U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

Ministers are to consider changing the rules limiting women's combat roles in the armed forces, the BBC has learned.

BBC NEWS | UK | Women's front-line role reviewed

I am curious to the positions held by members of this forum on this topic. Having been in the Marine Corps infantry and experienced combat I think this is a horribly misguided effort of egalitarianism. None of my opinions are sexist by any means.


1. Women do not have the upper body strength equivalant to that of a man. They physically do not have the strength to effectively carry and then efficiently deploy a weapon in combat such as the Squad Automatic Weapon, AT-4, or any type of additional combat arms outside of their primary weapon. Of course there is exceptions, and I am sure some women are stronger than most of the Marines I served with, but I am speaking in general terms. When I was in Iraq I was carrying on average of 80-90 lbs of gear in 100+ degree heat, sometimes for hours. I am not looking for 'wow' or for people to think I am tough, I am merely highlighting the very realistic circumstances that need to be considered. This is the probably the pill hardest for women to swallow when discussing the debate due to the nature of it basically calling them physically inferior to men.

2. Former head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, told The Politics Show he believed any change could lead to "concerns that operational effectiveness, particularly in the infantry, could be and probably would be, jeopardised".

History has shown that the presence of women in combat had very adverse of effect of men in combat.


For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said.

Debunking the Israeli 'women in combat' myth

3. Political ramifications. The United States, or any nation for that manner is simply not ready, and will never be ready, for the sight of mothers and daughters coming home in body bags in large numbers. The obvious question then to be asked is 'What makes it acceptable to have fathers and son brought home in body bags?' The answer is that's just the way it has been, so we've grown accustomed. If women had combat roles all along then it would be a different story.


I wouldn't want to be the one to tell this Lt. Ripley, but I will sure as hell tell it to Jessica Lynch.

Polynikes said:

1. Women do not have the upper body strength equivalant to that of a man. They physically do not have the strength to effectively carry and then efficiently deploy a weapon in combat such as the Squad Automatic Weapon, AT-4, or any type of additional combat arms outside of their primary weapon. Of course there is exceptions, and I am sure some women are stronger than most of the Marines I served with, but I am speaking in general terms. When I was in Iraq I was carrying on average of 80-90 lbs of gear in 100+ degree heat, sometimes for hours. I am not looking for 'wow' or for people to think I am tough, I am merely highlighting the very realistic circumstances that need to be considered. This is the probably the pill hardest for women to swallow when discussing the debate due to the nature of it basically calling them physically inferior to men.

Click to expand...

Not going to comment on the rest, as I do not know, but on this point, the solution is fairly obvious. Make qualifications based on upper body strength. If a woman is strong enough to effectively serve in combat, then saying that women in general are not does not work. It is totally fair to set standards like that.

By the way, I knew a couple female ordinance types in the navy who had pretty impressive upper body strength.

Redress said:

Make qualifications based on upper body strength.

Click to expand...

This does nothing to address the real problem . . .

In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said.

Click to expand...

If they wish to fight, let them fight.

Not going to comment on the rest, as I do not know, but on this point, the solution is fairly obvious. Make qualifications based on upper body strength. If a woman is strong enough to effectively serve in combat, then saying that women in general are not does not work. It is totally fair to set standards like that.

Click to expand...

I agree and that is an obvious and adequate solution. I added that as one of the problems facing the integration, not the sole factor.

To measure physical fitness in the Marine Corps men do a 3 miles run, max crunches in 2 minutes, and max number of pull-ups or chin ups. Women do the same with the exception of pull-ups, they instead do a timed flexed armed hang (which is pretty tough to do for the maximum number of points, 2 minutes I think?) This is an apparent and non controversial difference that exemplifies the fact.

I know the Army does push-ups instead of pull-ups, do women do a different exercise or type of push-up?


Side conversation, does anyone feel that the push-up is a better measurement of upper body strength than a pull-up? I have been back and forth on this issue for some time.

Laila said:

If they wish to fight, let them fight.

Click to expand...

It is not a matter of granting them their wishes when it is their wishes that may jeopardize the mission and consequentially other lives.

Polynikes said:

It is not a matter of granting them their wishes when it is their wishes that may jeopardize the mission and consequentially other lives.

Click to expand...

Well that is up to the individual and her unit not me to decide. It should be done on a case by case basis. If she can handle it and not 'jeopardize the mission' then go ahead.

After 12 years of service I can honestly say no women should not be serving in ground combat units as troops.

Not because women are weaker, they are actually stronger in some situations such as combat pilots. But on the ground as a grunt, no.

Contrary to what is posted in the OP, the IDF does indeed have females in ground combat roles. There are also female fighter jet and helicopter pilots.

Blackdog said:

Not because women are weaker, they are actually stronger in some situations such as combat pilots.

Click to expand...

? ? ? ? What about sex differential in tolerance to high-g ? ? ? ?

I'm not going to be able to believe that assertion without some evidence.

Voidwar said:

This does nothing to address the real problem . . .

Click to expand...

Let me suggest you go back and read the whole of my post. It's not long, it should be pretty simple. I even used small words. Here, let me quote myself so you cannot miss the important part I want you to see:

Redress said:

Not going to comment on the rest, as I do not know, but on this point

Click to expand...

So, I talk about one small part of a post, specifically stating that I don't know enough to comment on the rest, and what do you do but complain that I do not comment on another part, that I already said I don't know enough about. And the best part of all is you did not actually comment on what I said that you felt the need to quote.

Laila said:

Well that is up to the individual and her unit not me to decide. It should be done on a case by case basis. If she can handle it and not 'jeopardize the mission' then go ahead.

Click to expand...

Acceptance on a case by case basis would be more appalling to women activists than a general denial I would think.

It isn't a matter of the woman having control over their jeopardizing of the mission, it is their very presence that has been proven to cause that.

Redress said:

Let me suggest you go back and read the whole of my post. It's not long, it should be pretty simple. I even used small words. Here, let me quote myself so you cannot miss the important part I want you to see:



So, I talk about one small part of a post, specifically stating that I don't know enough to comment on the rest, and what do you do but complain that I do not comment on another part, that I already said I don't know enough about. And the best part of all is you did not actually comment on what I said that you felt the need to quote.

Click to expand...

I had a post typed out to address this, it simply stated "He mentioned he was only commenting on the one issue" I refrained from posting it, figuring you could stand up for yourself.

Redress said:

So, I talk about one small part of a post, specifically stating that I don't know enough to comment on the rest,

Click to expand...

And I explained why your seemingly sensible solution does not work in the applicable context. If you don't care about the big picture, thats fine, but then you shouldn't object when I merely explain why your suggestion does not work in the big picture. Its a discussion of the big picture, after all. My post was there for all to read, not just you.

Polynikes said:

Acceptance on a case by case basis would be more appalling to women activists than a general denial I would think.

It isn't a matter of the woman having control over their jeopardizing of the mission, it is their very presence that has been proven to cause that.

Click to expand...

Would it?
I'd find it acceptable.
I doubt they choose males to be soldiers purely because they have penises. They go through some form of training/selection program i'm sure. Why any different for women?

Then it is not her that is the problem but her unit. If she can handle herself, why would she jeopardize a mission?

Laila said:

If she can handle herself, why would she jepoardize a mission?

Click to expand...

already addressed . . .

In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said.

Click to expand...

Voidwar said:

? ? ? ? What about sex differential in tolerance to high-g ? ? ? ?

I'm not going to be able to believe that assertion without some evidence.

Click to expand...

Females tend to have better hand eye coordination on average than males. Makes them better pilots etc.

I kinda want to add to this that while I have no experience in combat myself, I have spent a very large amount of time working the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, which is an incredibly high stress environment with serious physical stress(the same 80 pounds of gear and 100 degree heat, but add in jet exhaust and the fumes from it), and women were perfectly capable of handling the environment, and in fact excelled. In fact, women in general seem to handle the stress better than men.

This still does not address your whole point on women in combat, but I thought it was worth adding.

The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that.
So the men are the problem basically ...

Voidwar said:

already addressed . . .

Click to expand...

Except a member of the IDF claims this is not accurate.

Laila said:

Thanks for that.
So the men are the problem basically ...

Click to expand...

Since men make up the lions share of any military ground forces, don't you see that as a small problem?

Voidwar said:

And I explained why your seemingly sensible solution does not work in the applicable context. If you don't care about the big picture, thats fine, but then you shouldn't object when I merely explain why your suggestion does not work in the big picture. Its a discussion of the big picture, after all. My post was there for all to read, not just you.

Click to expand...

I never made any claim that it addressed the big picture. That is why I did not quote the whole post, and specifically ensured that it was clear I was only talking about one bullet point.

Blackdog said:

Females have better hand eye coordination. Makes them better pilots etc.

Click to expand...

Thats not evidence, that is more anecdote.

Show me statistics of female fighter pilots repeatedly and consistantly out-performing males in practice sessions at full speed and high G.

There's the bar, now jump over it.

Laila said:

Would it?
I'd find it acceptable.
I doubt they choose males to be soldiers purely because they have penises. They go through some form of training/selection program i'm sure. Why any different for women?

Then it is not her that is the problem but her unit. If she can handle herself, why would she jepoardize a mission?

Click to expand...

I don't think men's penises is what qualifies them for being placed in combat roles above other qualities. I also don't think men were 'chosen' to serve as the infantry in combat and that some type of historical, or perhaps anthropological study would give evidence that this was due to them protecting the women, the young, the tribe etc.

I do agree it may be the unit and the males fault, and not that of the female, but this doesn't change the fact it still jeopardizes the mission.

Redress said:

I never made any claim that it addressed the big picture.

Click to expand...

True.

Again I ask, if you don't care about the big picture, and don't want to address it, why do you care if I examine and discard your suggestion in the big picture context ?