females in combat units

it had to come :

/7ubtd

the MOD has confirmed that females will are sering without restriction in the SRS regiment

the " writing has been on the wall " for years , 14INT coy used female soldiers in operations in ulster , for obvious reasons

but its still not a trend that i am happy with , and am glad to be out while all this goes on

YRS - APE

I'm not too sure about this idea. I'm all for equal rights and all that jazz, but this just spells trouble to me. Last I heard they were still not going to let women fight directly in the front-line, but it's one step closer.

The way I see it, you have lots of enemy, with no regard for the life of their enemy (yourself)..they find a bloke, shoot him, then maybe cut his head off on camera for publicity and that's about it....imagine the things they'd do to a woman. I can see it now. Brutal gang rape, mutilation THEN beheading, or sold to the highest bidder as a sex slave

I don't mean to offend any women out there but I also wonder how women stack up re: mental strength? It's a proven fact women tend to be more emotional than men (gatherer), where men have an ability to "turn off" , an ability we grew out of necessity (hunter), over the course of evolution.

How would female soldiers hold up splattering someone's brains just metres from them? Or seeing decomposing bodies of the enemy and civilians? I imagine dead children/babies in particular would have a strong negative effect on them.

ps: Sorry if I'm being graffic, but welcome to the reality of war.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by LordGoofus]

Well, I suppsoe that they have the same "rights"... perhaps they want to be a bit macho and prove that they also can get the job done... But war isn't about prooving things, it's about surviving, and at the end of the day, a man is still more likely to survive from a war than a woman... It's just so... So why should they go to war... Why...?

I'm curious as to the physiological factors, too.

Menstruation.

PMS.

Unless every female serving member is going to use hormonal methods to control either/both, wouldn't this be - at the very least - an inconvenience?

That's without touching on the "captured, raped....pregnant?!" scenario.

Confusing, really. Equal rights are all very well, but are they truly respecting the reality of survival in wartime?

Give women some credit and quit always bringing up PMS because it does not apply.
I have never been in combat but I have been in the military and done a great deal of firefighting with women and they have always given their all. Not all women will be good but not all men can do the job either. I trust the women I work with to save my life and they trust me and the gender does not matter when you are being pulled from a fire.

Originally posted by factfinder38
Give women some credit and quit always bringing up PMS because it does not apply.
I have never been in combat but I have been in the military and done a great deal of firefighting with women and they have always given their all. Not all women will be good but not all men can do the job either.

I am a woman.

Nobody is saying every woman will, or will not, be able to fulfill their duty in a combat situation; to do so would be foolish. It'd be equally foolish though to pretend that the physiological differences don't apply - because quite often, they do.

And though I'm no expert in either, I'd think firefighting is somewhat different to being on the frontlines in a combat situation. The dangers are different, and the consequences can be far, far greater in terms of capture, obviously.

Again, nobody is saying "all" women will, or will not, be effective in combat. But women do inherently have some differences that could factor in.

(And believe me, PMS is not something to be glossed over if you're one of life's sufferers. Not every woman is, thankfully - but many are)

Being old ex-military (67 - 78) I am slightly amused at some of the posting going on here. Women in the military ... Some are like the men that the military deals with.. They can't hack it. Some are better than the men they have to compete with. I had the privilege of serving under several different women whom managed to gain my respect without using so much as one "feminine wile".

Combat? No... Can't say anything there, because the assignments were not combat related. However, some inferences can be drawn... If a man is good in a non-combat situation, and is good in a non-combat situation, then it sort of stands to reason that a woman could, more than easily, be the same way.

Fighting? My wife knew a woman who was, many years ago, in the Israeli Defense Force (A total combat unit). This woman was on patrol, got jumped by 4 assailants. She tossed aside her weapon (by circumstance I imagine) and proceeded to kill four men in hand to hand combat. That's probably better than I could have done.

Another interesting example is one of my students... As a young lady of about 17 or so, she was on vacation with her family. Won't go into a lot of details, but her and a fellow she had met on vacation were assaulted by a local tough. The local tough injured her guy friend, then ran her face into a brick wall. She proceeded to put him into thet hospital for an extended stay... And that was after only about 3 months of lessons.

Point is that setting aside the PMS defense, and the menstuation defense, and La-di-da continuous stuff that men seem to like to fall back on, women make as useful a combat weapon as men.

As long as my team mate can fire straight, and effectively... Cover my butt and let me cover his/hers, or hers/his, I don't care about the gender.

If you take that view on things then accept why some men do not want women in any position of power. I feel a woman can be as good as a man if people quit telling her that she can't and that starts with her father and continues all her life.

Its not like females haven't been in combat before, the russians used them as pilots and snipers in WW2 when they were desperate. Better they have a gun and military training than wait around to be raped like the German women at the end of WW2 I suppose. Israel also has female soldiers, admittedly they got rid of them for a while for the simple reason that men are better soldiers, but if your in a tight squeeze like Israel and western countries who love involving themselves in wars like US, UK and Australia, then you have to take what you can get and women soldiers are better than no soldiers, and thats really what it boils down to.

As for the horrible sexual things they will do, so what? they rape men as well you know, one favourite tactic is the cut off a males sexual organs and shove it into his mouth to choke him to death. Women get off easy in comparison. Generally though if your in a battle you wont have time for a quick shag, you just have to kill them and get on with it. Warefare has changed a bit, in Iraq virtualyl everyone is on the frontline, so they may as well let them fight, the military needs all the people it can get at the moment.

As for PMS I feel sorry for the enemy who has to face that woman...

i would think that there are as many women that could serve in a combat situation and do an incredible job as there are men.

women haven't been given the chance to prove their worth in that scenario.

so i would hedge all bets until you see exactly WHAT a female is capable of in a combat situation and never count a woman out.

as several of the guys have said.............a well trained female is as lethal of a weapon as a well trained male..........and they would trust this well trained female with their lives.

that is the ultimate compliment to a female warrior.

angie

Originally posted by factfinder38
If you take that view on things then accept why some men do not want women in any position of power. I feel a woman can be as good as a man if people quit telling her that she can't and that starts with her father and continues all her life.

Not sure of your logic there.

Combat is a pretty specific circumstance, don't you think? Isn't that a little different from a non-combat role? And isn't it even more different from a government role which includes no real physical work whatsoever?

I don't think I've ever said that a woman can't be "as good" as a man. I don't think that's even in question, really.

(remembering I'm a Brit who's seen the country ruled by a woman for the past 50-odd years, and is more than happy with Elizabeth being up there. I won't even touch on Thatcher ... )

Personally, i have no problem with women in combat roles. Infact, should a draft be reinstated anytime soon, I would fully expect to see young ladies on the bill, simply because of the equel rights issue.

In Iraq right now, 20% of the American forces are women, with 5% of those women serving in combat roles (not "frontline" combat positions, mind you, but still positions that require mental and physical toughness and profeciency with a weapon. ). At the Air Force Academy in Colorado, 20% of the current graduate rate is female. Women are even permitted to fly combat aircraft (even encouraged to do so).

The point i am trying to make is that while there may be less women than men who are qualified for combat positions, there are women out there who are fully capable of handeling the mental and physical stress levels associated with warfare.

Having had first hand experience in seeing a female in a combat role in an infantry unit, I can say I was very impressed. For the most part, women have a better eye for detail, and that soldier was able to spot things few others with years and years of training could not see. She was always extremely diligant while on patrols. While coming under fire overseas she remained calm and acted out her role perfectly. As well she was able to carry the heaviest person in the unit, only 50 meters, but that was farther than some of the guys could. Strength and stamina were the only trouble areas, but with more time in that will pass. Basically comes down to drive and determination, she wanted it badly enough and she suffered through to get where she is, not every female will be able to pull it off, just as not every male can soldier either, but the ones that want it will make it, and will show up some of the males while doing it.

A few friends of mine are really pissed women aren't allowed joining Dutch
Special Forces (Like Marines and Commando's, not to mention the BBE)

I think women should be allowed to fight alongside men if they train to the exact standards that the men do, not like the British Army requirements that pass women with inferior performance to men.

None of this ''Oh, but you have to allow for physiological differences.'' bull#!
A 5'6'' 140lb male recruit has to hump the same kit as a 6'2'' 200lb male recruit.
Also they should be expected to carry on their duties no matter what time of the month it is.

On a side note, although the Royal Marines do not allow women to undergo Commando training there was a female Army Captain (?) who was allowed to do so and passed.

Originally posted by Captain_Sensible
I think women should be allowed to fight alongside men if they train to the exact standards that the men do, not like the British Army requirements that pass women with inferior performance to men.

Exactly!!!
If you want to do the same job, then you should be held to the same standards of everyone else! Equal rights means EQUAL!

Just because you are different then someone else doesn't mean that you should be treated differently. If I am required to do such and such within a time limit, I expect my fellows to be assigned the same time, not longer, just because they are a female.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Menstruation.

PMS.

Unless every female serving member is going to use hormonal methods to control either/both, wouldn't this be - at the very least - an inconvenience?

I am sure if a woman wanted to be in that situation, she would get that birth control shot that eliminates menstruation for long periods of time. And, with no cycling there probably wouldn't be muc PMS.

Originally posted by LordGoofus
I don't mean to offend any women out there but I also wonder how women stack up re: mental strength? It's a proven fact women tend to be more emotional than men (gatherer), where men have an ability to "turn off" , an ability we grew out of necessity (hunter), over the course of evolution.

How would female soldiers hold up splattering someone's brains just metres from them? Or seeing decomposing bodies of the enemy and civilians? I imagine dead children/babies in particular would have a strong negative effect on them.

Mental strength? I'm not sure I'm understandiang this?
When doing a job a woman can be just as tough as a man. We have been hunter/gatherers for centuries.
Where are you getting these "proven" facts?

If women can perform surgery and autopsies, they can handle the blood and gore of combat.
If women can have babies they can enudre a lot of pain.

It all depends on what you what out of life. Obviously, some women can and do perform well in the military. Why not combat also?

FWIW, I don't really think women should be in combat.
I am a woman.

I fail to see why gender specifics should have a bearing on ones inclusion in a combat unit. If they (male or female) can do the job - i.e. they meet reasonable standards for performing their prescribed role - then their sex is irrelevant. How much of historic preference for males in combat was originally due to sexism or more pragmatic reasons - e.g. women are more capable at home bringing up children than men - is not clear to me.

appologies for neglecting this thread - and thanks for the well thought out replies

Regarding the RM , the " token female " was cpt Pip Tattersall , and IMHO the entire eppisode was a ` badge collecting ` stunt . under current regs - she cannot serve in a combat unit

IIRC she is currently in logistics command , doing a fine job - but NOT giving the MOD any additional ` value for money ` to justify the time and effort that passing the all arms course ` wasted ` [ my opinion ]

the IDF has been mentioned several times , so i think it is relevant to mention that they no longer use females as infantry

the jessica lynch incident demonstrated [ well it did to me ] the pitfalls of putting females in harms way -

i am not implying that a hypothetical "jason lynch " would have been left to rot

but pte lynch did arract ` undue ` attention - which parradoxically may have made the situation potentially worse - as it hi lighted the " weakness " and percieved vulnerability of female POWs and sent a message [ the wrong message mind you ] to anyone else

i cannot remember his name - but during the early days of the iraq invasion one " cleric " advised his followers that - and i paraphrase " capturing a british female soldier and keeping her as a sex slave was a good idea "

suffice to say the UK press were incensed


there are several duties where a female would make a far better choice than a typical male soldier , but i dont beloieve that being part of a rifle coy is one of them

bottom line is " i dont like it " and i can imagine no circumstance that would make me change this view