• 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.

Now you are going beyond what is stated in your linked article. These are not the issues mentioned from the 1948 study. I do not see anything in your list that women are incapable of handling.

It isn't a matter of the women being unable to handle it, except for the physical aspect, which I don't believe they could. But simple physical fitness tests could determine whether they are capable of this.

It is the men who 'can't handle it' that the study indicates. They are the ones jeopardizing the mission. So this begs the question of "Well, men can learn to deal with it."

But should lives have to be lost in order for women to feel equal to serve in combat to find out this answer?



Now this is the study I am questioning. It's outdated and needs to be re-examined. Note this is not saying it is wrong, only questionable. If we do not continually question past assumptions, we will fall behind, no matter what the topic in question is.

I agree, we should always question past assumptions and 'authorities on matters.' This however isn't a study of going out and examining mating habits of rabbits, people would lose their lives in order to find conclusive results.



No, but the people and equipment of combat have.

Yes, they have, but how does this validate your point or negate any of mine? Exoskeletons aren't widely used yet to support the heavy loads, and we haven't yet implemented mind controlling measures in soldiers for them to be able to block out traumatic experiences during battle and affter. Yet being a key word.
 
The link Polynikes posted carries little weight. The WND cites one guy from a conservative think tank who claims that men spent their time protecting women instead of fighting the enemy.

1) The heritage foundation man provided no evidence for his claim.

2) 1948 was a different time. In the U.S., we still were still segregated in the military. Sexism was rampant, and women faced immense discrimination in most jobs.

3) Even if you want to accept such unfounded claims, they only would apply to unmounted infantry. Combat positions such as a tank commander or ground attack pilot would not have such problems.
 
But should lives have to be lost in order for women to feel equal to serve in combat to find out this answer?

We are just going round and round on most of this, so just this one thing. Any study of women in combat in the modern world would not need to be based on experiment, but on what has happened in those situations now. Women do see combat, regularly. We therefore have a large pool of information to draw from.
 
I am a combat veteran ( Vietnam) and I do not believe that woman should b in combat. The reasons are varied but physicla strenght is one very imprtant one. It's not decrimination to exclude or better stated not include a set of human types fom an activity if they are not physically sited for that activity.

I would never ever ever be considered for that NBA even if for some reason I had the ablity to sh00t baskets. I am not 6' 6" EOS !!!

Now there are those who have basket sh00ting abilities and are over 7' + they would be ruled out of certain career fields in the miliatry becasue they are too tall to fit into the equipment to operate it.
 
We are just going round and round on most of this, so just this one thing. Any study of women in combat in the modern world would not need to be based on experiment, but on what has happened in those situations now. Women do see combat, regularly. We therefore have a large pool of information to draw from.

Our definitions of combat are different. I am all for women serving in combat roles i.e. Pilots, Tank Crew, etc. The issue I am discussing, and the one the initial article addresses is them serving on front-line, infantry style combat. Women do not regularly see this type of combat. In fact I would say they very rarely do.

There is no information available to analyze how they have either postively or negatively affected the battlefield. This type of 'experiment' would need to have women in an infantry platoon, walking the streets of Iraq or any other combat environment just like the infantry do now. Any other 'experiment' would not suffice.
 
The link Polynikes posted carries little weight. The WND cites one guy from a conservative think tank who claims that men spent their time protecting women instead of fighting the enemy.

1) The heritage foundation man provided no evidence for his claim.

2) 1948 was a different time. In the U.S., we still were still segregated in the military. Sexism was rampant, and women faced immense discrimination in most jobs.

3) Even if you want to accept such unfounded claims, they only would apply to unmounted infantry. Combat positions such as a tank commander or ground attack pilot would not have such problems.

I did not research the validity of the link because it isn't the centerpiece of my argument, it just highlights and articulates commonly held positions.

How does 1948 and women being segregated make their role and the adverse effects they have in combat different than right now? This is the same argument Redress was making and I don't seem the validity of it. War is War. Sure the technology changes and the roles change, but psychologically, men have changed very little in in the past few hundred years regarding war.

And if you had read the original article I was talking about, women are accepted in combat roles such as pilots and tank crews. This however does not correlate to them serving in infantry roles. Being on the ground fighting in the infantry is very different than being in a tank or in a plane.


I think any implementation of women in infantry combat would have to be done slowly and studied carefully. It is not that I am against them serving, I just would hate to see lives lost so women could have equality. If the data showed they didn't adversely effect the mission or put the soldier's lifes at unnecessary risk, I would be the first to say "Let them in."
 
I noticed that some posters have tried to equate the pre 1948 US segragationist policies and the non-inviting of woman into combat as the "same". I do not see an equal arguement when it comes to gender. The differences between fighting men of diferent races has been bown away long before 1948. There are no proven physical characteristics between mne of diferent races regarding how they perform in combat. The diferences as to how genders react, act, pro-act and behave under the stress of combat has never been is unknown but what is known is how woman behave, react, and act in general life and we know that woman act differently than men.

Therefore not inviting woman into combat is not discrimination.
 
Our definitions of combat are different. I am all for women serving in combat roles i.e. Pilots, Tank Crew, etc. The issue I am discussing, and the one the initial article addresses is them serving on front-line, infantry style combat. Women do not regularly see this type of combat. In fact I would say they very rarely do.

There is no information available to analyze how they have either postively or negatively affected the battlefield. This type of 'experiment' would need to have women in an infantry platoon, walking the streets of Iraq or any other combat environment just like the infantry do now. Any other 'experiment' would not suffice.

There are plenty, large quantities of examples of women caught in front line situations. There is almost certainly sufficient data to study on the subject. There is no need to experiment. Any other objections?
 
How does 1948 and women being segregated make their role and the adverse effects they have in combat different than right now? This is the same argument Redress was making and I don't seem the validity of it. War is War. Sure the technology changes and the roles change, but psychologically, men have changed very little in in the past few hundred years regarding war.

I disagree that men have changed very little psychologically. I think the overall psychology of people and society is not just changing rapidly, but that that change is accelerating. if anyone has any information on that topic, I would love to read some on it.
 
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.

If the UK military treats women with kids gloves like the US military then this would be a horrible mistake. Anyone who has served in at least the Army or Marines knows this. If the physical and mental standards were the same and the military wasn't all pc like it is today then maybe women should be allowed in combat roles. However the standards are not the same and would be placing a burden on the male soldiers and marines. So I do not think women should be allowed in the military at all,maybe as nurses,cooks, or some other civilian equivalent job but not combat,they should be as far away from the battle field as possible. That whole Jessica Lynch thing was a crock of ****,she basically spent most of her time unconscious in a hospital and got a medal for it just to forward some feminazi agenda,even she admits the whole thing was blown way out of proportion.
 
Last edited:
We are just going round and round on most of this, so just this one thing. Any study of women in combat in the modern world would not need to be based on experiment, but on what has happened in those situations now. Women do see combat, regularly. We therefore have a large pool of information to draw from.


What we have is proof that women can handle themselves in a combat situation thanks to Iraq not having a front line (Jessica Lynch being a disgrace to women). Women have had to defend themselves on plenty occassions, due to convoys being attacked with IED's and such. But this is not the same thing as sending a woman into a fight.

Units that have women in them also have the logistics to accomodate them. The hygiene for women entails a bit more than it does for a man. Also, in Infantry units, the ability to move fast matters, which means that it cannot carry the types of equipment found in headquarters units such as shower units, privacy shelters, and medical specialties.

People always jump to the upper body strength or the inability of men to play nice with girls in lonely, desperate situations. Of course, there is a measure of truth to such things just like there is truth to the fact that "brotherhood" and mission seems to always take a back seat whenever the brotherhood feels that they have to focus on being big brother protectorates instead of mission accomplishers at all costs. In other words, when it comes time to kick a door in and clear a room, no man is going to send the girl in first, which means that demoralization, resentment, and unfairness would weaken the unit.

But with these obvious arguments, there is a very real logisitic issue.
 
Last edited:
I did not research the validity of the link because it isn't the centerpiece of my argument, it just highlights and articulates commonly held positions.

I can agree with that.

How does 1948 and women being segregated make their role and the adverse effects they have in combat different than right now?

I was referencing racial segregation, to show how different the military was back then, as well as prevailing social values that have since changed.

War is War. Sure the technology changes and the roles change, but psychologically, men have changed very little in in the past few hundred years regarding war.

Considering that rape and plunder are not longer accepted as a normal consequence of Invasion, it is safe to say that men have changed the way the operate in war.


And if you had read the original article I was talking about, women are accepted in combat roles such as pilots and tank crews. This however does not correlate to them serving in infantry roles. Being on the ground fighting in the infantry is very different than being in a tank or in a plane.

Currently woman are not allowed in armor or artillery.


I think any implementation of women in infantry combat would have to be done slowly and studied carefully. It is not that I am against them serving, I just would hate to see lives lost so women could have equality. If the data showed they didn't adversely effect the mission or put the soldier's lifes at unnecessary risk, I would be the first to say "Let them in."

The first place to start would be snipers, as the female snipers fielded by Russia during WW2 were quite effective.
 
Units that have women in them also have the logistics to accomodate them. The hygiene for women entails a bit more than it does for a man. Also, in Infantry units, the ability to move fast matters, which means that it cannot carry the types of equipment found in headquarters units such as shower units, privacy shelters, and medical specialties.

How big are the logistics requirements? Everything you mentioned except tampons and medical stuff could be ignored, and I doubt that would have any noticeable impact on supplies. Considering that woman don't need to shave, it is possible they might even come out ahead in logistics.
 
Considering that rape and plunder are not longer accepted as a normal consequence of Invasion,

Both of these happened extensively in Kuwait in '91, so I think your assertion is hogwash.
 
Lol. I think a lot of males here are upset because they would lose the exclusivity to one of their domains. It also seems to me that what the outdated study is grounded upon is the notion that men will place gender-bias ahead of battlefield necessity. You guys better toughen up.

Lugging around a gun is so difficult? Jeeze Louise. I have an M-4 and a pup-gun and neither is as heavy as my purse. There are certainly military roles which are more attuned to male participation. However, the converse is also true. There are certainly military roles in which females excel. The trick is in finding the proper balance.

I personally think the current situation in the IDF is just about right. Women are trained in basic as infantry soldiers and then receive advanced training in specialties that play to their strengths. That said, both the IDF and the US military have discovered that the pace and the specialist demands of modern warfare virtually ensure that female soldiers will experience combat situations whether this outcome is intended or not. That's the reality, and a reality that should be exploited rather than feared and dreaded.
 
Both of these happened extensively in Kuwait in '91, so I think your assertion is hogwash.

Really. Why don't you provide some examples of U.S. soldiers committing such actions and escaping punishment then.
 
What we have is proof that women can handle themselves in a combat situation thanks to Iraq not having a front line (Jessica Lynch being a disgrace to women). Women have had to defend themselves on plenty occassions, due to convoys being attacked with IED's and such. But this is not the same thing as sending a woman into a fight.

Units that have women in them also have the logistics to accomodate them. The hygiene for women entails a bit more than it does for a man. Also, in Infantry units, the ability to move fast matters, which means that it cannot carry the types of equipment found in headquarters units such as shower units, privacy shelters, and medical specialties.

People always jump to the upper body strength or the inability of men to play nice with girls in lonely, desperate situations. Of course, there is a measure of truth to such things just like there is truth to the fact that "brotherhood" and mission seems to always take a back seat whenever the brotherhood feels that they have to focus on being big brother protectorates instead of mission accomplishers at all costs. In other words, when it comes time to kick a door in and clear a room, no man is going to send the girl in first, which means that demoralization, resentment, and unfairness would weaken the unit.

But with these obvious arguments, there is a very real logisitic issue.

Gunny, outside of the logistics issue, which is really minor, your list reads very similar to what I heard when "don't ask, don't tell" was first suggested, and when allowing blacks to serve in integrated units was first proposed. Blacks and gays both serve in the military now, to no loss of unit ability.

Change is hard, and I remember when I served not particularly wanting change. At that time, women where rarely allowed on carriers, but now serve on them with some regularity. Surprise, it works, and works well. Also, not surprisingly, alot of the same arguments you give where used against women being allowed to serve on combat ships.

It is time to question assumptions. Women have proved, time and again, able to handle themselves in combat, and having women in combat has yet to result in unsolvable problems.
 
Lugging around a gun is so difficult? Jeeze Louise. I have an M-4 and a pup-gun and neither is as heavy as my purse.

Don't take this wrong...but I found that statement a major turnon.
 
Honestly, the combat load for an infantry can be quite a bit beyond what the average civilian could carry, regardless of gender. However, the way to deal with that is to set physical requirements, not blanket gender bans. You can find women capable of carrying a full combat load just going to home depot.
 
Really. Why don't you provide some examples of U.S. soldiers committing such actions and escaping punishment then.

U.S. Soldiers are not the only ones on earth, and as we can see, you did not limit your hogwash assertion to any one nation . . .

Considering that rape and plunder are not longer accepted as a normal consequence of Invasion, it is safe to say that men have changed the way the operate in war.
 
U.S. Soldiers are not the only ones on earth, and as we can see, you did not limit your hogwash assertion to any one nation . . .

I assumed you would be able figure out that I was referring to the U.K./U.S. since we were discussing the role of women serving those two countries, but clearly you were wrong.

Let clarify my statement just for you. Although rape and plunder were once condoned as typical behavior for men at war, in certain countries times have changed. The U.K. armed forces now will actively punish soldiers who loot conquered nations or sexually assault women. This is a clear indication that the social behavior of men at war has changed, mirroring general changes in society at large.
 
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

.
Not a good move in my opinion. Seems like a further move to total war ideals. By keeping women from such roles, to me seems like a small respite from a total war mentality. Your saying in effect one section of the community has some sort of protection from the all encompassing needs of the military, whether or not having women in combat roles actually is good for military efficiency. It seems to me like also like a further blurring of distinctions for the sake of politically correct egalitarianism, often with vague promises that "it'll turn out alright" or "change must come".

One notes that it was such societies as the USSR and Communist China as well as Israel, societies of revolution and/or total war footings that are most known for the liberal use of women as soldiers.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes of course women should be permitted to partisipate in front-line combat.

Women performed all the jobs men did during WWII - factory workers etc and even the Russian allowed women to fight on the front line - some very good female tank commanders.

I don't really buy into the weaker-sex thing - even if there were one or two activities that women might not be able to physically perform - those could be taken into account, firing a rifle at a enemy combatant isn't one of them ....
 
There are plenty, large quantities of examples of women caught in front line situations. There is almost certainly sufficient data to study on the subject. There is no need to experiment. Any other objections?

Once again it is important that you understand the difference of an IED hitting your convoy, the convoy stopping and everyone taking up security positions until those in the hit vehicle are evacuated to another vehicle or airlifted out and then the convoy proceeding on to what I am speaking of as front-line infantry combat patrols.

Granted some of those convoys may come under further small arms fire, but I bet there is maybe a handful of instances where the female soldiers dismounted and conducted maneuvers to neutralize the small arms fire.

Sitting behind a sheet of armor in a humvee shooting a .50 cal is not the same doing a 2 hour patrol, taking contract and then being in a running gunfight for the next 4 hours.

This distinction is very important.

Therefore there has not been any accurate information (Or VERY little that can not be applied to such a broad issue) that could be used to judge how females would perform in front-line combat situations. Once again, infantry style combat is only comparable to infantry style combat. Serving in artillery is NOWHERE near the same experience as serving in the infantry.

.
 
Oh yes of course women should be permitted to partisipate in front-line combat.

Women performed all the jobs men did during WWII - factory workers etc and even the Russian allowed women to fight on the front line - some very good female tank commanders.

All the jobs? Show me the stats for how many women stormed the beaches of Normandy, and while you're at check for the amount of total U.S women casualties that occurred at Iwo Jima.



I don't really buy into the weaker-sex thing - even if there were one or two activities that women might not be able to physically perform - those could be taken into account, firing a rifle at a enemy combatant isn't one of them ....

So your view of combat is simply shooting a rifle? You may want to reconsider this then respond accordingly.
 
Back
Top Bottom