Should women be allowed in combat?

Eric S

NO THEY SHOULD NOT-Women are not allowed into combat for many reasons, an example is below, while they are being shot at and blown up, so weren't many in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, etc....it is the nature of the beast that a mortar, artillery, sniper, IED, etc..will get someone who it is not intended for. As for some info for the question-

From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992, it states in part:

The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength.

An Army study done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men.

Further, the Commission heard an abundance of expert testimony including:
- women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue.
- in terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man.

After a study was conducted at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, one expert testified that:
- using the standard Army Physical Fitness Test, the upper quintile (top 20%) of women at West point achieved scores on the test equivalent to the bottom quintile (bottom 20%) of men.
- only 21 women out of the initial 623 (3.4%) achieved a score equal to the male mean score of 260.
- on the push-up test, only 7% of women can meet a score of 60, while 78% of men exceed it.
- adopting a male standard of fitness at West Point would mean 70% of the women he studied would be separated as failures at the end of their junior year, only 3% would be eligible for the Recondo badge, and not one would receive the Army Physical Fitness badge.

Also, recent studies indicate women are more at risk to getting PTSD, as documented from Iraq and Afghanistan, women who were never in direct combat but whose camps were shelled were more likely to develop PTSD than there male counter-parts.

In short, Women are in the Military Jobs they are in out of politics, not need, not due to merit but politics and quotas. A women can be just as brave as a man but that does me no good when she is hurt more easily, or I have to carry her load because it is to heavy or even worse, she is to weak to drag me back to the Hummer or Helo. Also, Urban Combat is very Physical and having had to have women with us to search female prisoners I can tell you that I have yet to meet a woman in the military who can perform a combat job as well as a man, that is in 18 years of being in a combat branch. Only a few countries have ever let women fight, the former USSR did so because they had no one else left really, the Israelis never did it and it is a common myth that they did. Sorry folks, it is not your "right" to endanger me or my platoon mates for your chance at a job and unlike the corporate world, if people fail in out area of work then people die, not lose money, shares, a bad quarter, etc...people die. Another myth, "Women can take more pain", that is a falsehood spread a long time ago and was thought by Dr. Spock and he tried to relate it to the fact that women go thru giving birth, not based on anything else but good PR and being in some movie quotes and perpetuated by feminists. As for a lot of the posters, they crack me up-Air Force folks outside of PJs and CCTs have no room to argue, your bases are like hotels in country and your tours hardly count for combat. I salute your service but it does not constitute making you as having expertise on humping into a village and shooting someone. The majority of folks who go over and who are talking from sitting on FOBs the whole time they were in-country, that does not constitute "being in the s***" so to speak, you will also notice that a lot of the folks posting are people who have never been in the military and look at the idea of women in combat as a "concept" and as though it is an idea that should be tried, it should not, COMBAT IS NOT A SOCIAL RIGHT FOR ADVANCEMENT, PEOPLE GET KILLED IF THEY CANNOT PULL THERE WEIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edit-As for the Silver Star, the Female Medic who got it more than earned it, the other one not so much, saw the citation and if you look at what happened they, not just her, should have gotten a Bronze Star w/V, the Army tends to inflate awards, nothing against the people who did the job but the Officers have a terrible habit of doing that. My own "Joint Command" for instance gave Bronze Stars (No V) for all E-7 and above and they never left the wire, all the guys who left the wire got JCOMS w/no V and we got shot at all the time but we were Below E-7, not a BS Story, not anything except what I saw a Cadre of Army Officers in the TOC do in 04'.

michael

Yes, if that's where they want to be.

This is already the case in the unconventional wars we're in. Women have proved themselves able to handle the situation well when they're thrown into it.

Plus, the best shots are generally women.

richer_than_you1971

yes

if they want to be equal let them risk their lives on the front line with the men

fdm215

Sure. If they are physically capable of doing the job I don't see why not. Its simply US tradition that prevents it.

Amy D

If they understand the risk they are taking then yes. Coming from a women that would if I could.

Forget War Buy More

Yes,

They are practically there all ready. There is no reason that they can't officially do it.

amyâ™¥baby

Why not is a good response. Why shouldn't they be? I don't think it needs an argument to support that claim. It's 2009. We can vote, drink, work...why are they any restrictions on us at all? Oh right, we still don't make as much as men performing the same jobs. Let's work on that before combat.

Darwin

Sure.

I think they should, that way we can do something while not out fighting.

Julia B

They should be allowed. Women get the exact same training as the men so why not.

regiment_gunner

No. Research has shown that in combat situations, a man will treat a women different to another man. Emotion replaces logic. For example, during combat a man and a women are both hit. Equal wounds. Another soldier can only take one back to base and will have to leave the other to die. 99 times out of 100 he'll take the women, and the man who has been shot will tell him to save the women. Even in situations when they know the man is of more value (i.e he might be better soldier or he might have important intelligence).

That is my main argument against women in battle.

Nick C

One of the reasons that there should be no women allowed in combat positions is that this could cause stressful relationships within the unit and possibly cause a dangerous situation in combat.
The second reason why there should be no women allowed in combat is because since the beginning of time combat has been a mans domain. I believe that it should be kept this way due to the difference of mentalities and roles that have been given to us since we have been born. That is females being the caring motherly figure and the father being the strong protector and when necessary warrior.

Little Leny

no. When the lead starts flying a man might feel responsible to protect that woman (instinct) which may lead to the man being killed.

Future_Ops_Member

I am actually in the middle of writing a paper about for many english class. For me the answer is no. I believe that women would threaten the cohesion that is already in the combat units. This is part of the "band of brothers" mentality. Also think of what would happen if the women were left alone with all of these lonely men in the units that have no female contact for months on end. I also think that men have a protector gene that makes them act in a irrational way when a women is in danger, this may put the whole unit in danger. I have many more reasons but I have to do my homework so thanks.

Future Marine005

Of course everyone knows that most women do have unstable hormones and until women actually prove themselves combat worthy (which they might soon), the military will see them that way. Yes, there has been women in combat, but not in large numbers. They need to prove that they will not break under the stress of combat and will do as good as a job as the men, and it needs to be in something big.

The Saint

Why not? If they want to fight, then let them. After all, women make meaner, nastier and more savage fighters than men nine times out of ten.

7 of 9

they are silly, sometiems it just happens. thats why we are trained for it.
like men don't show signs of being on a period in times of war...

navygirl1490

well 1st of all women are not allowed cause of security measures. Men are always gonna want to protect you its their instinct. If you and another man get captured by the enemy and they threaten him that they will rape you if he doesn't say something just to protect you he will do something that can ruin everything.
dont get me wrong ive always wanted to do infantry or be a seal or something and i know i can do it...

Douglas S

I disagree. Call me old fashioned, but war takes balls. It's as simple as that. If they can prove that they have some balls, let them go for it, otherwise give them positions as support units.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: