Why aren't women allowed in front-line combat?

[raindog]

@ed_anger

pure gibberish. sexist crap disguised as discussion. the majority of jobs in the military do not require humping 100 pounds 50 miles, women can pull a trigger just as well as a man.

You’re right. Most of the military jobs don’t require huge amount of physical strength. But the ones that do…like combat positions------ women are not suited
to.

Ever watch the history channel? Do you remember the utter frequency in which soldiers marched for miles and miles and miles without sleep and then fought for hours? Have you read of the physical demands put on the men of Patton’s army?

Ever see Saving Private Ryan?

Do you remember the siege of Stalingrad?

Ever see the current news reports of soldiers in combat and the physical demands put on them?

Have you read of the demands put on the soldiers of the first Gulf War? Viet Nam?

Sure, a woman can pull a trigger as well as a man. But almost everything before that point requires a level of strength and stamina that a man is better built to handle. All of it.

[Nava]

@Bear_Nenno

No, the type of barracks required for such an integration do not presently exist. Current barracks facilities would have to be retrofitted.

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.

A quote from my grandfather:

@Navagramps

My father got picked for the Royal Guard (which was mounted), and later for mounted duty in the Guardia Civil because of his height. When I was drafted, I got assigned to the Cavalry because of my height - it didn’t take the officers and sergeants long to figure out I knew a horse’s ass from his mouth despite being city-born, but that’s not the reason I got assigned to Cavalry, I got sent there because on a horse, height is an advantage.

But when I actually had to fight as Cavalry, the horses had grown threads and a ceiling. You have the fuckingest idea how much of a bitch it is to fit in a tank when you’re 6’ and change? The guys who’d never sat a horse got picked for their height - their short height! I’m 6’4"!

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.

[raindog]

@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.

A quote from my grandfather:
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.

I don’t know the physical demands put on a tank operator. But their height will not, and does not, make them equal. The 5’4" guy will be stronger, and faster then the woman—by a wide margin.

[Broomstick]

@DrDeth

Yes, but a little more to that story from my my link above:

Major Cornum, a 37-year-old flight surgeon and biochemist from upstate New York, had broken both arms, smashed her knee and had a bullet in her right shoulder as a result of the downing of her Army helicopter. She screamed in pain when the Iraqi tried to pull her flight suit down over her untreated and swollen arms. Before the ordeal was over, she told a Presidential commission on women in the military this month, she was “violated manually – vaginally and rectally.”

And again, 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”. .**

Meanwhile, recnetly in India a civilian woman was repeatedly gang-raped on a bus, a tire iron shoved up her vagina that resulted in her disembowling, and she was tossed into the street to die like a piece of trash. In peacetime. By her fellow citizens.

Given the choice, I’d rather be in Major Cornum’s situation.

So much is made of rape in war time, at the same time ignoring that rape in peacetime is every bit as bad. It’s a red herring to keep women out of jobs they’re otherwise qualified to do. OMIGOSH! They might get… :::hushed voice::::… raped! And, as Major Cornum points out, we also ignore what is done to men in captivity.

Yeah, rape is a risk. So is torture, maiming, and death. Make that clear to anyone wanting to sign up, but if they still want to take the risk treat them like an adult and let them take it rather than infantilizing them by saying they aren’t able to make their own choices.

[DrCube]

I hate to be this way in GQ, but I have to call bullshit.

Women DO serve in front line combat in the US military and have for years. They live with men, kick down doors, kill the enemy and get killed by the enemy just like the boys. There is no lack of “upper body strength”, “tampon logistics” or any other of the lame excuses given in this thread. Pretty much every point of opposition falls away in the face of the fact that it’s already happening.

US military: 'Women are very much in combat'

“Most civilians have no idea, but everyone in the military knows that women are in combat,” Browder says.

The blurring of the lines is reflected in the baldest of statistics. In Iraq and Afghanistan, 125 US women have paid the ultimate price. Advocates of reform argue that the figure alone is enough to justify a rewriting of the rule book. If women are good enough to die for their country, they are good enough to be recognised for their sacrifice.

[moriah]

@raindog

I don’t know the physical demands put on a tank operator. But their height will not, and does not, make them equal. The 5’4" guy will be stronger, and faster then the woman—by a wide margin.

If a tank operator rolls their vehicle, are they required to get out and flip it back over?

[raindog]

@moriah

If a tank operator rolls their vehicle, are they required to get out and flip it back over?

If they don’t want to be in trouble when their commanding officer returns, yes.

[raindog]

@DrCube

I hate to be this way in GQ, but I have to call bullshit.

Women DO serve in front line combat in the US military and have for years. They live with men, kick down doors, kill the enemy and get killed by the enemy just like the boys. There is no lack of “upper body strength”, “tampon logistics” or any other of the lame excuses given in this thread. Pretty much every point of opposition falls away in the face of the fact that it’s already happening.

US military: 'Women are very much in combat' | US military | The Guardian

Man, you got me. You’re right. Women have the same "upper body strength’ as men. We just didn’t want to admit it.

And for 70 years the “lamestream media” has been complicit in hiding this fact from us. They kick down doors just like the men.

Sorry for the sexist rhetoric and misinformation.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@raindog

Man, you got me. You’re right. Women have the same "upper body strength’ as men. We just didn’t want to admit it.

And for 70 years the “lamestream media” has been complicit in hiding this fact from us. They kick down doors just like the men.

Sorry for the sexist rhetoric and misinformation.

That’s not what he’s saying, even if the extent of your justification for why women shouldn’t be allowed in combat is “they aren’t as strong!”

Everybody knows that women are not on average as strong as men. What he is saying is that in practical terms, women are already serving in combat roles, so to continue to argue that they aren’t strong enough to serve in combat roles is moot because they are already doing it. But because they’re getting attached instead of assigned, they get none of the career benefits of having been in combat, because they’re too weak to be allowed in combat officially. That’s a fun little paradox to be in, I’m sure.

[ed_anger]

@raindog

Ever watch the history channel? Do you remember the utter frequency in which soldiers marched for miles and miles and miles without sleep and then fought for hours? Have you read of the physical demands put on the men of Patton’s army?

Men have more muscle mass than women, but they do not necessarily have more muscular endurance. Women can’t lift as much, yes. Which would not make them less capable of “marching for miles and miles and miles without sleep and then fighting for hours”

[raindog]

@ladyfoxfyre

That’s not what he’s saying, even if the extent of your justification for why women shouldn’t be allowed in combat is “they aren’t as strong!”

Everybody knows that women are not on average as strong as men. What he is saying is that in practical terms, women are already serving in combat roles, so to continue to argue that they aren’t strong enough to serve in combat roles is moot because they are already doing it. But because they’re getting attached instead of assigned, they get none of the career benefits of having been in combat, because they’re too weak to be allowed in combat officially. That’s a fun little paradox to be in, I’m sure.

To begin with, men are not on average stronger in military training. They are universally stronger. In these conversations it is common to use terms like "on average’, but it implicitly suggests that the differences are narrow enough that is is sexism that keeps them from serving a more active role in combat.

And while they are indeed in the theater of war, and getting killed because of it, they are not regularly assigned to front line combat. Look at DrCube’s site. 125 woman have been killed. How many men have been killed?

Either they are not in the battlefield in any great measure (and you can hardly make an argument that those 125 deaths are from from front line combat) or they are superior to male soldiers and are getting killed with much less frequency.

It is standard SDMB fare to find the exception, dress it up and try and pass it off as the rule. In front line combat, men are better suited to the rigors of combat.

[Gray_Ghost]

@moriah

If a tank operator rolls their vehicle, are they required to get out and flip it back over?

Bear_Nenno had a great series of posts on what a giant PITA it is to change a track on a tank, and the physical strength it requires. This kludge of a search function won’t let me find it, but perhaps he can link back to them?

For the infantry, the increased weight that soldiers have to carry now, as opposed to the past, is precluding many men from being able to keep up with the demands, never mind women. The new generation of protective equipment is literally a life saver—being able to reliably stop rifle bullets is amazing, and unprecedented in infantry warfare—but this equipment weighs a lot. Further, all of this weight is accelerating the rate of knee and lower back injuries as compared to times past. I’d like to find a confirming link with hard data for that statement, but have only been able to track down anecdotal evidence, such as this guy claiming that 70% of returning have serious chronic injuries. (Anyone have good data from, say, the VA on the subject?)

Still, it takes a toll on your body, jumping in and out of a Humvee or Stryker while carrying 50+ pounds. See, for example, these posts (.pdf) on the increased weight that today’s soldier carries, and efforts (.pdf) to lighten their load. From the Afghanistan operations link, page 7 and 8 list the different types of infantry loadouts and their recommended weights. This link goes into planning soldiers’ individual loads, and those loads that need to be carried by transport. An example of an individual infantry officer’s need for strength in combat, and a proposed strength training program for infantry, can be found here. His breakdown of what he had to do when a suicide bomber detonated within 10 meters of him, and the physical lifts those tasks corresponded to, is in the beginning of the article, and I found it rather interesting.

Artillery is about as bad. Moving shells, quickly, is exhausting work. (Also a concern in armored units—120mm shells don’t materialize in the breech by themselves.) This lengthy pdf from the Rand Corporation goes into mind-numbing detail about the MOS system the military uses to define its jobs. Within it, at page 28, the author notes that 43% of all MOSs have a “Very Heavy” physical demand category. This is the highest of the categories, and is the Army’s way of stating that people in that MOS can expect to lift things over 100 pounds and constantly carry more than 50 pounds. The MOS that has all “1”'s in the physical requirements serial is 13F, Fire Support Specialist, a specialty in the Field Artillery. Interestingly, it’s not 13B, Cannon Crewman. For those more interested in the subject, the Army did a study on physical requirements for artillery crew in the mid 1980s, and the pdf of their findings may be found here. Doubtlessly it’s been updated.

Anyway, if the guns are self-propelled then you also have a lot of the maintenance headaches that exist in armored units. Short version, the combat arms specializations in the U.S. Army require large amounts of physical strength and endurance, requirements that preclude their being performed by the majority of women in the Army. (And a good number of men.)

One factor that I don’t believe has been mentioned yet is that a large driver behind allowing women to serve in front-line combat is that—help me out on this, Bear—the path to upper-level and flag-level promotion in the Army is to command combat units (and attend Ranger school, it seems). Female officers would rather not have their careers top out at O-5 and O-6, and there just aren’t enough non-combat unit O-6+ jobs to go around. Have we already linked to Marine Capt. Katie Petronio’s article on the physical demands and desirability of allowing women to serve in the infantry? (We have in other threads on this subject.) It may be of interest here. FWIW, she disagrees with my thesis in the preceding paragraph about female officers being behind the impetus to allow service in combat specialties.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@raindog

To begin with, men are not on average stronger in military training. They are universally stronger. In these conversations it is common to use terms like "on average’, but it implicitly suggests that the differences are narrow enough that is is sexism that keeps them from serving a more active role in combat.

But it is exclusively sexism. You said yourself that even the 1% (your figure) that could meet or exceed the physical standards should STILL not be allowed to serve in combat functions. So it’s clearly not just about strength.

And while they are indeed in the theater of war, and getting killed because of it, they are not regularly assigned to front line combat. Look at DrCube’s site. 125 woman have been killed. How many men have been killed? Either they are not in the battlefield in any great measure (and you can hardly make an argument that those 125 deaths are from from front line combat) or they are superior to male soldiers and are getting killed with much less frequency.

I’m not sure what this is designed to prove. That women shouldn’t be allowed to serve in combat roles because they’re not regularly assigned to front line combat? The whole point is that they are not officially in roles like that because they are bureaucratically prevented from being in them, but unofficially they are serving in combat functions which they are officially excluded from doing.

It is standard SDMB fare to find the exception, dress it up and try and pass it off as the rule. In front line combat, men are better suited to the rigors of combat.

These are just the same arguments from people who didn’t want women serving in the military at all warmed over. Men are better suited to combat. But some women are also suited for combat and want to be there and are there already and can meet the physical requirements that the men have to be in combat. So what’s keeping them from getting the official recognition for that activity, besides the fact that most women are not in combat and not interested in being in combat, and that’s the way it’s always been so that’s the way it should always be?

[samclem]

Given the opinions expressed, this thread probably should be in IMHO, rather than General Questions. Moved.

samclem, moderator

[Broomstick]

@ladyfoxfyre

I’m not sure what this is designed to prove. That women shouldn’t be allowed to serve in combat roles because they’re not regularly assigned to front line combat? The whole point is that they are not officially in roles like that because they are bureaucratically prevented from being in them, but unofficially they are serving in combat functions which they are officially excluded from doing.

I guess you totally missed where it has been pointed out the US women ARE in combat roles, and official combat roles at that. The difference is that the combat roles US women are in are those where brute strength is not essential, such as combat pilot.

The argument here is not “should women be in combat” because women ARE in combat. The argument is whether or not women aren’t in infantry units or the like due to sexism or due to physical inability to perform the task. As noted, plenty of *men *can’t physically do certain combat jobs and are not in them. Maybe you can argue we should use modern technology to make those jobs physically less arduous which would benefit both men and women but for whatever reason that hasn’t happened. Is it due to complacency on the part of decision makers or because we haven’t figured out how to do that yet?

[raindog]

I’m not frustrated or angry but I’m bowing out of this thread. It is only at SDMB that I see feel good arguments that implicitly ask us to ignore reality and constantly hold up rare exceptions to defend absurd arguments.

Some jobs require a high level of strength and size to accomplish.

Was it sexist that the person handling the jackhammer this morning while you sat in traffic was a man?

Is it sexist that there are no woman players in the NFL?

Is it sexist that if a male boxer wished to fight a female boxer he couldn’t get it sanctioned?

Was it sexist that a couple police officers in the last few months were suspended because their arrests/ takedowns (caught on tape) were deemed too aggressive specifically because the person being arrested was a woman?

Did you see the bus driver who gave a wicked upper cut to a female who had attacked him? A couple passengers who witnessed it protested, “You hit a female!” (it was a perfectly placed vicious upper cut) (His response to the onlookers was “If she wants to act like a man, I’m going to treat her like a man”) Were the passengers sexist for protesting because she was a female? Were his bosses sexist for taking action against him?

Was the scene in “Officer and a Gentleman” in which Mayo goes back and helps the female cadet climb the wall sexist?

Was it sexist that the soldiers who attacked Bin Laden’s compound were all men?

Is it sexist that the Navy Seals, Delta Force, Army Rangers and other elite combat forces are all men?

There is nothing sexist in acknowledging that there are physical differences between men and women, and there is nothing sexist in acknowledging that many jobs in the theater of war require a level of physical strength that it is highly impracticable (and impossible in most circumstances impossible) for a woman to do those jobs.

No doubt someone will post a one-in-a-million case of a woman who can do what a man can do and we should revamp the whole military to accommodate her. :smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
ETA: ladyfoxfyre did just that. In spite of the fact that a miniscule amount of women would be qualified, and there would still be many more men better qualified, we should still put the lives of many at risk, and spend millions of dollars, so we’re not sexist any more. :smack::smack::smack::smack:

[steronz]

@Broomstick

The difference is that the combat roles US women are in are those where brute strength is not essential, such as combat pilot.

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.

[steronz]

@raindog

Was it sexist that the person handling the jackhammer this morning while you sat in traffic was a man?

Are women prohibited by law from operating jackhammers?

[QUOTE=raindog]
Is it sexist that there are no woman players in the NFL?
[/quote]

Are there women who are qualified to play in the NFL and are yet barred by the leagues rules? I’m doubtful, but if there are, then yes, it’s sexist.

[QUOTE=raindog]
Is it sexist that if a male boxer wished to fight a female boxer he couldn’t get it sanctioned?
[/quote]

Why couldn’t he get it sanctioned if the woman agreed? Is there some law I’m not familiar with?

[QUOTE=raindog]
Was it sexist that a couple police officers in the last few months were suspended because their arrests/ takedowns (caught on tape) were deemed too aggressive specifically because the person being arrested was a woman?
[/quote]

Yes, if that’s true.

[QUOTE=raindog]
Did you see the bus driver who gave a wicked upper cut to a female who had attacked him? A couple passengers who witnessed it protested, “You hit a female!” (it was a perfectly placed vicious upper cut) (His response to the onlookers was “If she wants to act like a man, I’m going to treat her like a man”) Were the passengers sexist for protesting because she was a female? Were his bosses sexist for taking action against him?
[/quote]

Yes; if he would have been treated differently for hitting a man, that’s indeed sexist.

[QUOTE=raindog]
Was the scene in “Officer and a Gentleman” in which Mayo goes back and helps the female cadet climb the wall sexist?
[/quote]

Did he only help her because she was female, or would he have helped a male in that situation?

[QUOTE=raindog]
Was it sexist that the soldiers who attacked Bin Laden’s compound were all men?
[/quote]

Not inherently, no. Is it sexist that an equally qualified woman couldn’t serve as a Navy SEAL simply because of her gender? Yes.

[QUOTE=raindog]
Is it sexist that the Navy Seals, Delta Force, Army Rangers and other elite combat forces are all men?
[/quote]

If they’re all men because no women can meet the physical standards, that’s not sexist. If they’re all men by statute, then yes, that’s sexist.
Hope that helps.

[raindog]

steronz thanks for your reply.

If we were the same, I’d have to agree with you. But we’re not. And all of our well intentioned desires for to have an equality that makes men women, and women men, won’t change that.

It just seems to me that good intentions have relieved us from common sense.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@raindog

ETA: ladyfoxfyre did just that. In spite of the fact that a miniscule amount of women would be qualified, and there would still be many more men better qualified, we should still put the lives of many at risk, and spend millions of dollars, so we’re not sexist any more. :smack::smack::smack::smack:

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.