rsat3acr](#): > > maybe but I flew helicopters and strength wasn’t the issue. If it’s a combat job where strength isn’t an issue, then I see no reason why a female shouldn’t be assigned to it. ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/108 "2013-01-01T18:40:36Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > **mnemosyne** , why should the United States Military be the experiment? They aren’t. We have ~24 years of CANADIAN experience telling you that it isn’t, actually, an issue. We also have openly gay military personnel - some even married to each other! - and allow women on our submarines (those that work, that is :smack:). Women serve in these very same roles in other militaries around the world with no disastrous consequences. Are American women somehow different than the rest of us? > [@](#): > > There are no women playing in the NFL. Why is that acceptable, but the fact that there are none in the infantry is sexist and such a disgrace? Actually I do consider the fact that women can’t play in the NFL to be sexist. As with the rest of this thread _if a woman can meet all the requirements of the job, then she shouldn’t be barred from doing it just because she has a vagina_. I expect the only plausible NFL position for a woman might be kicker/punter/special teams stuff, but who knows? Fewer women play football than men, so we haven’t really seen whether any of them can kick a 53 yard field goal, have we? Just because no one does it today doesn’t mean it can’t be done, and doesn’t mean she couldn’t be just as good if not better than men trying out for the job. > [@](#): > > There is probably a woman out there who can perform at that level, right? Then why not allow her to? Fully integrate the rest of the country, where the outcome is not as important to security of the nation and to the safety of lives on the battle field. > You are asking why we can’t integrate the infantry, when it is clear we can’t even integrate professional sports. > > Start with college sports, then professional sports, and THEN integrating the infantry will be far less of an obstacle. OK, let’s do that. If a woman shows up to the New England Patriots football camp and performs as well as any of the men there in every conceivable test thrown against her for her position on the team, then why can’t she play? > [@raindog](#): > > The man was 50% of the work force who delivered that refrigerator. He was more than 50% of the energy needed to haul that unit. > > (from experience. I’ve moved heavy things with women that I couldn’t have moved without their help. But…A) I did most of the lifting, and B) all of the men I know would have been more proficient. ) Wow, that’s astoundingly condescending. That woman was on the lower steps, fwiw. Anecdote isn’t data, but you might want to reconsider your statements nonetheless. [quote=“Bear\_Nenno, post:74, topic:645710”] And where are the pursuasive arguments _in favor_ of such a change? Military strategy should not be based on what is nice, or what is politically feasible, it should be based on what is necessary. Changes to the military should be made based on strength, lethality, and combat effectiveness. If the proposed change does not make the military stronger, then it should not be implemented. Where is your pursuasive argument that this would make the military more effective at it’s job of killing the enemies of the United States? [quote] And if the proposed change has no negative impact whatsoever, but makes the LandoftheFree even Freer, that isn’t good enough for you? Women are already doing these roles and not getting the job opportunities, recognition and financial compensation that men are. That is inherently sexist, and it is wrong. Other militaries around the world recognize women in these roles already, so it can, in fact, be done without leading to the destruction of the military. > [@](#): > > No, it boils down to “why should we”, and your lack of reasons are not really acceptable to anyone. > > The problem, as I have mentioned earlier, is much deeper than a simple Y/N, GO/NO GO metric. They are not just physiological. There are logistical, and more importantly cultural, barriers at play. then perhaps you/we need to teach our boys not to rape. Perhaps we need to teach them that women need to be treated with the same level of respect. Perhaps we need to place women alongside them so that they can see it first handed. The answer to “we have cultural predjudices on this matter” isn’t to reinforce those predjudices by continuing to discriminate, it is to break the cycle and force the idiots to comply or go home. The problem here isn’t women. The problem is men. > [@](#): > > FWIW, I am not against women in the infantry. I am against the methods in which women would be integrated. If, as in your perfect world, a female recruit desires to be infantry, and she is fully capable, then she should be allowed. She should be placed in the same line as other infantrymen, and shown to her bunk. She will shave her head like every other infantryman, and she will sleep in the same room along side the other 50 infantrymen in her training company. If she is indeed equal, then why does she need a seperate facility guarded by a firewall, an audible alarm, panic doors, and video surveillance? Those are things the Army requires. The Army’s “Seperate and Secure” policy stinks like “seperate but equal” to me! Let her do that if she choses. I am fine with that. But that is not how it’s going to happen. And that is what people have a problem with. > You are talking about an Army that mandates segregated Port-O-Johns for crying out loud. You are talking about a population of soldiers who see no issue with a Sergeant First Class holding the door open for a female privates solely because she is female and “that’s the proper way to treat females”. We are talking about an Army full of people who cuss and swear all day long, but then in the presense of a female soldier say, “Hey! Watch your mouth, there’s a female over there!” > Change that culture, ensure the standards will not be lowered for the sake of politics, and allow for perfectly equal treatment to include living arrangements, and then you will have accomplished what you want without weakening the nation. Anything less than that, and we are only making changes because it feels good for some people. Then the US military has a lot more self reflection and change to do. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it. The inertia of tradition and old ideas is tough to shake off, but is not a reason to continue to discriminate. The only way to change a culture is to force the change, you can’t wait for boneheaded highschool dropout smalltown infantry men to suddenly go “hey, maybe girls should be allowed here too!” It isn’t going to happen. It isn’t going to come from inside. It boils down to this for me: - American women are already doing these jobs out of necessity, and yet are being denied benefits, salary, job advancement opportunities and recognition because they dared to be born without a penis - other countries are doing it, so it’s not quite the experiment opponents seem to think it is - there is no valid financial reason not to do it, IMHO. Worrying about pregnancy costs etc as a reason to continue to deny women the chance to be recognized for work they are already doing is inherently sexist. It was the same argument used to keep women out of offices, and it isn’t more valid now than it was then. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/109 "2013-01-01T22:23:20Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I don’t think pilots are the best examples. As pointed out in the article linked upthread, the problem is that “combat” is nebulous. If you’re lining up across a field to fight the enemy, we’d currently just have infantry and artillery troops with no women. But what if you’re patrolling downtown Baghdad, kicking in doors and looking for explosives? You might have 6 infantry troops, a translator, and a dog handler (to steal the example from the article). The latter two troops might be women under our current rules. Is that combat? They might go out on 10 patrols and not fire a single shot, or have a single shot fired at them. Or they might get ambushed on the way in and have to shoot their way out. In that case, translator and dog handler are now combat soldiers, weak upper body strength and all. Does anyone have a problem with that right now? They might have to help carry a fallen comrade out, or lift a humvee tire off someone, after all. Interestingly enough, I _have_ patrolled Baghdad, kicking in doors and looking for explosives with a group of roughly 5 infantrymen and a dog handler who happened to be female. Nobody had any problem with the fact that she was female. It really didn’t even come up with respect to her ability to do her job. But she wasn’t doing an infantryman’s job simply because she was attached to the infantry that day. And being attached to the infantry doesn’t equate to being infantry. Being able to assist the infantry during _one type_ of patrol doesn’t mean a person “does everything the infantry does”, despite what those people will tell you. As far as danger from combat, she was in the same danger as the rest of us. There is no issue with women on the front line, they are already there. The issue is allowing women into specific combat roles that are currently restricted to men. > [@](#): > > The point of the article is that you can’t exclude women from combat when you have no idea when or where combat might happen, unless you exclude women from deploying altogether. We don’t exclude women from combat. We exclude them from certain physically demanding jobs. The reasons for this have nothing to do with women fighting or dying. It has to do with physical limitations. They military has decided it does not make sense to make drastic changes to accommodate such a small number of qualified and capable female. In my opinion, if the Army just did it without making any changes at all, then it would be fine. However, it isn’t going to happen like that. **Mnemosyne** ’s perfect world just doesn’t exist. Or maybe it exists in Canada, but it’s not going to be like that here. Drastic changes will be made, and most of them will not be for the better. That is the issue soldiers have with the integration. > [@Nava](#): > > Retrofitted how? I’ve slept in Spanish Army barracks and the only strange thing was that the single bathroom had urinals… since there were stalls and my group was co-ed, we all used the stalls. It helps if you read the entire thread. I have already mentioned barracks requirements for coed units. Among the requirements are separate entrances, firewall between the two sexes, an audible alarm on the female’s door, panic doors for the females, and video surveillance on the female door. Politically, the Army is more concerned about rape and sexual assault than they are about anything else, to include training troops. This is the same mentality that causes units to put Triple-Strand Concertina wire around the female shower tent on bases overseas. And the same mentality that says women cannot shit in the same toilet as a man. > [@](#): > > Can someone please explain to me why would it be better to have a 5’4" dude driving a tank than a 5’4" woman? And don’t tell me that tanker isn’t a combat job. Because “Tank Driver” is not a job in the Army. “Armor Crewman” is the job title and includes drivers and loaders and gunners. The same person is expected to be able to do all of that, and then to advance in rank and be in charge of the whole tank. If you are in charge of that tank, you should be the best driver, the best loader, and the best gunner all rolled into one soldier. If you are not the best in that tank, how can you be in charge of, coach and mentor the others on that tank? You cannot just pick and choose what things a woman can do equally to a man. You can’t just say, “Well, they can both drive the same, so she can be a tank driver,” or “Well, she can pull the trigger the same so she can be a sniper.” It doesn’t work that way. Military jobs are much more comprehensive than that. > [@lavenderviolet](#): > > Another issue: rape **within** the military. A lot of female vets have experienced sexual assault within the military, and I do wonder if that is a concern by decision makers as well, since obviously it could seriously threaten cohesion if there was an allegation of rape in the midst of combat. It is probably the biggest concern of decision makers right now, IMO. As sad as that is, that is probably the biggest factor next to “How are we going to make changes in training without lowering the standard”. They will likely fail at both tasks. Women will get raped or assaulted, and training standards will be lowered. [QUOTE=mnemosyne] They aren’t. We have ~24 years of CANADIAN experience telling you that it isn’t, actually, an issue. [/quote] No, I don’t mean the experiment for the world, I mean the experiment for the United States. > [@](#): > > Are American women somehow different than the rest of us? Physically? No. > [@](#): > > Actually I do consider the fact that women can’t play in the NFL to be sexist. Women are not banned from the NFL. If a woman wanted to do it, and _could_ do it, then she would be allowed to. Hell, the league would likely be _forced_ to allow her. Yet there are none. That isn’t sexist. > [@](#): > > And if the proposed change has no negative impact whatsoever, but makes the LandoftheFree even Freer, that isn’t good enough for you? Don’t put words in my mouth. I have stated how it could be done with no negative impact. The problem is that is _will not_ be done in that manner. > [@](#): > > Women are already doing these roles and not getting the job opportunities, recognition and financial compensation that men are. Please explain what you are referring to here. There are no women being denied any financial compensation that men get. A person’s pay in a combat theatre is based on his or her rank and location. Extra money for hazardous duty such as Airborne pay or for special skills like linguistic ability and/or professional pay is all paid equally without respect to sex. I think you have been fed some misinformation here, but I can tell you for a fact you are wrong. > [@](#): > > then perhaps you/we need to teach our boys not to rape. Perhaps we need to teach them that women need to be treated with the same level of respect. Perhaps we need to place women alongside them so that they can see it first handed. Which is exactly what I said needs to happen in my post. > [@](#): > > The answer to “we have cultural predjudices on this matter” isn’t to reinforce those predjudices by continuing to discriminate, it is to break the cycle and force the idiots to comply or go home. The problem here isn’t women. The problem is men. The problem here is men AND women. Now look who is being sexist. Do you think it is only men who have these views? Do you think that no female soldiers ever used their gender to get out of work? You’re wrong if you do. They do it because they can get away with it. The problem is not just men. It is the entire system and the culture that is driving it! You are right that the answer to prejudice is not to continue to discriminate; it is to break the cycle. As I have said in my previous post, the issue here is that integration of female soldiers into the infantry WILL NOT be done in a manner that will break the cycle. It is going to be done in a manner that simply reinforces stereotypes and adds fuel to the fire. You see, the powers that be are not going to allow a true gender-free integration like you are proposing. It isn’t going to be a PASS/FAIL, “Can she do it or not” assessment. Women would be treated differently by the Army from the onset. They would be separated behind their firewall and audible alarms. The drill sergeants, however, would attempt to treat them just like every other soldier, but then when the numbers don’t look right, there will be pressure from higher to lighten up. Politicians will put pressure on generals who will pass that down until it gets to the drill sergeant in no uncertain terms that they need to graduate more women. When Washington sees that a much higher percent of women are failing basic infantry training, they are going to intervene. Training will change. Standards will be lowered. The written standards will not be changed, so that everyone can say “See we never lowered the standards”. But in practice, they will have changed. > [@](#): > > Then the US military has a lot more self reflection and change to do. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it. The driving force behind it all is not the Army. People do not develop their preconceptions in the Army. The driving force is the culture across the United States. It is the attitude of American men and American women. It is going to take more than the ranting of a Canadian feminist to change that. > [@](#): > > The inertia of tradition and old ideas is tough to shake off, but is not a reason to continue to discriminate. The only way to change a culture is to force the change, you can’t wait for boneheaded highschool dropout smalltown infantry men to suddenly go “hey, maybe girls should be allowed here too!” It isn’t going to happen. It isn’t going to come from inside. The problem, though, is that those boneheaded, smalltown infantrymen grow up to be Generals and Sergeants Major. They become the policy makers. Even if they were forced to integrate women into the infantry, they are not going to do it the way it should be done. That is what most people have a problem with. When people say that women shouldn’t be in the infantry, what they really mean is, “If women are allowed into the infantry, standards will be lowered, and training will be altered to accommodate them.” If neither of those things would happen, then there would not be an issue. Unfortunately, both of those things will happen. > [@](#): > > It boils down to this for me: > > - American women are already doing these jobs out of necessity, No, they are not. > [@](#): > > and yet are being denied benefits, salary, No, they are not. > [@](#): > > job advancement opportunities That is indirectly true, but only at the absolute highest levels. We are talking Colonel and above here. > [@](#): > > - other countries are doing it, so it’s not quite the experiment opponents seem to think it is Other countries with a comparably sized infantry? Other countries that fight as much as the United States? Other countries that commit as many combat troops to actual fighting as the United States? Comparable countries are not doing it. This would be a lot easier at a smaller scale, I assure you. In fact, a change like this would be easier if the Army started integrated Special Forces first, and then let it trickle down to infantry, armor, and field artillery. That would actually make a lot of sense, in my opinion. Smaller unit integration would be much easier, and success at that level would help change mindsets and ensure success at the larger level. That wouldn’t be a bad idea at all. > [@](#): > > there is no valid financial reason not to do it, IMHO. Worrying about pregnancy costs etc as a reason to continue to deny women the chance to be recognized for work they are already doing is inherently sexist. This has nothing to do with anything. Nobody is worried about financial costs due to pregnancy. The concern about pregnancy is that you lose a soldier. And that soldier is still on your books, so you don’t get a replacement. What you end up with are a bunch of soldiers who really only joined for the benefits, and didn’t really want to be infantry but that is all the recruiter could get them. Then they are told they are deploying, and to get ready for the worst fighting America has seen in decades. Then, right off the bat, those certain soldiers go and get pregnant. Now the unit has lost a percentage of their fighting troops before they even deploy. That is the concern of pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/110 "2013-01-01T22:44:46Z")
**mnemosyne** ------ The quest for equality is a noble and necessary one, but it does not mean that women need to turn into men, and men turn into women. There are differences between the sexes, and those differences are not always a result of some grand male conspiracy, sexism, or misogyny. We all know intuitively and through observation that: 1. Moving refrigerators is hard work, requiring strength. 2. The average person signing up for such a job, and the person hiring this person, knows how hard it is. In other words, Peewee Herman is likely not applying. 3. As a result movers tend to be stronger than the average person. 4. It’s _really_ uncommon to see a woman mover. 5. We know intuitively she must be stronger—in fact, much stronger—than the average person, particularly women. 6. Her partner—a male— is likely stronger than the average person too. 7. Even if he’s of average male strength, (unlikely if he took this job) and she’s strong for a woman, he’s going to be stronger than her the vast majority of the time. What part of that is not true? Yet it’s somehow “astoundingly condescending” noting that the chances that he’s stronger than her is almost certain. It’s about time----and I have a lot of experience with this here-----you’ll note that it just so happens that it _was_ Peewee Herman on break from college, and his female partner was built like Hulk Hogan. Even if that was true, what would it prove? In a conversation whether women are as physically capable as men in the military, what’s your point? Even if it’s true (and I’m sure you’re about to tell me it’s true) are they outliers, or are they representative of movers there? Are there many woman movers in Quebec, and are they generally as strong as their male co-workers? (and fwiw, when you’re moving an appliance up a flight of stairs, the heavy lifting is on the upper steps, by far. The strongest person has to be on the upper steps. The bulk of the lift is _pulling_ it up the stairs, not _pushing_ it.) ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2013, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/111 "2013-01-01T23:49:40Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Other countries with a comparably sized infantry? Other countries that fight as much as the United States? Other countries that commit as many combat troops to actual fighting as the United States? Comparable countries are not doing it. Israel doesn’t count? > [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > You can’t just say, “Well, they can both drive the same, so she can be a tank driver,” or “Well, she can pull the trigger the same so she can be a sniper.” It doesn’t work that way. Military jobs are much more comprehensive than that. I can think of [over 2,000](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipers_of_the_Soviet_Union) Soviet female snipers who served in the WW2 would disagree with you, and I’m fairly sure the 309 German and Rumanian men [this woman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko) killed would have preferred to not have been killed and be able to have a say in the matter. > [@raindog](#): > > If it’s a combat job where strength isn’t an issue, then I see no reason why a female shouldn’t be assigned to it. And yet you do see a reason where strength is an issue for why qualifying females shouldn’t be assigned to it. ---
**Author:** ![Atakapa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a8b319/32.png) [@Atakapa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atakapa)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2013, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/112 "2013-01-02T00:35:39Z")
It’s an issue of basic biology. A population with 10 women and 1 man will be more sustainable than a population with 10 men and 1 woman. Let’s say it is 20,000 BC. Tribes A and B are rivals. A and B both have 100 people each; 50 men and 50 women. Tribe A uses a coed fighting force, while Tribe B sticks to men only. If Tribe A suffers heavy losses, they profoundly impact the continued survival and population growth of the tribe, as the number of women sets how many offspring will be in the next generation. If even a handful of fighters from Tribe B survive, they can still reproduce and grow as before. Perhaps a bit outdated in our nations with teeming millions, but you can see how shying away from using women in warfare would be a trait beneficial to the survival of a smaller society. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2013, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/113 "2013-01-02T01:37:14Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Israel doesn’t count? Considering that Israel continues to restrict women from 8% of their military jobs, then NO. It most certainly does _not_ count. Why is Israel always brought up in these conversations as if they allow women to do every job that a man does? Even the IDF themselves have this to say: “Women are considered just as valuable as men, and have the same job opportunities, **except for combat units, in which different opportunities exist**.” Emphasis added. From [http://www.idfinfo.co.il/Frequently\_Asked\_Questions.php?cat=a12#q3](http://www.idfinfo.co.il/Frequently_Asked_Questions.php?cat=a12#q3) > [@](#): > > I can think of [over 2,000](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipers_of_the_Soviet_Union) Soviet female snipers who served in the WW2 would disagree with you, and I’m fairly sure the 309 German and Rumanian men [this woman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko) killed would have preferred to not have been killed and be able to have a say in the matter. The equivalent of that “sniper” job does not exist in the US Military. No soldier is only a sniper. Sniper is not an occupation in our Army, it is only an assignment or duty position. A sniper qualified soldier is not a sniper throughout his entire career. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2013, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/114 "2013-01-02T02:16:24Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Israel doesn’t count? And in addition to restricting women from a portion of their combat positions, do you really think the IDF is comparable in size to the US Military? Estimates of the IDF are around 600,000 total personnel, including reserves. The active US Military is more than twice that number. If you count reserve military in the US, you can more than double that again. In what way exactly should Israel count as a comparably size military force that allows women to serve equally to a man when it is neither comparable in size nor allowing women to serve equally across the board? ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2013, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/115 "2013-01-02T02:20:16Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2013, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/116 "2013-01-02T03:32:28Z")
Do you realize how much you are playing No True Scotsman? > [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > And in addition to restricting women from a portion of their combat positions, do you really think the IDF is comparable in size to the US Military? Estimates of the IDF are around 600,000 total personnel, including reserves. The active US Military is more than twice that number. If you count reserve military in the US, you can more than double that again. > In what way exactly should Israel count as a comparably size military force that allows women to serve equally to a man when it is neither comparable in size nor allowing women to serve equally across the board? The IDF allows women to serve as combat infantry, [fullstop](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion). No matter how much dancing around this fact is made, it is a fact. > [@](#): > > The Caracal Battalion is an infantry combat battalion of the Israel Defense Forces, composed of both male and female soldiers, of both Jewish and Arab descent Considering the amount and frequency of combat operations Israel engages in, I certainly do think they more than qualify on that account compared to the US. Considering the size of the population of Israel along with the fact that they practice universal conscription, I also think a military of 600,000 more than qualifies as well; percentage-wise it is much, much more of the Israeli population than the US military. If you automatically disqualify any nation that doesn’t have a military as large as the US, you have neatly cut down the countries that ‘count’ to China and Russia. While discussing other countries that engage in combat operations, it’s a bit of a pet peeve of mine that Canada frequently gets ragged on considering their role in [Afghanistan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_role_in_the_Afghanistan_War#Fatalities): > [@](#): > > Since February 2002, 158 Canadian soldiers have died in the war in Afghanistan or in support of the war. Of these, 123 were due to hostile circumstances, including 95 due to improvised explosive devices (IED) or landmines, 21 due to rocket-propelled grenade, small arms or mortar fire, 11 due to suicide bomb attacks, and one died falling from a high ground position on a cliff during a combat operation that involved firefight. An additional 22 soldiers have died in accidents or other non-combat circumstances; 7 due to “friendly fire”, 6 in vehicle accidents, two in an accidental helicopter crash, 2 from accidental falls, 2 from accidental gunshots, 1 suicide death and 2 unspecified non-combat-related deaths in country. Additionally, one unspecified non-combat-related death occurred at a support base in the Persian Gulf. **Canada has suffered the third-highest absolute number of deaths of any nation among the foreign military participants, and the highest casualties per capita of all coalition members since the beginning of the war**.[60][61] More than 2000 soldiers were injured during the war between April 2002 to December 2011. 635 soldiers were injured in action while 1412 were injured in patrol or non combat situation. > [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > The equivalent of that “sniper” job does not exist in the US Military. No soldier is only a sniper. Sniper is not an occupation in our Army, it is only an assignment or duty position. A sniper qualified soldier is not a sniper throughout his entire career. Aside from trying to No True Scotsman away the fact that over 2,000 female soldiers served as snipers in the Red Army during WW2 and were quite successful at it, the exact same thing was true of for the Soviets. Sniper was a duty position of Soviet infantry; during the Cold War one soldier in an infantry platoon was given the SVD and became the designated sniper/marksman. Lyudmila Pavlichenko didn’t sign up as a sniper, [she](http://englishrussia.com/2012/03/08/outstanding-soviet-female-snipers-of-wwii/) > [@](#): > > Pavlichenko was among the first round of volunteers at the recruiting office, where she requested to join the infantry and subsequently she was assigned to the Red Army’s 25th Rifle Division. She also took temporary command of her battalion when the commander was killed. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2013, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/117 "2013-01-02T03:53:23Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > And in addition to restricting women from a portion of their combat positions, do you really think the IDF is comparable in size to the US Military? Estimates of the IDF are around 600,000 total personnel, including reserves. The active US Military is more than twice that number. If you count reserve military in the US, you can more than double that again. I’m not sure why Israel having a smaller army supports your argument. Surely, with a smaller army, drawn from a smaller population, the odds of finding that rare woman who is equally capable on the battlefield as a man would be much smaller, no? I would expect that a smaller army would have \*fewer \*women in physically demanding jobs than a larger army. Anyway, I agree overall that the number of women who are capable of passing the fitness requirements for front line combat are always going to be vastly smaller than the number of capable men. And we absolutely shouldn’t change those requirements if it means getting more of our people being killed. But if a woman can meet those requirements, she should be allowed to serve, and I don’t really care how much it costs us in dollars, particularly in light of the absolutely ludicrous amount of money we waste on our military as it is. I’d much rather see us spend millions to uphold the values of our country, than spend it on yet another new vehicle that the military neither needs nor wants. Needless to say, I find the idea that it’s too much effort to keep our male soldiers from raping our female soldiers to allow the women to serve to be beneath contempt. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2013, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/118 "2013-01-02T04:14:03Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Do you realize how much you are playing No True Scotsman? No, I am merely saying that the full integration of women into the United States infantry presents it’s own hurdles that are _unique_ to the United States military. The two most important reasons I have given are culture and logistics. Therefore, it is not appropriate to compare it to other organizations that face neither the cultural nor the logistical hurdles. > [@](#): > > The IDF allows women to serve as combat infantry, [fullstop](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion). They allow women to serve in one specific infantry battalion–a battalion that is 70% female! Having one infantry battalion that is majority female is not the same thing as fully integrating females into their infantry. > [@](#): > > No matter how much dancing around this fact is made, it is a fact. It isn’t a fact. The fact is that the IDF has created what amounts to an all female infantry unit composed of only 30% males. Even their own website says that women are limited in their ability to serve in combat roles. It doesn’t take any dancing to recognize that. If the Caracal Battalion is as combat effective and lethal as their all male battalions, and since they have obviously solved all of the problems with integrating females into their infantry, why exactly have they not done so throughout their military? Why did they stop there? There must be some reason they chose to not fully integrate all of their infantry units? Any guesses as to why? > [@](#): > > Considering the amount and frequency of combat operations Israel engages in, I certainly do think they more than qualify on that account compared to the US. Okay then. But they still don’t qualify because they restrict women from 8% of their combat positions. Full Stop. We are looking for a large military that has full integration of females in their ranks. IDF is not it. > [@](#): > > If you automatically disqualify any nation that doesn’t have a military as large as the US, you have neatly cut down the countries that ‘count’ to China and Russia. If a military has only 20,000 personnel then it is much easier to integrate and change policy than in a military with over a million. That’s all I am saying. > [@](#): > > Aside from trying to No True Scotsman away the fact that over 2,000 female soldiers served as snipers in the Red Army during WW2 and were quite successful at it, the exact same thing was true of for the Soviets. Are you sure there were women service as regular infantrymen? Seems to me they were only serving in _specific_ combat jobs like pilot, sniper or machinegunner. Jobs were specifically cherry-picked based on their capabilities. If she had not been a skilled marksman, would she have been allowed to be just a regular grunt? ---
**Author:** ![Poysyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Poysyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poysyn)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2013, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/119 "2013-01-02T04:17:40Z")
BTW - Canada’s first female combat related death (in Afghanistan in 2006) was Capt Nichola Goddard a Crew Commander with the Artillery. She was, by all accounts, hardcore and very capable, she was also 26 years old. [Nichola Goddard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichola_Goddard) It’s not that complicated, if someone is not physically capable of doing a certain job in the military, they are not qualified to do it, whether they are male or female doesn’t matter. Why would it? There are certainly some men that are not capable of being infantrymen. I had a long (colourful) discussion with a Major from Azerbaijan about this exact thing, he found it so odd to be chatting with a female officer and my argument was simple - apply the standard. If you don’t meet it, then you don’t get to come along, whether you have a penis or not. As far as a greater risk for sexual assault, I can’t say I think about it constantly. I have always trusted the guys I work with, the ones I biv with and the ones in my section. I work in a different area, and am not called on to go into the field as often, but I still do when called on. The job should go to those that can do it - being in the infantry is a tough, grinding slog…if a soldier proves capable, then it would be foolish to keep them out just because they have a vagina. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2013, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/120 "2013-01-02T04:18:16Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m not sure why Israel having a smaller army supports your argument. The idea is this: If I have an organization of 5,000 people that I train at one facility, I can much easier change my policy and adjust my training than if I have 50,000 people trained at multiple facilities. The argument is a matter of scope. A small business can effect change a lot easier than a large corporation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710.md?page=7)