# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Poysyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Poysyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poysyn)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/161 "2013-01-03T02:35:56Z")
> [@Sampsiceramos](#): > > Let’s clear up a common misconception here. Modern guns are not lightweight - in fact, the average modern infantry primary firearm (as represented by the standard-issue M4 Carbine) weighs in excess of 6.5 pounds loaded. “Light” machine guns such the M240, in use by US armed forces, weigh, depending on the exact model, anywhere between 22 and 28 pounds. Also contrary to common belief, swords and the like aren’t particularly unwieldly (cite: [http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm](http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm) ), most weighing, in fact, appreciably less than the modern infantry firearm. From a pure strength viewpoint, women might in fact be better suited to medieval combat than modern combat. > > These are heavy things we’re talking about, and I think people are gravely underestimating the physical requirements of grunt work. As a previously-cited article by a combat-experienced female marine states very clearly, physical deterioration during combat is rapid and severe to the point of significant muscular atrophy, and I would presume it even more severe for special-weapons soldiers such as machine gunners. If we’re going to discuss this matter, lets stop pussyfooting about the actual physical toll of combat as if guns were made of plastic and all that’s required of a grunt is some stamina and a bit of fleet-footedness when that’s clearly not the case. And, as discussed earlier (it’s a long thread, maybe it was missed), when I did my training, it was the same. I took my turn as the machine gunner in the section, and when I wasn’t, I still carried the normal service rifle, sidearm, ammo and personal kit. I don’t think anyone is making the claim that the weapons are made of Nerf. Look, I am not saying _every woman_ can do the job, anymore than \* every man\* can do it - it takes more than a penis. If the woman proves herself, then why not? But she should be given the opportunity to prove herself, not dismissed simply because she has a vagina. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/162 "2013-01-03T02:46:16Z")
> [@Sampsiceramos](#): > > Let’s clear up a common misconception here. Modern guns are not lightweight - in fact, the average modern infantry primary firearm (as represented by the standard-issue M4 Carbine) weighs in excess of 6.5 pounds loaded. “Light” machine guns such the M240, in use by US armed forces, weigh, depending on the exact model, anywhere between 22 and 28 pounds. Also contrary to common belief, swords and the like aren’t particularly unwieldly (cite: [http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm](http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm) ), most weighing, in fact, appreciably less than the modern infantry firearm. From a pure strength viewpoint, women might in fact be better suited to medieval combat than modern combat. This is exceptionally silly. The damage imparted by a sword, mace, or other melee weapon depends on the strength behind the swing. There’s also the matter of the ability to parry or block a blow with a shield or your own weapon depending on being able to match the strength of your opponent. In contrast, the deadliness of an M-4 fired by a 240lb musclebound behemoth is exactly the same as one fired by a 98lb runway model. ---
**Author:** ![Sampsiceramos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Sampsiceramos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampsiceramos)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/163 "2013-01-03T03:15:35Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > This is exceptionally silly. The damage imparted by a sword, mace, or other melee weapon depends on the strength behind the swing. There’s also the matter of the ability to parry or block a blow with a shield or your own weapon depending on being able to match the strength of your opponent. In contrast, the deadliness of an M-4 fired by a 240lb musclebound behemoth is exactly the same as one fired by a 98lb runway model. Agreed. In retrospect, that last sentence was astoundingly ill-formulated. What I was trying to, and managed to fail quite spectacularly at, saying, is simply that modern infantry combat still has significant requirements in terms of raw strength - moreso than a lot of posters seem to be accounting for. Ignore any mention of medieval combat - it was unthinking. I should like to challenge that last assertion of yours, I might add. The gun is no doubt just as lethal when on target no matter who fires it, but speaking from experience, strength plays quite significant role in ones ability to hold firearm steady for a single shot, never mind a multi-round burst. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/164 "2013-01-03T04:06:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In Europe, in quite a few places, no one would object to common shower facilities for men/women. That would be quite unacceptable in the US. Would you call that sexism? No. I pretty much agree with what **Poysyn** said. I can understand being OK with it, and I can understand it making some people uncomfortable, especially in a society where people are juvenile about sex and sexual assault is common. But I wouldn’t consider it sexist. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/165 "2013-01-03T04:14:48Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > No. I pretty much agree with what **Poysyn** said. I can understand being OK with it, and I can understand it making some people uncomfortable, especially in a society where people are juvenile about sex and sexual assault is common. But I wouldn’t consider it sexist. So what is the difference, in principle - the difference that makes it sexist behavior - between being uncomfortable with opposite sex in the shower and being uncomfortable with opposite sex in close proximity in a room. I don’t see a qualitative one. In either case it is a cultural thing. Some Europeans would consider it a sexist throwback that one is uncomfortable with opposite sex nudity in a communal shower because it is their cultural norm not to be. More Europeans would consider it a sexist throwback that one is uncomfortable with female toplessnes on beaches because it is their cultural norm not to be. Some Americans would consider it a cultural throwback that one is uncomfortable being in the same room with women with above-knee skirts, because it is their cultural norm not to be. Etc. etc. - you can continue with stricter and stricter examples. At what point does it stop being an understandable cultural difference and becomes sexism? ---
**Author:** ![Poysyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Poysyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poysyn)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/166 "2013-01-03T04:20:58Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > So what is the difference, in principle - the difference that makes it sexist behavior - between being uncomfortable with opposite sex in the shower and being uncomfortable with opposite sex in close proximity in a room. I don’t see a qualitative one. In either case it is a cultural thing. > > Some Europeans would consider it a sexist throwback that one is uncomfortable with opposite sex nudity in a communal shower because it is their cultural norm not to be. More Europeans would consider it a sexist throwback that one is uncomfortable with female toplessnes on beaches because it is their cultural norm not to be. Some Americans would consider it a cultural throwback that one is uncomfortable being in the same room with women with above-knee skirts, because it is their cultural norm not to be. Etc. etc. - you can continue with stricter and stricter examples. At what point does it stop being an understandable cultural difference and becomes sexism? Okay…but what does that have to do with women serving in the combat arms? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/167 "2013-01-03T04:24:35Z")
> [@Poysyn](#): > > Last time I checked, joining the military (in the US and Canada) was still voluntary. If you don’t want to sleep in a tent, or in the dirt with members of the opposite sex, don’t join. There are quite a few places **(Alessan** is from one such) where it is not voluntary. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/168 "2013-01-03T04:29:45Z")
> [@Poysyn](#): > > Okay…but what does that have to do with women serving in the combat arms? Most of the military forces out there are not composed of volunteers. Thus they have to take into account the cultural sensibilities of the people they draft when composition of units is considered, even if such views are not a big majority. And as you (I believe, by your “okay” above) agree that such sensibilities might preclude mixed-gender military units, then it’s understandable when such units are not formed. And (again, I assume you agreed above) that has nothing to do with any “sexism” or perception of inferiority of women on the basis of possessing a vagina. ---
**Author:** ![Poysyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Poysyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poysyn)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/169 "2013-01-03T04:31:42Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > There are quite a few places **(Alessan** is from one such) where it is not voluntary. My original statement remains unchanged - one more time: if a woman has the desire and the ability to be a front-line combat soldier, she should not be denied that opportunity because she lacks a penis. All of the rest of it, showers, weapons, sharing tents is at best irrelevant - if she has the desire and the ability, she should be allowed to pursue that choice. If she can’t meet the standard, or doesn’t want to (whether due to her own beliefs or because her path is elsewhere), then she is not a candidate for the job. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/170 "2013-01-03T04:34:25Z")
> [@Poysyn](#): > > My original statement remains unchanged - one more time: if a woman has the desire and the ability to be a front-line combat soldier, she should not be denied that opportunity because she lacks a penis. > > All of the rest of it, showers, weapons, sharing tents is at best irrelevant - if she has the desire and the ability, she should be allowed to pursue that choice. If she can’t meet the standard, or doesn’t want to, then she is not a candidate for the job. That’s a “it should be because I want it to be so” kind of argument. What if she is denied that opportunity not “because she lacks a penis” but because it is not a volunteer army and the cultural mores of a a majority (or maybe even a sizable minority) of the draftees would not allow them to work/fight in close proximity with women? ---
**Author:** ![Poysyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Poysyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poysyn)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/171 "2013-01-03T04:47:36Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > That’s a “it should be because I want it to be so” kind of argument. What if she is denied that opportunity not “because she lacks a penis” but because it is not a volunteer army and the cultural mores of a a majority (or maybe even a sizable minority) of the draftees would not allow them to work/fight in close proximity with women? Clearly I would be speaking out of turn if I spoke about militaries of which I am not a member nor had close experience with…therefore I won’t. I am not an authority on militaries around the world, and would not speak to the inner workings of another woman’s brain, that would be unfair at best. I understand there are a number of countries that have radically different views on womanhood, and therefore chose to restrict my comments here to militaries that allow women in other trades, just not combat arms. I am a female in the military in my country, I have taken infantry training and while I chose a different trade, I was capable of the training, to the same standard. I work with men, and when deployed stay in the same tent if needed. My point remains that women are physically capable of serving in front-line combat, and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. Not every woman, no more than every man, but it is sexist to deny them the opportunity to try to meet the standard. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/172 "2013-01-03T04:56:36Z")
> [@Poysyn](#): > > My point remains that women are physically capable of serving in front-line combat, and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. Not every woman, no more than every man, but it is sexist to deny them the opportunity to try to meet the standard. What if the “standard”, as I explained, does not involve physical capabilities, but rests, instead, on the cultural sensibilities of the other soldiers? ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/173 "2013-01-03T04:58:47Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > So what is the difference, in principle - the difference that makes it sexist behavior - between being uncomfortable with opposite sex in the shower and being uncomfortable with opposite sex in close proximity in a room. I don’t see a qualitative one. In either case it is a cultural thing. > > Some Europeans would consider it a sexist throwback that one is uncomfortable with opposite sex nudity in a communal shower because it is their cultural norm not to be. More Europeans would consider it a sexist throwback that one is uncomfortable with female toplessnes on beaches because it is their cultural norm not to be. Some Americans would consider it a cultural throwback that one is uncomfortable being in the same room with women with above-knee skirts, because it is their cultural norm not to be. Etc. etc. - you can continue with stricter and stricter examples. At what point does it stop being an understandable cultural difference and becomes sexism? I don’t know, but since the OP mentioned the _U.S._ Army, why don’t we go with the prevailing American culture? ETA: Saw **Poysyn** once again ninja’d me on this point. ---
**Author:** ![Poysyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Poysyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poysyn)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/174 "2013-01-03T05:05:46Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > What if the “standard”, as I explained, does not involve physical capabilities, but rests, instead, on the cultural sensibilities of the other soldiers? I have worked with militaries from the former Eastern Bloc on some NATO exercises. Many of them do not have women in their military and some of the senior officers attempted to dismiss me. I am a subject matter expert and was brought along specifically to offer training in my area of expertise. In other words, they had to get over their sensibilities, and to their credit, did so admirably. Many of our conflicts are multi-national in scope and scale and we have women in uniform. It hasn’t always run smoothly, but we work it out. In Afghanistan, the ANA have apparently created a third ‘gender’ to explain us, we are not men, but also clearly different than the women from ther country. I am not sure if I answered your question. I don’t believe for a moment those senior officers went home and started recruiting women, but they also saw value in my job and area of expertise. Atwork in uniform, I am an officer and a soldier, being a woman doesn’t come into play as often as you may think. ---
**Author:** ![Poysyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Poysyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poysyn)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/175 "2013-01-03T05:08:00Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > I don’t know, but since the OP mentioned the _U.S._ Army, why don’t we go with the prevailing American culture? > > ETA: Saw **Poysyn** once again ninja’d me on this point. I agree. Talking about gender perceptions around the world is probably a valuable discussion, but a tad broad for this topic. Maybe a different thread? ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/176 "2013-01-03T14:06:11Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > What if the “standard”, as I explained, does not involve physical capabilities, but rests, instead, on the cultural sensibilities of the other soldiers? That is not a standard in any meaningful sense of the term. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/177 "2013-01-03T14:46:43Z")
> [@Sampsiceramos](#): > > Let’s clear up a common misconception here. Modern guns are not lightweight - in fact, the average modern infantry primary firearm (as represented by the standard-issue M4 Carbine) weighs in excess of 6.5 pounds loaded. “Light” machine guns such the M240, in use by US armed forces, weigh, depending on the exact model, anywhere between 22 and 28 pounds. Also contrary to common belief, swords and the like aren’t particularly unwieldly (cite: [http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm](http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm) ), most weighing, in fact, appreciably less than the modern infantry firearm. From a pure strength viewpoint, women might in fact be better suited to medieval combat than modern combat. > > These are heavy things we’re talking about, and I think people are gravely underestimating the physical requirements of grunt work. As a previously-cited article by a combat-experienced female marine states very clearly, physical deterioration during combat is rapid and severe to the point of significant muscular atrophy, and I would presume it even more severe for special-weapons soldiers such as machine gunners. If we’re going to discuss this matter, lets stop pussyfooting about the actual physical toll of combat as if guns were made of plastic and all that’s required of a grunt is some stamina and a bit of fleet-footedness when that’s clearly not the case. 1. \*\*Gorsnak \*\*already covered upper body strength and weapon effectiveness with modern vs midevil weapons. 2. Much of the M16 IS actually made of composite plastics and polymer materials. 3. If women can’t carry 90lbs of gear and their rifle around for weeks at a time like the men do, then they can’t do it. Then that’s the reason women shouldn’t be in combat. Not because some Arkansas farm boys feel uncomfortible putting the latrine seat down. ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/178 "2013-01-03T14:53:07Z")
> [@Sampsiceramos](#): > > Let’s clear up a common misconception here. Modern guns are not lightweight - in fact, the average modern infantry primary firearm (as represented by the standard-issue M4 Carbine) weighs in excess of 6.5 pounds loaded. “Light” machine guns such the M240, in use by US armed forces, weigh, depending on the exact model, anywhere between 22 and 28 pounds. Also contrary to common belief, swords and the like aren’t particularly unwieldly (cite: [http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm](http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm) ), most weighing, in fact, appreciably less than the modern infantry firearm. From a pure strength viewpoint, women might in fact be better suited to medieval combat than modern combat. > > These are heavy things we’re talking about, and I think people are gravely underestimating the physical requirements of grunt work. As a previously-cited article by a combat-experienced female marine states very clearly, physical deterioration during combat is rapid and severe to the point of significant muscular atrophy, and I would presume it even more severe for special-weapons soldiers such as machine gunners. If we’re going to discuss this matter, lets stop pussyfooting about the actual physical toll of combat as if guns were made of plastic and all that’s required of a grunt is some stamina and a bit of fleet-footedness when that’s clearly not the case. During my Marine combat training, I carried the M16 rifle, the SAW M240 and a Coldsop pack (meaning the cold weather pack so more gear to accommodate for colder climate. I could be wrong about the name though. It’s been 12 years) with male marines. So once again, some women CAN and DO. ---
**Author:** ![Poysyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Poysyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poysyn)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/179 "2013-01-03T15:00:38Z")
> [@aag3981](#): > > During my Marine combat training, I carried the M16 rifle, the SAW M240 and a Coldsop pack (meaning the cold weather pack so more gear to accommodate for colder climate. I could be wrong about the name though. It’s been 12 years) with male marines. So once again, some women CAN and DO. **Exactly.** I am not sure why this keeps coming up - some women can and do keep up, carrying all of the necessary gear. Therefore they are capable of the job Full stop. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710/180 "2013-01-03T15:12:56Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Does the IDF allow women to fight in combat? Dunno about the IDF, but the old Soviet Union readily allowed women into combat - though mostly as either fighter pilots/air force mechanics or in the various navies. A great many women also served in the infantry and cavalry during WW2, and even more of them served as snipers but that wound down after the victory, in no small part due to a return of pre-war patriarchal mindsets and attitudes. I guess they conveniently forgot about the likes of Lyudmila Pavlichenko and Manshuk Mametova ? Today, the Russian Army is still 10% female, even if women soldiers still definitely have to contend with a glass ceiling. Fully co-ed, as far as I’m aware. > [@Bear Nenno](#): > > 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. Indeed. It is significantly hotter. :o ETA: by cavalry I meant the armoured kind of course. Tanks, not the Light Brigade. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-arent-women-allowed-in-front-line-combat/645710.md?page=10)