Women in direct combat

[Lucidmoon]

My old roommate worked as a counselor at the VA hospital and said women tend to suffer more from sexual trauma inflicted by other soldiers than from PTSD but her opinion was that if they are aware of those risks and willing to fight chance they shouldn't be denied the chance. I find I agree with her.

Though I don't think the standards for determining readiness for combat should be different for women I do think it will allow only a small percentage of them to participate. And maybe that's as it should be.

 

[Nighthawk]

When I was in Air Force basic training several years ago, the baselines for passing each physical requirement in order to graduate were FAR lower for the women than the men, it was ridiculous. I haven't looked this up at all, and I cannot say anything further based on personal experience since I received a medical discharge during basic training, but I really hope this is not the case for all the branches, especially when the people finish tech school and go on to overseas deployments.

When I served in the Army (quite some time ago), they also had differing physical fitness requirements for the men versus the women. However, the requirements for the specific branches (infantry, armor, etc.) ... as well as the combat schools (paratrooper, ranger, etc.) all had a rigid criteria. If you couldn't pass it (men or women), you couldn't join or attend. Of course, it was a moot point for combat arms ... as women were forbidden from partaking anyway. I suppose that is the point that is being debated now.

As an aside, the Russians and Israelis both had women serve in combat arms. I would be interesting to see if any studies came out of that and, if so, what they indicate.

 

[Raccoon Love]

My old roommate worked as a counselor at the VA hospital and said women tend to suffer more from sexual trauma inflicted by other soldiers than from PTSD but her opinion was that if they are aware of those risks and willing to take the chance they shouldn't be denied the chance. I find I agree with her.

Though I don't think the standards for determining for combat should be different for women I do think it will allow only a small percentage of women to participate. And maybe that's as it should be.

Which should be as anyone enlisted in the army should pass a physical test. The physical test should be as intense for both men and women in direct combat to see if they are truly capable.

 

[Rogue]

I have trouble believing that source, since on an average level though women have higher percentages of PTSD( 5 vs 10.4%) the numbers are by no means as polarized as those. Considering the military setting is applied to both, I would expect the percentages to increase for both though at similar rates.

This source wasn't talking about women in general it was talking about males and females coming out of combat. It was people going in with good mental records and coming out with PTSD.
Male and female brains are wired differently. Men have "compartments" where they store information and the female brain is all connected making traumatic experiences cause more damage. So what you said makes sense for how male and female brains are made up. I don't believe it would increase as high as you might assume they would because men are wired to handle combat better. Also, does your source take into account how people develop PTSD or was it just talking about the general public?

 

[Raccoon Love]

This source wasn't talking about women in general it was talking about males and females coming out of combat. It was people going in with good mental records and coming out with PTSD.
Male and female brains are wired differently. Men have "compartments" where they store information and the female brain is all connected making traumatic experiences cause more damage. So what you said makes sense for how male and female brains are made up. I don't believe it would increase as high as you might assume they would because men are wired to handle combat better. Also, does your source take into account how people develop PTSD or was it just talking about the general public?

It was a general study: http://www.military.com/benefits/resources/ptsd-faqs

It also states about 30% come back with PTSD in partial military roles. Judging by the fact that studies were conducted by the pentagon though, and their statement that it was ok for women to do this, I would assume that there's really not much of a different effect, however seeing the results of the actual pentagon study might be helpful.

 

[DevilDoll]

In a "man's world" woman have something to prove. I believe there are women who can do a job as well or better than a man. There are some that just can, but to put more at risk is not best for the whole.

I suppose that's true if you live in a "mans world". That'll never change if people continue to agree with it and don't attempt to change it. I have a hard time believing that allowing women who can measure up to the same standards required of their male counterparts will put men at risk.

 

[Rogue]

Though I don't think the standards for determining readiness for combat should be different for women I do think it will allow only a small percentage of them to participate. And maybe that's as it should be.

I know I am a bit of a dichotomy on this topic...I agree that woman, if they can pass the same standards, should be able to go where they are best suited. I am sure it will be a small percent. But... I still believe when it comes to the lives of all involved.....not just her own....a woman will cause more harm than good for the men around her.

 

[Rogue]

I suppose that's true if you live in a "mans world". That'll never change if people continue to agree with it and don't attempt to change it. I have a hard time believing that allowing women who can measure up to the same standards required of their male counterparts will put men at risk.

It puts men at risk because many men see women differently/treat them a little softer than they would a man and that can get them killed. Even if the woman doesn't want or need them to do it.

anyways those are my thought on women in combat.

 

[Rogue]

[FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Jon Dougherty[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] 2011 WorldNetDaily.com [/SIZE]



Despite 225 years of witnessing the horror of wars fought by male American soldiers, there are still a number of idiots

 

[Nighthawk]

[FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Jon Dougherty[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]2011 WorldNetDaily.com [/SIZE]



Despite 225 years of witnessing the horror of wars fought by male American soldiers, there are still a number of idiots

 

[Raccoon Love]

The United States is not the only country discussing weather women should be allowed in combat. In fact a number of European countries allow women in direct combat. You must also take into consideration that the war that is fought now is different then it was in the 1950's. Technology has advanced. The US allows women to drive tanks, they are at much more danger there as those are now the main target. Women are ALREADY in direct combat, many are even required to do house searches as a result that in Muslim countries, a men inspecting other women is considered very disrespectful. Women are being exposed to the daily horrors of war. Women also have certain advantages such as the ability to multi task, which many man lack. That is crucial in the front line. There's plenty of women who are much more capable than many men, we might be wired differently but in the long run, a lot of this women are more trained and capable than the average american 18 year old male.

 

[Nighthawk]

The US allows women to drive tanks, they are at much more danger there as those are now the main target.

Hmmmmm ... when did this happen? I'm still pretty close to the armor community and hadn't heard of this. Just curious. I agree that tanks are a high priority target. So are soft skinned vehicles in supply convoys. They have much less protection and are a favorite target for insurgents. Many of the soldiers who are captured or killed are from supply convoys or administrative units without armor protection ... including women.

 

[Raccoon Love]

Hmmmmm ... when did this happen? I'm still pretty close to the armor community and hadn't heard of this. Just curious. I agree that tanks are a high priority target. So are soft skinned vehicles in supply convoys. They have much less protection and are a favorite target for insurgents. Many of the soldiers who are captured or killed are from supply convoys or administrative units without armor protection ... including women.

They are allowed to drive them, just not for combat purposes. They are used mostly for transportation, but a lot of deaths have been occurring with vehicles simply exploding regardless if there was actual combat or not involved.

 

[Rogue]

Hmmmmm ... when did this happen? I'm still pretty close to the armor community and hadn't heard of this. Just curious. I agree that tanks are a high priority target. So are soft skinned vehicles in supply convoys. They have much less protection and are a favorite target for insurgents. Many of the soldiers who are captured or killed are from supply convoys or administrative units without armor protection ... including women.

They are allowed to drive them, just not for combat purposes. They are used mostly for transportation, but a lot of deaths have been occurring with vehicles simply exploding regardless if there was actual combat or not involved.

I would think that driving around is far different than actual combat and therefore shouldnt even be considered in the topic...and plus I would think Nighthawk would understand this best seeing that he was on the front lines and a tank commander.

 

[Raccoon Love]

I would think that driving around is far different than actual combat and therefore shouldnt even be considered in the topic...and plus I would think Nighthawk would understand this best seeing that he was on the front lines and a tank commander.

I was not trying to explain the similarities though. I was stating that women are already in far more danger simply by just "driving" around, as this vehicles are the main targets. With the current technology, women can participate in combat without actual much physical contact with others. Its a different kind of war that's being fought. To say that men would rather protect women is therefore an invalid argument as women are already being attacked on a regular basis.

 

[Omnipotent]

I think putting women in direct combat is bad idea. Psychological issues aside, even an extremely physically weak male is more suited to combat roles than a female. Your average male is about 2-3 times stronger in the upper body and quite a bit faster than an average female. Considering the fact that soldiers may have to march several miles with 50+ lbs of gear and sprint while encumbered in combat I would say physical fitness is a pretty important aspect of combat.

I have no doubt that women have the psychological ability to serve in combat roles, but i believe the social and physical elements of combat make it a bad idea to have females in front line service.

 

[Omnipotent]

[MENTION=1768]Raccoon Love[/MENTION], I think you are incorrect when you say that women are allowed to drive "tanks" in combat. They may be allowed to drive armored vehicles in convoys but not actual main battle tanks. Assuming that women were allowed to drive tanks, there really aren't any effective means for guerilla armies to destroy an MBT other than IEDs. There really isn't any reason for insurgents to target a tank with and IED when they could just place them along routes traveled by soft convoys.

 

[Raccoon Love]

[MENTION=1768]Raccoon Love[/MENTION], I think you are incorrect when you say that women are allowed to drive "tanks" in combat. They may be allowed to drive armored vehicles in convoys but not actual main battle tanks. Assuming that women were allowed to drive tanks, there really aren't any effective means for guerilla armies to destroy an MBT other than IEDs. There really isn't any reason for insurgents to target a tank with and IED when they could just place them along routes traveled by soft convoys.

Yup, I was researching more on the issue . Its not really war tanks, though I got my source from my professor who tends to have hard liberal bias. Women still die commonly simply by driving though, that was the main point. I will say that I am really against any sort of war, I am a huge pacifist. I see this more like a gay marriage issue, I might never consider even getting married but as an issue of equality. I feel as if women wanted to serve, it is their choice the are entitle to as they are well aware of the possible consequences.

 

[Lucidmoon]

Though I don't have a problem with women engaging in warfare I do see the potential for it to be inefficient at best. I suppose we'll see how it plays out and can only hope it if actually puts more lives at risk that we'll be humble enough as a nation to take notice and make the necessary changes.

 

[bamf]

[FONT=Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif]By Jon Dougherty[/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] 2011 WorldNetDaily.com [/SIZE]



Despite 225 years of witnessing the horror of wars fought by male American soldiers, there are still a number of idiots