Women in combat roles in the military. Yes or no?

[shady]

The US military has recently decided to allow women to serve in combat roles in the military (i.e. on front lines). I'm curious, what are your thoughts on the issue?

 

Pros:

- Equality

- Access to a larger pool of potential soldiers

 

Cons:

- If a female soldier becomes a prisoner of war in a country like Afghanistan, she would probably be treated horribly

- Creates tension and/or distraction in the military (not sure I agree with this)

- Women are physically weaker than men (this shouldn't be a problem if they are held to the same standards as men during training)

 

I think I'm in favor of the decision, but I'm not 100% sure. What do you think?

 

- By the way, I had second thoughts about putting this thread because it can turn into a flame war. But I think its an interesting question, and will probably pop up in an interview or two for those who applied this cycle

[Head Squeeze]

Heck YES!

 

male POW's can be treated horribly too. Its just an unfortunate truth.

 

I personally don't think women are weaker than men, there might be research contradicting my claim.

They are surely strong enough to fight. Strategy out powers strength anyways.

[Gametime24]

Heck YES!

 

male POW's can be treated horribly too. Its just an unfortunate truth.

 

I personally don't think women are weaker than men, there might be research contradicting my claim.

They are surely strong enough to fight. Strategy out powers strength anyways.

 

You're joking right?

[Exocytosis]

For it.

 

Women don't need other people to tell them what they can or can't do, they can decide that for themselves.

[aaronjw]

For it.

 

Women don't need other people to tell them what they can or can't do, they can decide that for themselves.

 

Fine in a world where combat is not part of the job description but in a combat situation the stakes are very different.

 

How about this: we'll make you the QB of a football team and give you an offensive live that's half women and half men. Then we'll still see if you're for women in combat.

 

For the record, I am indifferent to the situation. I believe we should all have the right to make choices for ourself only insofar as those choices ONLY affecting ourselves but when they have an impact on the lives and safety of others that's where my belief in equality ends.

[Exocytosis]

How about this: we'll make you the QB of a football team and give you an offensive live that's half women and half men. Then we'll still see if you're for women in combat..

 

?

 

You can't apply averages to individuals.

 

Just because women are less physically strong than men are on average doesn't mean there aren't individual women who are capable of serving in combat roles. Those women should not be discriminated against on the basis of their gender.

[aaronjw]

?

 

You can't apply averages to individuals.

 

Just because women are less physically strong than men are on average doesn't mean there aren't individual women who are capable of serving in combat roles. Those women should not be discriminated against on the basis of their gender.

 

I don't disagree. The problem is that many time averages are applied to individuals. In fact it's done ALL the time, esp in medicine (blood values of an individual pitted against an average/range considered normal) so you'll forgive me if I'm not confident in a system that routinely fails in this instance.

[Gametime24]

I don't disagree. The problem is that many time averages are applied to individuals. In fact it's done ALL the time, esp in medicine (blood values of an individual pitted against an average/range considered normal) so you'll forgive me if I'm not confident in a system that routinely fails in this instance.

 

Word. It's really hard to avoid averages being implied, and yeah, fair choice is all great, and I believe we should all have it in most situations. But not if it is going to endanger others. If they meet every standard (including physical) that is asked of the men, sure, I'm okay with them enlisting for it. But as soon as standards are lowered (they should really be higher already), then there is something wrong.

[rmorelan]

Fine in a world where combat is not part of the job description but in a combat situation the stakes are very different.

 

How about this: we'll make you the QB of a football team and give you an offensive live that's half women and half men. Then we'll still see if you're for women in combat.

 

For the record, I am indifferent to the situation. I believe we should all have the right to make choices for ourself only insofar as those choices ONLY affecting ourselves but when they have an impact on the lives and safety of others that's where my belief in equality ends.

 

I actually have little idea how hand to hand things even are any more - I mean driving vehicles, tanks etc in active combat doesn't seem for starters to involve as much brute power. Women actually make better snipers it seems for instance from the reports I read - more stable.

 

and of course there are athletic women that can drive the average even army solider into the pavement physically.

[NutritionRunner]

Women have been able to serve in all combat roles in the Canadian military for many years now. All the individuals I know in the army (mostly engineering officers) have no problems with women serving in the army, and in combat roles (military engineers are considered part of the combat arms in Canada). As long as a woman does her job, doesn't complain, and doesn't expect special treatment due to her gender, the men have no problem with women serving alongside them.

 

My one cousin who is an engineering officer says the few women who have been "problems" haven't been so due to their gender, but rather due to their personality. And he says there are just as many guys with personality problems serving, if not more (some of the stories he's told me about soldiers they have tried to discharge for various reasons are quite interesting, to say the least - and I'm talking about guys with problems who come to them that way off of basic training - not guys who have seen combat and need help reintegrating.)

 

My cousin has served with some very talented, very effective officers in the combat arms. He has the utmost respect for them.

 

It has worked in Canada for many years now, and although there were some growing pains at the start, those seem to have been ironed out over the years. I wanted to join the army myself, until I fractured a vertebra in my back. Heck, I'm still in better shape than half the young guys I see in the gym at the university.

[NutritionRunner]

- By the way, I had second thoughts about putting this thread because it can turn into a flame war. But I think its an interesting question, and will probably pop up in an interview or two for those who applied this cycle

 

Why would it pop up? This is Canada. Canada has had women serving in all of the combat arms for many years now. The last place women couldn't serve were submarines, and that restriction was removed a few years back.

 

Get with the times! Women have been serving in the combat arms in Canada for quite some time now. We are not the United States.

[shady]

Yea pretty much. For the physical ability, just hold everyone to the same standard and that should be it. While it is true that on average men are stronger, and in extremes men are also stronger (e.g. olympic records for sports like swimming, running, weight lifting are higher for men), this is a non-issue if both men and women train to the same standard. At that point it doesn't matter - whoever passes the physical gets to fight regardless of gender. I don't buy any of the other cons.

 

I think what irks me the most is when you have a double standard. Like "must perform X to pass, while women must perform Y to pass" where X > Y. This was done in police training in some states south of the border.

 

This came up when I was watching the Daily Show yesterday . There seem to be some arguments from the right that Jon Stewart dismissed, and I figured I kinda wanna learn more about them than to just outright dismiss them. So I figured where is a better place to ask than PM101

 

 

Why would it pop up? This is Canada. Canada has had women serving in all of the combat arms for many years now. The last place women couldn't serve were submarines, and that restriction was removed a few years back.

 

Get with the times! Women have been serving in the combat arms in Canada for quite some time now. We are not the United States.

 

Doesn't mean we can't talk about now, does it? You seem very angry. Relax. I just put up an issue that I thought was worth discussing.

[NutritionRunner]

Doesn't mean we can't talk about now, does it? You seem very angry. Relax. I just put up an issue that I thought was worth discussing.

 

Not angry. Just wonder why you think this would come up? Like I said, we've had women in the combat arms for years in Canada. It works here. How does a change in the US military policy make a difference to Canadians, when we've already had women in the combat arms for years?

[Jochi1543]

I don't disagree. The problem is that many time averages are applied to individuals. In fact it's done ALL the time, esp in medicine (blood values of an individual pitted against an average/range considered normal) so you'll forgive me if I'm not confident in a system that routinely fails in this instance.

 

The reality is that the "average" woman who can barely do a push-up off her knees is likely not even considering applying to the military in the first place, so this is irrelevant. You are already getting females that are above average physically.

[shady]

The reality is that the "average" woman who can barely do a push-up off her knees is likely not even considering applying to the military in the first place, so this is irrelevant. You are already getting females that are above average physically.

 

Exactly

 

10 char

[Birdy]

If someone can meet the physical requirements to serve in a particular capacity, they should be able to serve in that capacity regardless of gender.

[larva]

Our military does have different standards for the annual physical fitness evaluation. The minimums change with gender/age, and the test is nothing more than a predictive tool. It's really outdated, and in the process of being replaced, but for now it's all we have.

 

However, misconceptions abound when people confuse the generic fitness test with operational job standards, which are the same regardless of age/gender. Any job that has a physical component will have its own standards based on the tasks individuals are required to perform. No one gets a break, and no, the standards were not lowered when women were allowed into combat roles (way back in 1989).

 

Things are still not perfect, but Canada is definitely ahead of the states when it comes to gender integration in the military, and the US actually sought our advice when trying to revise their (crazy, outdated) policy. See this article for a great example of a Canadian soldier: http://www.canada.com/news/experienced+Canadian+Eleanor+Taylor+advised+brass+females+combat/7877868/story.html

 

There is one job in the Canadian military that is not open to women: Roman Catholic Chaplain.

[futureGP]

in terms of treatment,

 

both women and men are likely to be treated terribly when situations arise.

 

Sure women get raped and etc, but there's easily an equal treatment done to men (didnt u hear about how the NK female soldiers tortured that Asian-american who illegally crossed the China-NK border? they immobilized him, took his little joe out and smacked it with a wooden bat repeatedly to force him to masturbate in front of them

[ciel999]

More women should be police officers and firefighters. There's just not enough women in the police force and fire department.

[ciel999]

There should also be more women in the SWAT unit. It's currently a male-dominated unit, but I would like to see more women in it.