[Ghostavo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4560847.stm

Republicans in the US Congress are trying to pass legislation which would keep female soldiers out of combat.

The measure is being considered now by the House Armed Services Committee.

Advocates of the proposal want to stop women from working as drivers, medics and logistics specialists in teams which provide back-up to combat units.

They say the women get too close to the fighting. But the US army is opposed to the plan at a time when they are having problems with recruitment.

Senior officers have said if it passes into law, they will have to pull out 22,000 female soldiers from their current jobs and replace them with men.

A soldier is not allowed to be on the front lines because of it's gender? How does that work?

[Unknown Target]

It's been historically the same way: in fact, females were allowed into support roles relatively recently. It's just the conservative Republicans want to wind the clock back to 1940.

[Deepblue]

Why can't people accept the fact that there are physical differences between the sexes that can affect combat ability?

[Rictor]

That's true, but the US military is in no position to be picky. Look at Israel, and realize that women soldies can kick ass just like anyone else, and for a military that's regularly missing their recruitment quotas...well, beggers can't be choosers.

[Unknown Target]

I'd be more worried about the abuses woman would have inflicted upon them if they were captured. Men are less...desirable. If you know what I mean

[Taristin]

Women can pull a trigger just as well as men.

War these days isn't as much about lugging a huge broadsword into a large melee.

Hell, Russians have had females in their army's for both world wars. And the best snipers were female.

[Unknown Target]

I'm not saying women are any less capable. I think that women should be allowed to go into war if they choose to, just like men.
I'm debating on the draft, but since women want to be treated exactly like men, I say draft them. They have to get the good and the bad. In my perfect world, I'd say no, but it just isn't fair or right to men to not make them get drafted, if they're able to be put into frontline duty.

[NGTM-1R]

Quite frankly, they're not supposed to be allowed in combat anyways, but the Army's integrating the logistics units with the shooters kinda obviated that.

I can see the "physical differences" argument semi-working for infantry, but they're not allowed on tank or other combatant vehicle crews right now either, and that's just plain stupid. And besides, women are on average smaller then men. That should in theory translate to proportionally less of them being wounded.

[Swamp_Thing]

I think it´s more about damaging propaganda. No public would take seeing dead women kindly. Even if they are soldiers.
Imagine looking at the footage of the captured/dead americans from the ambush in Najaf?. If instead of dead men, you had dead women, the american public would resent it much quicker than it does for men. Women are still viewed as the gentle gender. No one wants to see a women with her insides colapsing on her hands.

[Taristin]

Yeah, but if anything, wouldn't that both make the Americans angrier at the arabs, and more determined for revenge?

[Unknown Target]

Exactly. It's simple culture and established images. I know I would react quite strongly if I saw a dead woman as opposed to a dead man.

[Drew]

its more about the honor of the woman than anything else, as well as the duty of the man to protect the woman. if we had women defending men, it make us all look like pussies, not cool

[Taristin]

Women protect men all the time, though.
You know how many husbands are mortally terrified of their wives?

Toime warble.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Deepblue
Why can't people accept the fact that there are physical differences between the sexes that can affect combat ability?

Why can't people accept that there are physical differences due to things other than gender?

Quite simply, if a soldier has what it takes - motivation, skill, strength, discipline - then I see nothing wrong with them being on the battlefield.

The point of the army is to serve as a method of physical enforcement. It's not their job to worry that by doing a good job, they might make some people look like pussies. Nor is it their job to be politically correct or conform to stereotypes.

Having seen this debate come up a couple times before, I think the solution is pretty simple...figure out what a soldier on the front lines needs to be able to do, and test them based on that. Not based on their gender. If they make the cut, then they go to the front lines. If not, then they go to some other branch of the military. (They may be brilliant tactically, but not quite reach the physical requirements.)

But as far as political correctness goes, I feel that this is a step backwards. For social progress as well.

Hopefully the bill gets shot down by a large majority.

I do find it somewhat concerning that the large reshuffling of soldiers might be used as an excuse to reinstate the draft.

[Kosh]

In World War 2 during the Battle of Britain, the british would sometimes (not sure how often) man their AAA guns with women. They found that those women often times did their jobs just as well or even better than their male counterparts.



This bill should be derailed. If a women is willing to pick up a gun and fight for her country, then let her fight.

Women might not be as physically strong or fast as men (in GENERAL, I'm sure there are lots of exceptions), but they make up for it in other ways.

[Swamp_Thing]

Women are great fighters, especially pilots. Because women are smaller and have a shorter center of  gravity, they can withstand the G forces better than any man. Even a Arnold Schwarznegger. They are physically better in that respect. They are also better when it comes to run large distances, their methabolic rate is better than most men. They might not be as strong to carry 100 pounds of equipment, but if you need to cover lots of ground fast, their are superior.
And as the WWII has shown us, russian women were formidable oponents in battle. The russians had a few all women fighter squadrons, that raked quite a lot of kills. They were also great tank crews.
But what we have is a cultural shock. The russian system viewed all individuals as equals, despite of gender. The west does not.
We are still hung up on the lady in distress kind of thing. We still view them as fragile little things, that we must protect at all cost.
I suppose women could be kept out of infantry duty, but anything else is perfectly within their reach. You don´t need to bench 200 kilos to drive a tank or fly a plane.
Actually, i wouldn´t mind seeing all airplanes flown by women. We would get a lot less friendly fire incidents and civilian casualties with them "driving". They are much more carefull and methodical, men are way too instinctive and careless.

[Scuddie]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Actually, i wouldn´t mind seeing all airplanes flown by women. We would get a lot less friendly fire incidents and civilian casualties with them "driving". They are much more carefull and methodical, men are way too instinctive and careless.

But men are more logical, which is the key to operating any kind of as-is equipment.  While it may be true that women tend to come up with a solution to a problem instantly, men tend to think of more things at once, like redundancies, thatmake the plan better in the long run.  Thing is, you dont want a "hey, this should work" solution to a lengthy problem, nor do you want a "let me think about this" solution to a quickly progressing problem.  It all depends on what the situation is.  If it were up to me, I'd say let "units" (non-gender) do all the ops.  That way we all get the best of both worlds .

Also, carelessness has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with arrogance and ego.  Around here, it is the female persuasion who are arrogant more often than men.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
I'm not saying women are any less capable. I think that women should be allowed to go into war if they choose to, just like men.
I'm debating on the draft, but since women want to be treated exactly like men, I say draft them. They have to get the good and the bad.

Oddly enough I've never seen a feminist arguing in favour of the draft applying to them

Originally posted by ngtm1r
I can see the "physical differences" argument semi-working for infantry, but they're not allowed on tank or other combatant vehicle crews right now either, and that's just plain stupid.

Considering that the winner of SAS : Are you tough enough was a woman last time I wouldn't even agree there. It should just be down to the individuals stamina

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Raa
Hell, Russians have had females in their army's for both world wars. And the best snipers were female.

MGS 1?

[Kosh]

But men are more logical, which is the key to operating any kind of as-is equipment. While it may be true that women tend to come up with a solution to a problem instantly, men tend to think of more things at once, like redundancies, thatmake the plan better in the long run.

Being in the middle of a firefight REQUIRES that kind of split-second decision making ability that you say women have. Therefore which do you think is more valuable in a battle?