This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Women in combat?
President Truman's signing of the Women's Armed Services Act gave women permanent status in the army; and President Johnson (in 1967) made it possible for women to advance to top positions.
The issue is not whether women should be soldiers, but whether they should be allowed in combat.
Our society strives for gender equality; qualified women are as brave and effective as their male counterparts and since combat experience is neccessary for advancement, it is discriminatory to exclude women officers. And not forgetting the fact that many women want to serve their country in combat; and if they qualify, it would be unfair to exclude them.
Now, consider men who would work with the women; the natural chivalry and the tendency to protect may cause distraction in battle. Women POWs are in greater danger of being raped; threats or violence against female POWs could become a weapon in the hands of enemy forces, wearing down the resistance of male POWs.
Some believe that most women may not be able to carry the heavy backpack and weapons; and that lowering standards to accomodate more women would diminish the effectiveness of the army.
What do you think?
gemma minda iso
As to chivalry -- well, why should the men be distracted? they should not, if they went to the army to serve their country then that's all they have to keep in mind. Whoever they are with during combat is immaterial and incidental.
Threat of being raped -- that is something that women should be ready at --whether they are in combat or not -- however, they have been trained and prepared for any eventuality -- whether combat-related or not -- so they should face it with courage and aplomb.
Lejan . 30+
Your way of thinking is based on the concept, that the life of a woman is more in 'worth' than the life of a man. Is that really the case? Isn't rape 'just' another form of torture and worse what other forms of torture can do to a man? Don't you think that physical and emotional pain is felt alike for both genders?
Gender equality is no cherry picking. Neither in peace nor in war times. And 'natural chivalry' never was bound to females only.
Modern wars do not happen on separate battle grounds and they involve civilians as well as soldiers. The newly coined term of 'collateral damage' is nothing but propaganda, to create the illusion of a mainly controlled destruction and killing. This is nothing but a distorted view on the true meaning of war, to increase the acceptance for a war 'at home' only.
I don't see any difference in horror if a female civilian is raped or a female solider. And because no war follows any 'rules', I also don't see any good reason why it would be any more acceptable if male soldiers are being tortured and killed than their female counterparts.
If you listen to soldiers what kept them fighting overseas, you get to hear that they were fighting mainly for their comrades and less for any 'higher goal', which maybe formed the first initiative, yet vanished quickly in real battle. I think there is no difference in 'distraction' if a solider is trying to help a male or female comrade, as it is 'a comrade' in ether case. Any trained sniper knows this general attitude and uses it to increase their overall 'kill-rate'.
Austin Rinehart
scienTEDic DT
Sorry if I cause any misunderstanding, I would never condemn veterans, in contrary people who defend their lives and homes and children are sacred for me. And they should live a better life than they did before, and government should make it possible. As I said before, women are not weak and I would help someone if I see that he/she is in danger but just to defend and my first choice would not be using weapons. And people who start wars most probably the players of a bigger plan. But innocent people are dying because of these games and I’m just trying to say that, if there won’t be anyone to fight, there won’t be a way to make them fight. Just a humble opinion.
John Smith 30+
Does "natural chivalry" really exist, and if it does, would it persist in combat situations and would it be worse than existing comradery (which is actually seen as beneficial by many military doctrines)?
"Women POWs are in greater danger of being raped; threats or violence against female POWs could become a weapon in the hands of enemy forces, wearing down the resistance of male POWs."
Male POWs get raped all the time too and all in all soldiers of modern militaries rarely get captured by non-modern militaries (the ones that would rape their prisoners), when it happens they're usually pilots and women were already allowed to be pilots in most militaries so apparently most militaries don't really consider the POW issue to be a problem.
"Some believe that most women may not be able to carry the heavy backpack and weapons"
As opposed to those barely 5 feet tall Asian and Hispanic male soldiers?
As always, before trying to reinvent the wheel, try to look over the border: women and gay people in combat roles have never been a problem in Israel, which has extensive experience with dirty urban warfare.
Scott Koenraadt
Faisel Butt
Judging an individual capabilities on the average of the group we associate that individual with is the root of sexism and racism, and it's not only misanthropic but deeply illogical.
Yes, a female soldier is exposed to the risk of getting raped. But soldiers in general are at risk of being killed, tortured or paralysed; is that more acceptable?
Your arguments of men being distracted is the same that are used against allowing homosexuals in the army and fundamentally the same as being used by Taliban to force women to cover themselves. I do not only find it offensive on women's behalf, but I also find it offensive as a man. The notion of men being creatures that are incapable of controlling their sexual drive, even if (literally) their lives depended on it, is so strange to me. But what's even more strange is that I see this argument being used and condoned in the same sentence as if they can't control themselves.
If anything the distraction argument should lead to banning men from the army.
If the goal is to recruit the most suitable people for the army I reckon you'd get a higher quality amongst women, as it is an untraditional occupation; and if you choose this as woman, you must really want it.
Should I be completely wrong and women in the army would cause a less efficient army - well, maybe that's not such a bad idea...
John Smith 30+
Exactly, somehow some people always seem to think that a call for women to serve in combat roles is a call for a 50% quota for women in combat roles, whether this is due to genuine ignorance or malevolent media spin I don't know.
edward long 100+
As a Viet Nam combat veteran I think I am right in saying men hate the idea of a female directly witnessing them in combat. Some of the common behaviors in combat are not mentioned in the war stories told back home. The uncontrollable trembling; the involuntary body functions; the paralyzing fear; the tears; the soul-crushing stress; and the unceasing feeling of terror that you will never see your loved ones again. It's just not the image guys want girls to see.
Barry Palmer 50+
Some women in the armed forces consider this an issue of equal opportunity, and it is. IMO, that consideration must be secondary to combat effectiveness. Equal opportunity affects the careers of individuals. A less effective combat unit means needless deaths. So, first, the standards must not be lowered. Second, the effectiveness of mixed sex combat teams needs to be tested in actual combat situations. If mixed sex combat teams are less effective, for any reasons, then they should be banned.
I have heard stories that Israel has had problems with women in the military. I do not know if these stories are true, but I suspect that their military would gladly share the truth of the matter with the military leadership of their allies.
In the end, this is about military effectiveness, and the military leaders should be making this decision, not Congress.
The issue about POWs should not be an issue. Our military should work on the assumption that POWs will tell everything they know, and they should be flexible enough to deal with that situation. The means for prying information from people is far more sophisticated today than when the rules for POWs (name, rank and serial number) were written. Rape is heinous, but if an enemy allows POWs to be raped, those POWs have much worse to fear.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
Robert Winner 50+
That is a point I wish to pursue. There is a time and place for everything. If I was in command of a unit I would select the best person for the job .... however, as stated above there are tacticle considerations that must be evaluated. If you knew the fight would end today ... or assign women to the front and it will last for two more weeks .... which is the right decision.
When I was in the service there were women that could do my job with no problem .. I learned from them.
This is a military decision and further a commanders decision based on the situation and the most effective means of engagement. Most of the women in the service I knew understood that.
Women assigned to the unit is one thing but any non-waiverable orders verge on stupidity and put all unit members in harms way.
John Smith 30+
@below
It doesn't matter who does the selecting, you seem to advocate that military commanders be given enough leeway to discriminate against soldiers based on the wishes of the enemy, that's why it's a valid question to ask what you would do if you were a commander.
I sure hope most commanders understand that a tactical victory is pointless when you've given in to the demands of the enemy (of course the enemies surrenders easily when they've already accomplished what they were fighting for, the reasons for the war in the first place, a good commander would recognize that and know he lost the war even though he won the battle).
Robert Winner 50+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
scienTEDic DT
War should end and there should be only intellectual struggle in the world and people should not fight but share opinion with knowledge and many women can lead sharing very effectively. There are so many girls in the world need education and rights to live. So, we should open more SCHOOLS, not BATTLE FIELDS. We should spend money for BOOKS, not WEAPONS.
Combat is something that I don't wish in any case...
edward long 100+
scienTEDic DT
edward long 100+