Problems like that can be solved by enforcing mandatory contraception.
Yeah, they might scratch a nail pulling the trigger /giggle
this thread should be moved to a more opinion-based forum, cause that’s all this is.
Women are not permitted as front-line ground troops in the US military. They are, however, allowed to fly as front-line combat pilots and some have done so. A major difference between those two roles is that brute strength is not such a factor in flying airplanes (and on average women have a slightly greater tolerance for g-forces than men do) or helicopters. In infantry physical strength counts. The average women, even the average military woman, is simply not as physically strong as the average military man. If a combat role requires a certain level of strength it will be dominated or wholly staffed by men. Sorry folks, that’s biology. If physical strength is not a factor or only a minor one you’ll see more women - such as in combat flying.
An example of a American woman combat pilot is Tammy Duckworth who specifically chose a combat role in the military and was serving in front-line combat when she was shot down in 2004.
Oh really? You mean the women killed in auxiliary roles in WWI (and even earlier), Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, etc. never existed? Women have been killed in warfare since forever, and the public has survived women coming home in body bags for quite some time. I suspect the younger a person is the more “tolerance” they have for that as the younger a person is the more they view men and women as social equals with equal responsibilities as well as equal rights and privileges.
Because the women’s average is so much lower than men’s average that it presents a major obstacle to equalizing participation in roles where brute strength is required.
It’s not just that late teen men will have sex “with anything”, late teen women want sex, too. Young healthy people want to have sex. If you aren’t a certain level of healthy you don’t make it through boot camp. So… a coed military means lots of young, horny people of both genders in close quarters for long periods. On top of that, both of those groups are also at maximum fertility. If you’re going to have a coed military you’re going to have people having sex with each other. We need to grow up and deal with it, including making effective birth control readily available to all parties. Whatever is needed for the women, and giving condoms to male soldiers is a long-standing practice that we should continue.
The whole POW thing is blown out of proportion. Sure, a female soldier can be raped. Remember a female civilian has a 25% chance of being raped as well, even if she’s never near a combat zone. Rape is NOT limited to the battlefield and baring women from war won’t prevent rape.
Also, historical experience indicates that women POW’s are not always raped, and in some circumstances are treated better than the men. For example, during WWII US women military personnel captured by the Japanese often were treated better than surrendering male soldiers due to Japanese perceptions regarding women vs. men and men who died fighting vs. men who surrendered.’
As another example, Rhonda Cornumwas captured during the 1990-1991 Gulf War, and yes, she was “sexually molested” (one of her captors basically fondled her breasts and stopped when his doing so increased the pain in her two broken arms sufficiently that she started screaming in pain). Her thoughts, in her words: [it] “ranks as unpleasant; that’s all it ranks…everyone’s made such a big deal about this indecent assault, but the only thing that makes it indecent is that it was nonconsensual. I asked myself, ‘Is it going to prevent me from getting out of here? Is there a risk of death attached to it? Is it permanently disabling? Is it permanently disfiguring? Lastly, is it excruciating?’ If it doesn’t fit one of those five categories, then it isn’t important.” She continued, “there’s a phenomenal amount of focus on this for the women but not for the men”. She has stated that she thought the men in her unit got far worse treatment than she did, including the one fellow who, every time he saw one of their captors touch Rhonda he started to fight and struggle, which earned him quite a bit of physical abuse. He actually seemed much more upset about her getting her titties squeezed than she did. Really, I think the men sometimes have a much harder time with this than the women do. I think any military woman captured is likely to expect rape and if it doesn’t happen, well, that’s a happy thing, isn’t it? Even if the rest of the situation is shit. Men don’t really internalize that women fear rape all of their lives, it’s a risk they run all of their lives, and the risk for a military women isn’t that much different than for a civilian woman.
And that’s a problem - many men are still raised to defend women and it’s going to be very hard for them to overcome that societal training. Some men really freak out if a woman gets hurt in their presence and on a certain level it doesn’t matter if it’s cultural or biological or a combination, it’s real and it’s yet another complication for coed troops.
I once discussed this with some veterans that while they would get upset if they heard a woman on the radio in a bad situation or crashing or whatever it wasn’t the same as if that woman was in front of them. I think that may be because humans are very visually oriented. Seeing a woman being wounded/raped/killed might well have stronger psychological effects than hearing it over the radio. I don’t know that, I can’t support that hypothesis, but it’s a question worth asking, don’t you think?
Being a woman who has worked in construction I can verify that from the other end. I did my best to keep up and pull my weight but at a certain point the fact comes up that I am not as strong as a man, and certainly not as strong in the upper body. Attempting to lift/exert myself beyond a certain point just increases the risk of injury to myself and possibly to others.
In compensation I attempted to do everything I could to make the job easier/more efficient for the men doing the work I could not. It was the only thing I could do under the circumstances.
Biology counts, folks. If a military job requires upper body strength it’s going to be done by men.
I wouldn’t want women in combat because they have no concept of surrender. Guys can respect the enemy and accept surrender. Women would kill prisoners out of hand and then go after their families! 
Please leave my sisters out of this, goat-man. For your own safety, I mean.
You are talking about a military that still has MALE and FEMALE portable toilets. An Army that cannot handle the thought of unrestricted Port-O-John use is in no way ready for a coed infantry. I’m talking about single-occupancy, side by side Porta Potties. Why on Earth do they need to be labeled MALE and FEMALE? Figure that out, and you will have solved the OP’s question.
There are several countries who allow women in such roles - Canada, for one, and has done so since 1989. If there was a systematic occurrence of failed missions, higher combat deaths because women participated, higher freaking out of men because they saw women get hurt, etc, I would think 24 years and counting may have been able to find it. I haven’t heard anything about it, so I guess they are able to perform to standards.
Combat roles require X criteria to be met. If a woman can meet X, she should be allowed to do it. Fact is, many men, even through boot camp, can’t meet all the criteria either. You either do or you don’t and whether or not you have tits has not much to do with it, IMHO.
Some. 3% or so of combat soldiers are female.
Let’s assume we need 400,000 front line combat soldiers.
It seems to me the salient question is, “What’s the highest possible standard that will get us 400,000 soldiers?”
If running 2 miles with a 75 pound pack (“X criteria”) will only produce 100,000 successful recruits, then the standard needs top be loosened to the point that 400,000 soldiers are achieved.
While “many men” can’t meet the criteria, the fact is they represent a small minority of those who fail to qualify. Conversely, the vast majority of the woman would fail. That’s not being dismissive of women. It’s a simple fact.
But what of the very small amount of women who would qualify? Shouldn’t they be allowed? It’s just not as simple as, “let them participate.”
Military experts of all stripes have said co-ed training adversely affects male performance. Cases of sexual misconduct, both consensual and non-consensual, is rampant. The problems are legion. and it would cost millions and millions of dollars.
For what? For the tiny amount of women who could meet criteria X? What is the percentage of women who could meet the standard? One percent? Two percent? *
And the fact is,* the staffing levels could be met with men.
So we should spend millions of dollars, deal with the inevitable problems that will come from it, cost lives of soldiers, all so we can feel good?
Thanks, that was my next question. I’m sure that there are some occupations that don’t require as much upper body strength, such as sniper, that women could do equally as well as men. If a mod feels this might be a better GD, feel free.
True enough, that’s why the Soviets didn’t particularly care if some of their their top snipers had vaginas.
Only 1% of all applicants to be fighter pilots end up being fighter pilots.
Perhaps we should reject that 1%, needle-in-a-haystack population too.
And may I just say, at this juncture, that “Soviet Sniper Vaginas” would make a great name for a band.
[irrelevant to thread]
Huh. Never saw white face paint cammo before.
[/irrelevant to thread]
I’m of the view that we should (in and out of the military) let the person who meets the qualifications do the job, regardless of gender. I expect the result of such a policy will be that certain high-strength jobs remain overwhelmingly male dominated, while women do just fine in other combat roles where strength is secondary to skill. The previously mentioned female Soviet snipers being an example.
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.
Joke or not, historically true I understand. On the rare historical cases women have fought, they’ve been noted for their ruthlessness. Including a greater willingness to kill women and children, and use torture. “Never let them give you to the women”.
One of my ex-teammates in Americorps joined the Marines and then married a Marine. Her opinion was that while some women were capable of keeping up with the guys on the front-lines, the overall number was too low to warrant the expense to recruit, train, and house them, keeping in mind they’d have to be given separate accommodations, etc.
Exactly right!
They may have some other productive role in the military, but they should be rejected in favor of applicants with superior skills.
Exactly. Thanks for sharing. 
Can we figure out (approx) what the added “costs” might be? Ok for paying for tampons and IUDs and whatnot, and added costs of barracks, but that’s kind of already in place anyways given that women are allowed in non-combat roles, right?
If Unfit Joe and Badass Sally show up on Day One of Boot Camp/I-Want-To-Enter-the-Military-Physical-Assessment (I don’t even know how it works, to be honest), what is the difference?
Lift this weight. Y/N
Run this far Y/N
do it this fast Y/N
stuff like that, right?
So what’s the difference if Unfit Joe and Badass Sally can both score a Y on all tests? How is there added trouble to letting a guy lift weights compared to a woman? I’m really trying to grasp where all the alleged added costs come from? Sports Bras?
If a woman can progressively succeed at all levels of testing/criteria, she should be allowed to do the job because she has proven that she CAN do the job. At this point, any hesitance is really just adhering to the belief that she can’t, despite all available evidence.
If men are inclined to be distracted, rape, whatever, then we need to examine how we raise and teach our men, not restrict women from participating.
No, the type of barracks required for such an integration do not presently exist. Current barracks facilities would have to be retrofitted.
On top of that there is the issue of training. Who will train female infantrypersons? Training platoons with female trainees require at least one female drill sergeant. That’s four per company. But only infantry personnel can train the infantry. So before we can train new female recruits, we would have to reclass seasoned female NCOs. That program does not exist. Establishing such a program would not be an impossible hurdle, but it would not be free. It’s going to cost money. Not to mention that finding volunteers to reclass into the infantry AND become a drill sergeant is going to be its own hassle. I think it will actually be more difficult to find women to reclass from other Army jobs into the infantry than it will be to fill the rolls of fresh infantry recruits with female volunteers. The vast majority of female clerks did not choose their job solely because they were not allowed in the infantry. They chose their job for the same reason thousands of male clerks chose it: because they don’t want to be infantry.