• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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.

Why has no one commented on this yet? The OP is flawed, that really throws in question any conclusion drawn from the OP.
 
Except a member of the IDF claims this is not accurate.

A member doesn't carry the same validity as a comprehensivne national study, provided in the link I posted.
 
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.

"Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically," said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.
 
Except a member of the IDF claims this is not accurate.

This too, is anecdotal.

If Tashah wants to debunk the claim, she can, but what she has done so far, does not debunk it for me. Let Tashah cite the specific policy and provide some counter evidence.

The link of the OP is about the British armed forces, however we have drifted to discussing the IDF as well.

From the British side of things . . .

There are few roles in the military which remain off-limits to female personnel. They are engaged in highly dangerous tasks such as flying attack helicopters, driving in military convoys and are often part of foot patrols.

But they are still forbidden from serving in what is known as "close combat". That is fighting with units - mainly in the infantry - whose key role is to seek out, engage with and kill enemy forces.

Is what Tashah was describing an IDF parallel ? Foot Patrols, but not Close Combat ?

More input from Tashah will be required.
 
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.

Do you have any reason to suggest that "in general terms" women are incapable of carrying a 14 pound weapon?

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.
History has denied women the ability to be present in combat role so history has shown nothing in this regard.
 
A member doesn't carry the same validity as a comprehensivne national study, provided in the link I posted.

So some one who would know, in ways you or I cannot, whether Israel uses women in combat, is going to be dismissed because her statement goes against what you want to believe? You have any credibility how?
 
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.

We have female fighter pilots and have for years now. No complaints so far from the government or anyone else.

I don't care about the issue enough to research whatever you are talking about. It is a fact that women have better hand eye coordination. I don't care about the "high G's" or anything else.

There's the bar, now jump over it.

I will ignore the bar as I don't really care.
 
Why has no one commented on this yet? The OP is flawed, that really throws in question any conclusion drawn from the OP.

Israel Defense Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The IDF abolished its "Women's Corps" command in 2001, with a view that it had become an anachronism and a stumbling block towards integration of women in the army as regular soldiers with no special status. However, after pressures from feminist lobbies, the Chief of Staff was persuaded to keep an "adviser for women's affairs". Female soldiers now fall under the authority of individual units based on jobs and not on gender. The 2006 Lebanon War was the first time since 1948 that women were involved in field operations alongside men. Airborne helicopter engineer Sergeant-Major (res.) Keren Tendler became the first female combat soldier to be killed in action.[8]

From the way I see it, the Chief of Staff caved to demands from women's rights groups and then irresponsibly put the burden on the unit commanders to get the groups off his back. I suspect there was some back-channeling talking and memos to make sure that there is not large numbers of women involved in combat. In 1948 they served solely due to manpower shortages.
 
We have female fighter pilots and have for years now. No complaints so far from the government or anyone else.

That is not evidence for this assertion . . .

they are actually stronger in some situations such as combat pilots.

I don't care about the issue enough to research whatever you are talking about.

That is fine, but understand in future, when you make that assertion, you are making it without being able to provide evidence for it.

It is a fact that women have better hand eye coordination. I don't care about the "high G's" or anything else.

That is not evidence that women are "stronger combat pilots" , it is you making a claim about hand eye coordination.
 
I think with the way we are now fighting combat, its inherent that women in the military be given some sort of basic infantry schooling. The Marine Corps already does this with ALL of its non infantry MOS, male and female. All Marines, regardless of their respective job, are basic riflemen. Meaning we are all trained in basic squad mauevers, special weapons firing, MOUT, etc.....I think its important(and the Army has toyed with the idea as well) that everybody be trained in some basic infantry tactics, since the attacks come from anywhere and everywhere. Its folly to have females serve on the ground as supply personell, and as in the case of Jessica Lynch, hand off their weapon to someone else when attacked. A female Marine would have likely fixed her bayonet if it came down to it.

However, even though all female Marines go through this extra training, they are still segregated from the males, just as they are in boot camp. And as was mentioned before, females do have different standards for physical strength testing(and I believe they get a few extra minutes to complete the run). Once they reach MOS schools and fleet units, they are integrated with males, and are expected to be able to perform their job, and develop the same leadership skills in the same manner a male is. So if they are going to be in a support role, they should be trained in some basic infantry tactics, since there is a chance they could be faced with an ambush.

But should they be pure infantry in their roles? I don't think so. Its not a knock on their capabilities, but rather that as a society, men are expendable. I've used this example before, using really simple numbers to illustrate the point. A country has 10 men and 10 females. They come under attack. half of the 20 people will serve in defense. Of the 10 that fight, only two come back. In scenario one, 5 males and 5 females were sent to fight. 1 male and 1 female return, giving the society a total of 6 males, and 6 females. The highest possible birthrate over the next year(to replenish the society) is 6 children. In scenario 2, all 10 males are sent to fight, whilst the 10 women stay behind. 2 males return. The highest possible birthrate over the next year, is 10 children. So we can effectively shrink the male population down to a small number, and still experience a greater population growth, than we could if we sent an equal number of women into obvious combat situations. If you put it into the context of women having 2-3 kids over the course of a lifetime, you can see the numbers would even more greatly favor the scenario where men are sent into the heart of the matter.

Its really the only rationale I can think of, as to why we have ever kept women out of combat. A natural inclination, as a species, to keep the baby farms alive and protected, so that our species can expand and grow. Its evident in some aspects of nature(think lion prides, one or two males, several females).
 
So some one who would know, in ways you or I cannot, whether Israel uses women in combat, is going to be dismissed because her statement goes against what you want to believe? You have any credibility how?

Could you rephrase that?

It is not a matter of me 'wanting to believe' they shouldn't be able to serve in combat, it is historical data and studies that point out they shouldn't be.

And as far as my credibility is concerned, I am not sure in what manner you are trying to say I don't have any, whether it be intellectually on the topic or what not, but I feel my having been in infantry related combat does give my opinion some credibility. Also I like to think I am credible due to the fact I am very objective in my views and have no problem changing them if a more compelling argument is presented.
 
And as far as my credibility is concerned, I am not sure in what manner you are trying to say I don't have any, whether it be intellectually on the topic or what not, but I feel my having been in infantry related combat does give my opinion some credibility. Also I like to think I am credible due to the fact I am very objective in my views and have no problem changing them if a more compelling argument is presented.

On top of that, you have the guts to discuss the whole topic and not myopically focus on one thing to then tout a useless solution.

Kudos to Credibility
 
I think with the way we are now fighting combat, its inherent that women in the military be given some sort of basic infantry schooling. The Marine Corps already does this with ALL of its non infantry MOS, male and female. All Marines, regardless of their respective job, are basic riflemen. Meaning we are all trained in basic squad mauevers, special weapons firing, MOUT, etc.....I think its important(and the Army has toyed with the idea as well) that everybody be trained in some basic infantry tactics, since the attacks come from anywhere and everywhere. Its folly to have females serve on the ground as supply personell, and as in the case of Jessica Lynch, hand off their weapon to someone else when attacked. A female Marine would have likely fixed her bayonet if it came down to it.

However, even though all female Marines go through this extra training, they are still segregated from the males, just as they are in boot camp. And as was mentioned before, females do have different standards for physical strength testing(and I believe they get a few extra minutes to complete the run). Once they reach MOS schools and fleet units, they are integrated with males, and are expected to be able to perform their job, and develop the same leadership skills in the same manner a male is. So if they are going to be in a support role, they should be trained in some basic infantry tactics, since there is a chance they could be faced with an ambush.

But should they be pure infantry in their roles? I don't think so. Its not a knock on their capabilities, but rather that as a society, men are expendable. I've used this example before, using really simple numbers to illustrate the point. A country has 10 men and 10 females. They come under attack. half of the 20 people will serve in defense. Of the 10 that fight, only two come back. In scenario one, 5 males and 5 females were sent to fight. 1 male and 1 female return, giving the society a total of 6 males, and 6 females. The highest possible birthrate over the next year(to replenish the society) is 6 children. In scenario 2, all 10 males are sent to fight, whilst the 10 women stay behind. 2 males return. The highest possible birthrate over the next year, is 10 children. So we can effectively shrink the male population down to a small number, and still experience a greater population growth, than we could if we sent an equal number of women into obvious combat situations. If you put it into the context of women having 2-3 kids over the course of a lifetime, you can see the numbers would even more greatly favor the scenario where men are sent into the heart of the matter.

Its really the only rationale I can think of, as to why we have ever kept women out of combat. A natural inclination, as a species, to keep the baby farms alive and protected, so that our species can expand and grow. Its evident in some aspects of nature(think lion prides, one or two males, several females).

Your rationale concerning the natural inclination of our species is very similar to what I posted earlier and I completely agree. Do you think that given the current population that a society's survival is an issue when deciding whether to send women in to combat? Or that this is just a left over instinctual trait from the past?
 
On top of that, you have the guts to discuss the whole topic and not myopically focus on one thing to then tout a useless solution.

Kudos to Credibility

Thank you.

Oh, and I got the shot addressed at Redress..haha :wink:
 
That is not evidence for this assertion . . .

Yes it is, I figured it was common sense.

That is fine, but understand in future, when you make that assertion, you are making it without being able to provide evidence for it.

It is my opinion, so I can make it anything I like. I have seen women in combat situations and a supporting role. They did fine.

That is not evidence that women are "stronger combat pilots" , it is you making a claim about hand eye coordination.

If women have better hand eye it would stand to reason they would make better pilots.

Again this is common sense.

"Indian air force commanders say a woman's place is in the cockpit of a fighter jet but the delicate nature of cultural and social traditions in the country is keeping them from yankin' and bankin' with the men. "We have not been asked and the government's policy is that only men can qualify to fly fighter aircraft. But if you are asking if the women are capable, the answer is yes," Air Marshal B.N. Gokhale told the Calcutta Telegraph. More than capable, women consistently test better than men in training exercises. "I would recommend that women are put into fighter cockpits on the basis of performance," said Group Captain Chetan Bali, who heads up the faculty of flying at India's Air Force Academy. And lest there are those who believe that Western culture is far ahead when it comes to offering up our young women for combat duty, it's worth noting that the first U.S. female fighter pilot to unload an F/A-18's worth of missiles and laser-guided bombs in combat didn't do so until 2002 in the first wave of attacks against Iraq. Also, the first female pilot joined the Thunderbirds air demonstration team last fall and will perform with the team in the current air show season. - Women Make Better Fighter Pilots
 
Your rationale concerning the natural inclination of our species is very similar to what I posted earlier and I completely agree. Do you think that given the current population that a society's survival is an issue when deciding whether to send women in to combat? Or that this is just a left over instinctual trait from the past?

Depends on which society we are talking about. In most Western countries, where birthrates are already declining, within relatively safe conditions, I don't think its wise to send females into combat roles. If, in a situation, where the society has its back against the wall, like in the case of Israelis, every round that can be potentially fired down range is needed. You have to balance the risk/reward as you do in any military scenario. You have to balance long term sustainability, with immediate survival. Base your answer on that, is what I say.
 
Do you have any reason to suggest that "in general terms" women are incapable of carrying a 14 pound weapon?


History has denied women the ability to be present in combat role so history has shown nothing in this regard.

I recall having to carry more than a 14 lb weapon. Things like ammunition, SAPI plates, grenades, kevlar (helmet), medkit, etc also add to the weight.

Also, a full loaded Squad Automatic Weapon does not weigh 14 lbs, it weighs 22 lbs. So if I am grasping what you are saying, should they only be limited to a rifleman's role in combat and not that of a support gunner?

This quote and study also gives some credibility beyond my opinion

"Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically," said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.
 
Last edited:
Is what Tashah was describing an IDF parallel? Foot Patrols, but not Close Combat? More input from Tashah will be required.
Some clarity is probably needed here. Technically speaking, IDF females are not assigned directly to attacking units or platoons. But the flow of modern warfare is so rapid that combat lanes morph and hot zones can easily become blurred and/or indistinct. Oftentimes also, a female IDF specialist will be embedded with a combat brigade.
 
Some clarity is probably needed here. Technically speaking, IDF females are not assigned directly to attacking units or platoons. But the flow of modern warfare is so rapid that combat lanes morph and hot zones can easily become blurred and/or indistinct. Oftentimes also, a female IDF specialist will be embedded with a combat brigade.

Same thing is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq with US female troops.
 
Yes it is, I figured it was common sense.

Well, it certainly is a "common" mistake. The fact that there are a few female fighter pilots, is not evidence for the assertion that females are "stronger combat pilots".

If women have better hand eye it would stand to reason they would make better pilots.

That might be a good guess. What a scientist would do, would be to test that theory, rather than assume it was true. Thats why proof, is a little harder to come by than "common" sense.

More than capable, women consistently test better than men in training exercises. "I would recommend that women are put into fighter cockpits on the basis of performance," said Group Captain Chetan Bali, who heads up the faculty of flying at India's Air Force Academy.

Now here you are actually giving me what I requested, but I would still like to see the statistics themselves, and how real physiological differences between sexes, like tolerance to High G, are accounted for. If she's great, but passes out at 9 g when most males don't, then one High G dogfight move erases that greatness does it not ?
 
Same thing is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq with US female troops.

Can't be. There is an out of date study showing that women in combat is bad, so the fact that women are in combat, and our combat forces are incredibly effective, must be some sort of anomaly.
 
Every IDF female conscript goes through six months of basic training. They are issued their M-16 on day 1 and it stays with them 24/7. In the IDF, almost all weapons instructors are females. As a matter of fact, the IDF has discovered that females are better suited as snipers also.

IDFGirl.jpg
 
Last edited:
Now here you are actually giving me what I requested, but I would still like to see the statistics themselves, and how real physiological differences between sexes, like tolerance to High G, are accounted for. If she's great, but passes out at 9 g when most males don't, then one High G dogfight move erases that greatness does it not ?

You don't know much of anything about combat jets do you?
 
On top of that, you have the guts to discuss the whole topic and not myopically focus on one thing to then tout a useless solution.

Kudos to Credibility

Hmmm, let's see, I stated I did not know enough to comment on everything, but one point was easily solved. You keep on talking about stuff you clearly do not know about. Interesting differences there.
 
Some clarity is probably needed here. Technically speaking, IDF females are not assigned directly to attacking units or platoons.

Is it your personal opinion that the IDF maintains that policy largely due to the aforementioned study / review of the '48 conflict ?

But the flow of modern warfare is so rapid that combat lanes morph and hot zones can easily become blurred and/or indistinct. Oftentimes also, a female IDF specialist will be embedded with a combat brigade.

Understood, by the IDF and the British Armed Forces, and me :2razz:

But do recall, that the OP is specifically talking about whether or not to assign females directly to attacking units.

U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.
 
Back
Top Bottom