Women in combat

[Gonz]

Yes, no, depends? Why?

 

[unclehobart]

I voted yes... although I have reservations about the physical strength ability of the average female being able to tote a SAW and 2 ammo crates through the brush on a forced march with a full field pack ... *groan* ... its already bad enough on the guys.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Depends upon their physical strength. If they can hack the 85lb pack on the 5-mile hike with a fully loaded weapon, then they deserve to be able to go to the front. If they can't, then they don't. A lot of men don't do combat, either, so it's all down to who can carry the load.

FWIW...Women and men both can be bulked up to carry such loads. It just takes longer, on average (1 month or so) for women.

 

[sbcanada]

If women want to be treated as equals, they should open their own doors, they should pay for their own dinner, and they should fight for the country like everyone else.

 

[unclehobart]

Sounds like a sure fire recipe for terminal virginity to me.

 

[PT]

I know quite a few women that would kick your little canadian ass, Sb. And, I'm damn proud to know em too.

 

[Aunty Em]

Infantary is not the only combat role - there are tanks, personnel carriers, etc. etc...

I don't see why a qualified and physically capable woman should not be able to fulfil such a role as well as any man if she so wishes.

 

[Q]

I think anybody that is physically capable and desires to be on the front, should be on the front.

That being said, I never want to equal to sbcanada. One should move forward in life, not backward.

 

[greenfreak]

"Qualified" is relative becuase a female's qualifications are less than a man's. After some discussions we've had here, my viewpoint has changed somewhat... If a woman can qualify using the same standards as a man, I say go for it. There has to be a minimum standard, across the board.

So I say yes, with this post as a subnote.

 

[Aunty Em]

"Qualified" is relative becuase a female's qualifications are less than a man's.

If a woman is "qualified" to drive a tank or an armoured personnel carrier or is a trained officer how can that be less "qualified" than a man in the same position... they take the same exams... she may not be physically qualified to do an infantary job but as I've said there are other combat roles which don't require you to hump your satellite tv and jacousie around with you...

 

[PT]

Even driving one of those tanks still requires the same physicaly ability though. What happens when your tank throws a tread and you're 15 miles from anyone? True, not likely, but it could happen. I voted they should be allowed, but I have to put the same stipulation that they should have the physical ability.

 

[greenfreak]

I didn't say they weren't qualified to drive a tank, that's not what I was talking about. I'm talking about brute strength, I should probably have been more specific.

Each person should be able to lift and carry the same weight and be able to have the same physical strength. As of right now, in training, they are required to do less push ups, sit ups, carry less weight than their male counterparts. If they're going to be alongside these same men in combat, they should be able to do the exact same that they do, at least that's what I think.

 

[Aunty Em]

That's what I'm saying... they should do the job they are qualified to do - if they can't compete on the same terms as the men then they are a liability, but if they can they should be allowed to. There are many men and women who simply don't measure up to the task but there are also many who do and they should not be discriminated against on the grounds of gender.

 

[Squiggy]

Women would be great at syops. They've always managed to confuse the shit outta me....

 

[Gonz]

How about the ingrained nature of men & women? Even modern PC people have to recognize the gennetics involved. Men are built to be hunters & protectors, from the inside. That's not some chauvenistic female bashing thing. 25 guys & 4 women in a fox hole. Wouldn't the male be more inclined to do something foolish & unrecognized trying to "protect" the women?

 

[Squiggy]

More likely to do that trying to 'impress' the women....Men would be pigs even at war.....

 

[Q]

Even if they haven't changed their underwear for a couple of weeks?

 

[PT]

I see where you're going with that Gonz, but you're talking untrained individuals too. When you live through basic with the women, and see that they can do and do all the same physical activities you do, then you are more likely to see those women as fellow soliders, not women. I think that's an important part of the equal requirements. If a man knows that the women didn't have to do as many situps, pullups or whatever, then that is just going to make them believe more that they are superior to them.

As far as instict, yes, males are more instictively hunters, but you can't tell me that women aren't protective. You get the right mindset going in a woman, she could take out a few hundred enemies easily.

 

[freako104]

yes. i believe in equality for all and if trained properly they can be just as well fought as any male.

 

[Gonz]

see that they can do and do all the same physical activities you do, then you are more likely to see those women as fellow soliders, not women.

The nose can tell. It's ingrained in our blueprints. That's why I included the "unrecognized" part. We do things which we're unaware due to that coding.