Women in close combat roles?

[Pearls18]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27331365

What do we think?

The title says Army, as always, but I'm assuming it means Tri Service combatant roles as a whole.

 

[emyandpotato]

I think it shouldn't even be a question of gender, just of suitability for the role. Like in any job. I see no reason why women with the fitness and skill level necessary should not be on the frontline.

 

[Natsku]

I think it shouldn't even be a question of gender, just of suitability for the role. Like in any job. I see no reason why women with the fitness and skill level necessary should not be on the frontline.

This. Gender shouldn't come into it at all, just fitness and suitability for the role.

 

[shanny]

as above

plus all that about women distracting men crap - are they not all professionals doing a job?

 

[Pirate]

If women are fit for the role, I'm all for it. I agree that there is unlikely to be an issue of men treating their women comrades different. What I worry about is: what if the women are captured by enemy combatants? There are (obviously) different forms of torture that the enemy could use against a woman. But I suppose that women would know this is a possibility when they assumed the role.

 

[TriChick]

From personal experience I believe that it would work, however the adjustment period could be rocky. I was a airborne cryptologist in the Navy, and had to attend a myriad of training prior to getting on the plane for the first time. Among this was SERE school, where they dropped us off in the high desert for a week with no food or water, and we learned how to survive while evading the enemy. The final part of the training involved us being captured and taken to a POW camp, where we experienced realistic interrogations, abuse (both physical and psychological), and general mistreatment. Without getting into details (I am not permitted to), the treatment was VERY realistic to the point that we forgot it was a training scenario. My element consisted of myself and 10 men, all of whom considered me to be an equal who could hold her own (especial after I was one of only two of us who successfully evaded our enemy, lol) however the natural sense to protect was still evident. As much as they tried not to, it affected them more to see me tortured and beaten than it did others. Unfortunately for me, the instructors knew full well that this would happen and I was used as a tool for my teammates to break down and talk, feeling the urge to protect me. I was physically punished (hit, kicked, slapped, put into torture devices) if they "broke the rules", and was sexually degraded (i.e. fake raped, forced to parade in front of 60+ men in my underwear, etc.) in order to stir anger from my shipmates. As much training as we had to counter it, witnessing those things (if only in a training scenario) clouded their judgment as much as they tried to fight it. While I obviously wholeheartedly believe that we are capable of the same duties in most cases, I can see where there would be issues at first regardless of my male colleagues' attempts to overcome them and see past gender.

 

[TriChick]

It should be noted that this training is reserved only for a select few in the military, and is not attended by the majority of troops who are boots-on-ground in the Middle East. For many of those individuals, they would be working with less coping skills than the ones we were taught.

 

[special_kala]

as above

plus all that about women distracting men crap - are they not all professionals doing a job?

I don't think its as simple as that.

Men are taught to protect womem from a very early age whether it be intentional or not. It also musy be built into them also as we naturally are the weaker sex physically.

I think equality can only go so far. We are not equal snd never will be.

I don't think women should be on the front line, not bevause we cant be trained as well but because women would be used as a weapon against their male counterparts.

 

[Pearls18]

TriChick I've read about other things you've posted about your previous job and it sounds like you had quite the career, I am very much in awe of you. I think you bring up some very valid points even if it is the extreme, I don't think there's many people in the military that disagree with the fitness side, so long as a woman can pass the SAME tests and training as the men then that is simple, black and white, they deserve the job just as much as any man. But it's other aspects such as you mention here that doesn't make it such a typical gender equality issue for me.

 

[Pearls18]

as above

plus all that about women distracting men crap - are they not all professionals doing a job?

I don't think its as simple as that.

Men are taught to protect womem from a very early age whether it be intentional or not. It also musy be built into them also as we naturally are the weaker sex physically.

I think equality can only go so far. We are not equal snd never will be.

I don't think women should be on the front line, not bevause we cant be trained as well but because women would be used as a weapon against their male counterparts.

The front line is such a blurry term nowadays, there's actually a lot of women on the "front line" now, from medics to translators. Because of the cultural differences in the Middle East they have needed female soldiers to communicate with the females over there because male soldiers can't just approach women in "friendly" patrols, information gathering exercises etc, but the female soldiers need to be armed and trained and are just as ready for action as the men. The difference in the new proposals in the direct combatant aspect.

 

[TriChick]

Thank you, it was (and is) a very rewarding career! Once the boys came into the picture, however, I felt it was time to hang up the flight boots and stay home in the states I'm very fortunate that I transitioned into the defense contractor role easily and am able to continue the same job with "the agency who shall not be named" lol. Being able to support those down range and still see my family at night is an amazing opportunity. But I digress...


Many people view the hesitation to integrate women into combat roles as purely sexist, but you both are correct that it is not simply a matter of equality. Many women are already in roles close to the front line (let's not kid ourselves, there are women in those convoys), and have proven to pull their weight. It's not a matter of whether the woman can handle the mission, rather if the world can handle the idea of her doing it. A fine example is Jessica Lynch, and the story of her extraction. The world and media recognized her as a brave soldier, but at the same time referring to her as "America's Sweetheart". Her story was portrayed very differently than the rescues of her male counterparts. While we all prayed and hoped for the safe return of POWs down range (and continue to do so), the fact that a female was captured resonated with the public in a different way. No one was comfortable with the idea of "America's Sweetheart" in harm's way. While there are some issues of sexism, there are also natural instincts that many men will have to overcome in order to remain levelheaded in the field. Is it possible? Completely. However, those transitions don't occur overnight. As women take on more roles originally designated for men (like sub duty, well done ladies) we will gradually see a change in thinking. To attempt to rush that, however, could lead to consequences.

 

[Rachel_C]

I think equality can only go so far. We are not equal snd never will be.

I *really* hope you meant "we're not the same and never will be". Equality isn't about being the same, it is about being worth as much as any other person, regardless of difference.

I do think women should be allowed to do any job a man can do, as long as they can meet the appropriate standards. I wouldn't want to see necessary standards relaxed just so women can meet them. However, I do think it would be important to assess those standards carefully e.g. if there is a weight a solider has to be able to carry, they would need to look at whether being able to carry that weight was important to be able to do the job or whether it was a figure randomly plucked from the air to ensure that only the strongest men got in. If it was the latter, I think they would need to look at what was actually necessary rather than keeping with a meaningless standard that was only really possible for men.

I also don't think that men treating women differently should have anything to do with it. Yes, people are conditioned to treat women differently but that is wrong. The only way to stop that is by putting women in the same roles and letting time fix things. Many people have been taught to treat Asians differently but that doesn't mean we should say Asians can't be teachers because some kids might not listen to them. The same goes for challenging any ideas that aren't based on fact.

 

[Pearls18]

I think equality can only go so far. We are not equal snd never will be.

I *really* hope you meant "we're not the same and never will be". Equality isn't about being the same, it is about being worth as much as any other person, regardless of difference.

I do think women should be allowed to do any job a man can do, as long as they can meet the appropriate standards. I wouldn't want to see necessary standards relaxed just so women can meet them. However, I do think it would be important to assess those standards carefully e.g. if there is a weight a solider has to be able to carry, they would need to look at whether being able to carry that weight was important to be able to do the job or whether it was a figure randomly plucked from the air to ensure that only the strongest men got in. If it was the latter, I think they would need to look at what was actually necessary rather than keeping with a meaningless standard that was only really possible for men.

I also don't think that men treating women differently should have anything to do with it. Yes, people are conditioned to treat women differently but that is wrong. The only way to stop that is by putting women in the same roles and letting time fix things. Many people have been taught to treat Asians differently but that doesn't mean we should say Asians can't be teachers because some kids might not listen to them. The same goes for challenging any ideas that aren't based on fact.

My hubby can be a bit of a caveman, and he said to me "you couldn't carry 110lb on your back, you couldn't do my job, so no women shouldn't be allowed" so I quickly had to point out that he shouldn't tar my whole gender with my inability to carry 110lb, even if he is right about me lol, I'm sure there are other women who can! In terms of the bar set for fitness there is usually good reason for this, when they're doing training exercises with 110lb on their backs it's because they need to carry food, water, supplies, wet and dry kit for a set amount of days, they need ammunition and guns etc etc, one thing my husband said is that you take it in turns to carry certain things and he wouldn't want women to get off the fair share, but I assured him that would be something easily remedied and so long as standards weren't lowered the women who pass would be just as capable as him for carrying the fair share, which is why there couldn't be a different test for women.

It will depend on the role as to what the standards are but infantry roles will have some of the hardest standards, in my husbands profession many more will fail than pass the selection, they make it physically hard not only because of what will be demanded of them in the job but because it has to be mentally difficult to get through too, they break you down to separate the strong from the weak, they probably don't have to do some of the difficult things set in training in the job, but it's the method of training which is important in creating the soldier if that makes sense? And a woman would have to experience that just the same as a man.

You need to be just as mentally strong as you are physically strong, if not even more so actually, and physical tests are part of bringing that out.

 

[Pirate]

This really has turned into a great discussion!

TriChick, you rock! I'm really glad that you chimed in with the perspective of a person who's been there!

 

[TriChick]

Thanks Pirate! It's such a tricky, complex issue (which makes it a great topic for debate). I have doubt that some women can handle it, I've seen first hand a 5'2" girl swim a quarter mile while carrying a full-grown man on her back during rescue swimmer training! I DO hope that integration can eventually be achieved, for the sake of all of my friends and former coworkers who are chomping at the bit to take on the challenge. I also hope that the proper training would be provided prior to deployment. I don't believe that just throwing women into the mix and expecting men to simply adjust is a practical or realistic solution.

 

[Miss_Cellany]

What a fascinating discussion. I'd never considered the points about women being used as tools in interrogation. You're an amazing woman TriChick!

I don't think men protecting women is something that is ingrained or conditioned in people. I think it is an innate sense of responsibility from a biological viewpoint (i.e. survival of the species). I don't think you could ever fully 'train' it out. I also think it's something the 'enemy' would target as a result.

My concern over allowing women into combat roles would be that they would reduce the fitness requirements to make it 'fairer' to women as this is exactly what has happened in the Police and now the fitness test is barely anything. The Police service test was obviously a much lower fitness level to start with though.

 

[Noodlebear]

What a fab discussion! I think if a woman is as physically able to do the same things as a man then good for her! I bloody couldn't I was going to chime in with a 'women should be able to do anything' answer but it's very interesting to hear TriChick's perspective and it's totally changed my opinion actually. It all needs to be carefully considered. Men protecting women isn't something that has been taught to us though, I think it's instinctive. We are the weaker sex (yes, there will be exceptions to this like with anything else) but that's basically the way it is.

I'd always question any business/organisation that had a 50/50 workforce. I'd like to see that the best and most suitable people were being chosen for the job rather than to tick boxes about what is and isn't 'fair'.

 

[shanny]

I'd always question any business/organisation that had a 50/50 workforce. I'd like to see that the best and most suitable people were being chosen for the job rather than to tick boxes about what is and isn't 'fair'.[/QUOTE]