When it comes to women serving on the front-lines of conflicts, rules vary. In Israel, women are conscripted and serve along side men in combat roles.
In the Canadian armed forces women, too, serve on the front-lines and have risen the ranks to become officers in combat units.
But this is relatively rare. Most countries include women in their military, but their roles are largely confined to medical and supporting roles.
Last year, the Indian government ruled out the possibility of deploying women officers to fly fighter jets, board warships, or engage the enemy in fire.
And in the United States, women are still prohibited from joining combat units. A CBS News/New York Times poll found a slim majority of Americans disagree with the policy.
The issue prompted this Iraq veteran to question it.
Catherine Ross writes:
“I don’t really know why the United States Army would keep women out of the combat arms. What are the powers-that-be afraid would happen?”
The blogger Joshua Sowin points to the physical differences between men and women and risks to morale when women are placed in the company of men at the heart of a military conflict.
So, what do you think? Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles?
We’ll be discussing the issue on BBC World Update on Wednesday as part of our Women at War series.
RSS feed
BBC World Have Your Say 
If they allow women to serve in combat in the US military, then women will also be required to register with the selective service, hence there would be more equal responsibilities, not just equal rights. Right now only men have to register for the draft. However, if they allow women to serve in common, but do not require them to register for the draft, we’ll know that men don’t have equal rights.
Many people have suggested serving in the military shows emancipation and strength. I think this is a somewhat male-centric viewpoint. While we have allowed women in the military in the US, they are largely accepted as men rather than humans with a different skill set. When we finally reach the day when women do not serve in the military, but interact with and affect it, then we will succeed in being a more effective force. Of course some would object, but would a military with tempered machismo be as eager to torture or be more engaging to the wary/revolting populations of the theatres we have placed ourselves today?
I do not second women to be in the front line for defence. They are only purposly created by God to bear children. Therefore we need not to put them in a dangerous place.
What happens when a female soldier, as the result of rape or assault, becomes pregnant ?
The Army is all about “keeping boots on the ground” and “unit cohesion” and “mission”.
I know one young woman [under 20 years of age] who was discharged when was pregnant by a senior person who was married and she protected. Post discharge she was left with out medical care.
Young people sign up for the military for job security and the bonus and so many reasons e.g. a military father.
Rape and sexual abuse in the military is more complicated than just punishing the male. How do we – a society that asks a military to do their duty for us – take care of the woman and the baby! Rape and sexual assault is the abuse that keeps on giving.
Think! We think the rebel armies of XXX country are barbaric because they rape village women and pillage. SO…..
Nancy Connors, MSW
True statement, Nancy!
(Dennis Junior)
what happens when there is rape in any other place ? you deal with it with counseling, social services, justice system, etc.
As for rape by enemies , we are talking about a very small fraction that may be captured AND raped , but if that happens… don’t males have to endure beatings and torture as well ? or is that not painful and traumatizing enough for you or when men have to face those terrible sitations it justs doesn’t matter that much becasue … well, they’re men?
These is WAR we are talking about and war is not pretty to anyone…male or female. In fact we should get rid of war altogether
All the wars that the U.S. is involved in, both open and covert are immoral. No one, male or female has any business “serving” in the U.S. military. There are myriads of better ways to help make your country a better place. Finish school. Go to college. Become a doctor, a teacher, a scientist. Work to create energy independence for your country, ANYTHING rather than become a pirate. The fact that people are in the military speaks volumes of the poor quality of education in the United States. Anyone who has read anything about the history of war knows that they are mostly fought for immoral reasons ON BOTH SIDES of most conflicts, that includes the American revolution, the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. As for women in particular, war and rape are inseparable, they always have been throughout recorded and unrecorded history.
Irene, if it is so terrible, why do you live in the US and of all places, Texas? No war is worth it? Most people who serve in the Military are from the working and middle class, the poor cannot pass the exam and many do not have GEDs or HS Degrees and hence cannot come in as well, did all the people in the middle sign up to be pirates? Also, what history books do you read that all side are immoral in wars? Hmm…reading a lot of Howard Zinn I bet 😉
Howard Zinn among others. Is there some reason I shouldn’t live in the U.S.? Or in Texas? I’m here because I was born here and I work to make it a better place.
Most people who sign up for the military are quite young with only a very useless high school diploma, if anything. If they had a decent education, they would not be in the military. A U.S. high school diploma is not a decent education, much less a G.E.D.
so long as the women at the same level as the men i see no reason why they would not. while people should enjoy equal rights regardless of sex (or any other variant for that matter) it is no secrete that we are not equal. on the whole men generally have more muscle than women and can, again generalizing, endure more pressure and conflict while women tend to be more emotional. does this mean that all women are this way, of course not. i have a sister in the US army, she is half my size but just as tough and i would feel just as safe with her on the front lines next to me than with any other trained person of any race sex creed or color. she, like many other women, are properly trained and therefor are perfectly capable of service.
if women can be sent to combat to fight for the safty of the country they represent, why cannot they protect themselves from rape, sexual harrasments, etc? obviously if women are likely to fall victims to such acts, they might as well just not endanger themselves and stay where its safer for them.
If there are women that are capable of staying focused, despite the fact that presence of the opposite gender does cause distractions to many, and are capable of protecting themselves from such harms, why shouldnt they be sent to combat?
No one should serve in combat roles!
I agree.
g
Since I know a few women who could beat the snot out of me for saying no I’m going to say yes.
So will women be required to register for the Selective service like men have to, and if they do not, will they be subject to the same jail terms and denial of student loan benefits like men are?
That’s “equality”. Right now, things are not equal becaues women are not required to do what I was required to do, and had I refused, I would have gone to jail and not have been able to get an education.
Not all women are ecstatically happy at the kitchen sink.Russia used women extensivly during WW2,as fighter pilots,snipers and combatants.A lot of Britains women went into occupied France as agents,and women used anti-aircraft guns in mainland Britain,and they are doing just fine in Iraq and Afghanistan.So what is the gripe if women wish to serve their country as combatants,I will be the first to salute them.
My comment disappeared, was I moderated for being boring and predictable? Anyways, if a woman can perform the duties expected of her as a combat soldier, she should be permitted to serve.
They already seem to be serving in ‘almost’ combat situations, and in large numbers. Maybe the number of women serving is a better indicator than their being part of the actual combat units.
Women want equal rights, then they should be willing to face equal responsibility. Let them serve and be held under the same rules. My only concern is that as men, we are drawn innately to protect women. Should one be injured in a conflict and it would appear to a rational man that going back for them would be unreasonable, the unit may abandon its role to save the damsel in distress. So long as women fighting units are commanded and controlled by women, then no problem. But to have them fight side by side may be more of a distraction than an advantage.
Why are we still trying to follow an ancient patriarchal view of life from our Judaic past? There is no scientific basis for keeping women out of combat, especially with our technological advances. A woman doesn’t have to heft a mighty sword to be able to kill, neither does she have to worry about being raped by her fellow soldiers on the battlefield. I don’t know why the naysayers always have to worry about women being raped. Is this what they think about in a battle situation? If so, I wouldn’t want them protecting me, because they are more interested in violent sex than protecting their country. We have many historical instances of women going into battle, and winning battles, and many instances of men going into battle and suffering rape at the hands of the victors. Come on guys, don’t be scared of women in battle, don’t worry that they might see how scared you are when you go into battle.
Women want equal rights, then they should be willing to face equal responsibility. Let them serve and be held under the same rules. My only concern is that as men, we are drawn innately to protect women. Should one be injured in a conflict and it would appear to a rational man that going back for them would be unreasonable, the unit may abandon its role to save the “damsel in distress”. So long as women fighting units are commanded and controlled by women, then no problem. But to have them fight side by side with men may be more of a distraction than an advantage.
Women in combat, not a good idea the male soldiers feel responsible to look out for them,. this slows things down and puts lives at risk.
Anyone who is physically and mentally ready for the military should be allowed to serve. There should be no “quotas” or other special dispensation or considerations. The way things are done in the military may have to change to keep up with the times, as long as they don’t reduce combat effectiveness.
As a side (or maybe somewhat related), in society, why do we still have all-male and all-female football teams, basketball, olympic events etc.
You know they should!
Women are just as intelligent, capable and strong as men in most military positions. They can do all of the same things as a man in the military and most times do them better. They can shot just as well and take a bullet just as well.
When it comes to defending a country or combating an enemy, they are just as capable and in some positions I would think they would be preferred. But it still ends up being an individuals skills that will determine the future.
Equal should be Equal!
Everyone should have a chance to serve on the frontlines if they choose. I do know rape by fellow military personnel is a problem that has to be addressed. To the gentleman that keeps hopping up and down about the draft, I see no problem with women being required to register same as men. You need to have your fellow men change the rules.
@ Robyn
Why would men have to change the rules? It’s congress that drafts laws. Why aren’t women insisting that they be required to register for the draft like they were for the vote for women?
I think you should ask women to fight for their right to be subject to draft when men begin to fight for the right to bear the burden of child bearing and child rearing. In case you havent noticed, women do carry a few more responsibilities than the equal rights they ask for.
@John Smith…
Why should women have to “want” equal rights? Shouldn’t equal rights be a given in the 21st century?
lets share the bullet equality for all. long live a meritocracy where performance overides all
If a woman wants equality why complain. I do not think women & men are equal thay each have thair own role.& both are equal in that role.
I’m torn on this question.
On the one hand, the majority of sports disciminate between the sexes, simply because women would otherwise not get a fair chance to compete. Not all sports. For example, equestrian events don’t discriminate. Because in that instance, the physical strength of the rider is not the prime concern.
It seems to me that similar rules should apply to the military. If they make sense for sports, why would it be different for combat roles? Or are we merely asking the military to carry out a social experiment for the benefit of armchair sociologists?
Women do serve in US Navy warships, even as Commanding Officer, so it’s not like they are banned from all combat roles. But in cases where physical strength is more of a factor, then they need to pass the same physical strength tests as the men have to pass. Not some dumbed down version, to appease the above-mentioned sociologists.
The other thing is, women are now allowed to get out of the service if they get pregnant. Well, that’s not right either, is it? Ask the military if this is a problem or not.
And finally, for all the fuss this question always causes, in fact there are very, very few women in military combat situations, even when they are permitted, such as in Navy warships, for instance. Probably because being macho warriors is not something that most young women think is all that appealing. So should we really be striving for an enforced equality here? Like, affirmative action for combat roles? I don’t think so.
Indeed, the easiest way out is to proclaim that no one should serve in combat roles. There’s nothing quite like pretending that a problem does not exist, to avoid having to deal with it.
WAR is the easiest way out of any problem. It’s much easier for a politician to muster support for a war against a perceived enemy (who happens to be sitting on natural resources that we can’t seem to get enough of) than it it to convince the electorate to tighten their belts and learn top live within their means.
The answer is simple. Your are torn for no good reason.
I really do not know about the military and so, I will leave the military part to the Generals to figure this out. Nonetheless, when it comes to what kind of job/service a woman should be allow to do, I would say let them do as they wish. One is only able to perform well in the area they enjoy working. This make them give their best to the services/task without become bore.
As long as they are competent and well trained,there is no reason why they should not take part in combat actions.I only wonder if they will be able to cope with the mental and emotional stress that comes with war.
These generalizations are totally unfair to those women who actually can keep up with the men. They do exist. They’re a minority but they exist. (And they aren’t even all androgynous, either.) They don’t deserve to be denied any opportunity for which they can qualify on equal terms.
The fact that the terms aren’t equal just makes it easier to call such women’s strength and character into question, and they don’t deserve that either.
I think women should be allowed to have ANY job.
But I also think if we had a draft, and didn’t have a “volunteer army,” that our politicians (hopefully) wouldn’t send our troops willy-nilly into wars that are police business.
I have always felt that women had a certain superiority over men that I admired, and that was that they didn’t have to resort to fist and fighting to win. Women fighting for any reason to me is repugnant.
Preventing women from being on the front line means they are less capable than men, which can be taken as an example of gender inequality.
On the face of it , if women join the army they should carry out all the military duties, including fighting and being on the front line. Male soldiers should be gentlemen towards female soldiers, despite their sexual needs in a battle zone.
Male soldiers should know how to conduct themselves. It’s enough for them to carry out the savageries of wars that are euphemistically called acts of defense. They needn’t exteriorize their savagery towards female soldiers who ,as “sisters-in-arms” ,should enjoy protection and respect instead of facing double danger, that of unrestrained male soldiers and the enemy they are sent to fight.
If the clamour for equity is genuine, then it should cut across all gender including currently male dominated professions such as the military. It only makes the women’s cause the more stronger and relevant.
Jeff in Kampala.
The arguments against women in the military always start with a few vague points about women not being as physically competent as men and then quickly devolve to embarrassingly silly worries about men being uncomfortable going to the toilet or women being put on some sort of motherly pedestal. Women should not have their opportunities limited because it will violate under-evolved men’s notions of what a woman should be. If you can face down enemy fire, surely you can update your notions of gender roles.
Sure, why not? Women have always had the crappiest jobs.
As long as governments persist in the insanely archaic practice of throwing armed people at each other to settle political conflicts, knowing full-well that some large number of combatants will be killed and injured, what difference does the gender make.
Good tie-in with your other subject: Rape is a BIG problem in the military and when it is not considered the fault of the victim, it is usually ignored.
Is the Military a social experiment or a force designed to protect us?
I can do without the social experiment nonsense and therefore believe women serve better in support roles freeing men to do the fighting.
Women that have been on front lines and been captured have suffered rape by the enemy. Would that require a team of men on the battlefield to protect / rescue women from enemy perverse sexual assaults?
Why not? If they accept their responsibility and know what can occur in battle or if they are captured, not to cause problems within their own ranks… not there for a holiday, or other activities, then why not?
Of course, war and the world don’t act according to how we would like or hope. With or without women in the ranks, or on the front lines problems will occur, major problems. Most of all people do not act as they intended to beforehand nor do they have the best of intentions and in a context or armed conflict (or any organisation such as the military) people will not act responsibly at times. You can set out rules and standards or behaviour but after all you are dealing with people who willingly become soldiers, that is a type of person you have to wonder about to begin with.
What you did not point out in the article is that the Israeli army unit where the women are serving is based on the Jordanian border, which is very quite and peaceful. That part of the Egyptian border is also quite, apart from smugglers. It is a long way from having women serving say on the Lebanese border.
Dear BBC,
it is very surprising that we are still debating on whether women should in fact be on the front-line today or tomorrow because these are the same people when it comes to gender equality they sing louder. The same energy exerted during gender fight for equality songs should be accorded to this particular issue besides no human being is more equal than the other.
Men go in the combat to fight for the interests of their countries but sometimes for the selfish interests of minority political elites who are privileged with the powers of sanctioning a war against another state or ‘‘chance for terrorist’’. In addition, Men go for combat to win the war and sustain the much beloved secured peace and tranquility for the citizens of their respective nations which is fully enjoyed by both sexes in our societies. Sometimes war could be triggered by economic interests as individuals run for scarce resources, e.g. Oil in Africa and Middle.
In short, l am trying to say that women should also be sent in the combat or front-line under substantially similar terms and conditions as men. However, l only have a demographical concern which goes as follows; ‘‘a world with a single man and ten women around him would give hope for population increase and to the contrary a world with a single woman and ten men gives no future for population boom or growth becomes finite.’’
Kelvin Kamayoyo
Lusaka, Zambia
Women are just as capable as men but their roles are different; First and foremost they are built differently and this physical aspect has to be considered very carefully. Perhaps women could work in the armed forces but given important positions like manning computers, telephones, proper office organisation, military planning, organisation and strategy. All these jobs are equally important. So there need not and should not be any discrimination against women. Competence and determination are instrumental in winning battles. Putting men together with women gives positive synergy. After all 2+2=5
I prefer women as commander-in-cheif than men why?not women in war front line. I believe they have one ability that men does’nt have,i.e Respecting human-life and rules.
I don’t understand women supporting war at all. Never mind ‘serving’ on any line. It baffles me why someone who conceives, nurtures and brings up a child would support anything that would kill or maim it.
Women should definitely be allowed to serve on front lines. We are in the era of gender equality hence, if both women and men are in the army , while only men are allowed to serve on the front line , that is never right. If there are able and willing females who want to serve on the front line well , let them serve.
Women have always been involved in underground liberation forces in wars, on both sides of the gun scope, and brute force is an oxymoron in modern killing strategy.
The reason why women “shoot straighter” is because they pull the trigger between breaths which decreases hand and arm tremor.
Women should definitely be allowed to. If they want to serve their country and protect it, they should be allowed that right like men are.
I say let them fight, because I’m not fighting :-).
as long as women are interested to enjoy the army no one should stop them , but there’s limits which is they got to pick up specific jobs for her in the army before she sign up for example : like working in office , nursing , cleaning , teaching ,especially kitchen various job she can do but serving on the front-lines of conflict that’s very bad even we know woman wouldn’t like see torn body she will go nut as they won’t train her to control her self some women they try to imitated men but we are different if a woman get captured do you know how they will torture her the punishment for sure will be rape ect
i still remember the first days US ARMY invaded iraq after that we all been watching the news and we became in shock after we seen afro-american woman who served in front line with US held the good thing she wasn’t american she was a black woman from africa the got high recommendation from her native country to release her after weeks ago she passed in opera all they do is make fun of iraq soldier and describe them by barbarian which was like an insult to all arab she forgot she was under their mercy and crying and dribbling like little kid after she appeared in opera
If someone wants to go into combat to defend their country I don’t think gender should be an issue.
God bless all women who passed their comments i feel that all males will be replaced by women becouse they will go to the battle field fight for our freedom and safety how happy i am at least i will rid of my wife and get married again by other woman who will serve in front line … i am very much happy living in 21 st centry things getting so eay for men .
so yes gender will never be a problem between men & women go to battle field serve fight : woman can do better than man so please dont argue with them let them go serve in army forces in front line good luck for them with all my regards
I think it’s wrong to think that women on the front line would somehow reduce the visciousness or barbarity of war. We saw in Abu Ghraib that women and even doctors took part in the torture. Females can be as good and as bad as males.
This very question reeks of sexism: “should women be allowed????????”.
I assume that various roles in the armed forces demand certain psychological, intellectual and physical capacities and involve learning specific skills.
Provided a person is over X inches in height, can lift X pounds in weight, run X miles without keeling over, that solves the physical argument that seems to be the one most used by those supporters of the heterosexual boys’ club.
Passing skill tests, such as marksmanship, navigation etc. automatically qualifies the person in question.
On the psychological front, for those who argue that that women are far too delicate to accept the sort of horrors experienced in war, this can be easily solved with psychometric tests which should also be used to determine if any of the males are so feeble-minded as to be distracted by a female in their proximity and/or have been so deeply programmed in gender-stereotyping as to be unable to see a woman as their equal, in which case it is such men who should not be allowed to do the job.
Intellectual issues may well favour women, although I don’t want to fall into the gender stereo-typing trap myself.
Given suitability on the above four scores what has gender got to do with anything? It is not a matter of who is “allowed” to do the job, but who is suitable, regardless of gender.
If there is such a test, it is not used, hence the frequent occurrence of PTSD and mental breakdowns among combat veterans. The increased frequency of suicides and domestic violence among combat veterans is a matter of record. “Suitability” is not a prerequisite for combat and never has been. Gullibility is a prerequisite for signing up with the military at all, an extreme lack of judgment is as well. That is why military recruiters target the poorest high schools in the worst neighborhoods.
No, women should not serve on the front line, only serve far behind the front lines in a supporting role only. Their capture would involve them to suffer several abuses which would be counter productive.
Of course they should! There is nothing wrong with that! It is not men who should be accorded with such roles.They can play any role given to them.It is not only men who are “aggressive” in nature but women are also aggressive by “nurture”.They should be given the go ahead!
I believe women should not be serving on the front lines. Imagine what a woman POW would have to endure at the hands of her captors. They do not possess the same physical strength of a man period. Its a fact of life and the genetic make up of creation. However, they are stronger mentally and emotinally and can handle traumatic situations on the battle field much better than their male counterparts. This has nothing to do with equality.
Should women be allowed to serve on the front line. YES.
Of the issues the officer listed for keeping women out of combat, none of them had to with female soldiers themselves but rather dealt with the male reaction to women in combat. Sounds like the real problem lies with the men.
Women in the military shouldn’t serve on the frontline…….allowing this will only weaken a country military strenght and resistance. Women can’t stand the tension that men face on war front.
Buchanan City, Liberia
Patriotism is not gender specific and hence there should be no reason they should not go into combat.
This is discrimination and they should be definitely be allowed along with gays and transgender soldiers.
Absolutely not.
Surely if I was in the Army and fighting in the frontline, the last thing I’d want to see is female colleague killed in combat or captured by the army. For men it’s much easier to swallow, seeing as it’s been like that for ages. I love and respect my mother and women too much to bear the thought.
I think it’s just a matter of time before woman serve on the front lines. I think any argument you can make for why woman should not be on the front lines say because they are generally smaller and not as muscular as men. There is an equal argument for why they should be on the front lines, for example women have generally better hearing and could detect an enemy better on the front lines. Equality means just that.
thanks
Eric
Los Angeles
I think if the woman can carry her weight (figuratively & literally) then OF COURSE she should be able to serve. Women can contribute attributes that perhaps differ from what males currently contribute.
However, if she can’t hack it, then no. As far as males being “distracted”, I would wager that these particular males probably aren’t the most focused soldiers anyhow.
If a women can finish Basic training, complete technical schooling and meets all of the other requirements then YES!
I talked to my wife and a friend last night and realized each person is different in this regard. Not every male is capable of shooting a gun just like there are women who can’t. Not every male can finish the obstacle course in boot camp. Not every male can handle the constant problems and hardships of being in the field of battle.
It comes right down to who can deal with it and who can’t. That’s why there are so many various jobs in the military.
If a soldier can handle combat, then let them fight. Their sex doesn’t matter if they are strong enough mentally and physically.
If they can’t, make them an officer so they won’t cause any problems.
Women should be able to serve in the Armed Forces in the front lines of battle the same as men. Women have always been in battles. Some have been killed in action and should be honored and remembered as males. I do not think men will have a need to protect women in the front lines. Women in non-white cultures have always been in the front lines of all conflicts whether officially or unofficially. If it were my sister or other females can serve if they wish. It does not take strength to pull a trigger.
As a man who is not allowed to serve in the American military under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” I apply the same argument to all people who wish to serve: Those who prove their capacity and capability should be eligible to serve in any given position. If there are physical and pscychological requirements for effective front line combat, then set those standards objectively and take gender out of the equation.
It is news from a couple of days ago that female US army personnel in Iraq have been sexually assaulted and raped by their own comrades, even by the doctors! I don’t see why any woman would like to serve in the army in such conditions.
On the theoretical point of view I think they should be allowed, but it is practically not doable.
I would say that from an equality standard, if a draft were to imposed again in any country if would have to include woman or else there would be issues of fairness.
Thanks
Eric
Los Angeles
I think the argument that men are physically stronger than women has become too much of a blanket statement. Perhaps in general men are physically stronger than women, but there are many women who are stronger than many men are.
If women want to go to war and fight, why not allow them? However, I think if they must go to the front line, I’d rather not have a unisex assault combatant unit. I would prefer the females have their own units and maybe controlled by women officers. Women and Men are not the same. We are very different. We dont want to endanger the lives of the caring and protective boys do we?
Emopin
A Yoruba German
To the argument that we’re “made” differently, I’m sure there are plenty of women who are built better than some men and could best them in hand-to-hand combat.
If certain men don’t have the self control or decernment to work with women, should we really be handing them a gun?
Exactly how would a woman’s physical limitations verses a man’s hinder their ablitly perform?? I mean we used the term “infantry”, which If I’m not mistaken, comes from the practice of the romans putting children on the frontline…a practice, I regret to report, that is still employed today…now if children can make prove effective in this capacity, then why can’t women??
I disagree with your caller that male and female physical fitness standards have to be the same to be equal–I could not meet the male standards and had a 20 year career in military medicine. Relatively few women can meet the male standards–and those that do have to spend a lot of time working out. However, I think that certain women (not all) would do well in combat roles including such exotic roles as paratroopers and such and IF they can meet the same standards the men have to. If you know anything about female aggression, then you know they are quite capable of combat roles. Already women not in “official” combat roles are routinely in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan–maybe we need to redefine “combat”. Agree that the pregnancy issue and unit cohesion can be a problem, though.
Margaret Tacoma, Wa
What happens to the cliche: what a man can do a woman can do better. Women should be allowed to serve along side men, though male solidiers may not be comfortable with it at first but surely they will adjust over time…. Gush! This is 21st Century.
Maybe we should try all women units and let them prove their worth, like the all black Tuskegee Airmen “Redtails” fighter squadrons who served so valiantly and honorably in WW2. They did so well that the bomber pilots preferred them over the other fighter squadrons.
And try the same with all gay units too.
If a child needs both parents, WHY SEND EITHER PARENT INTO COMBAT?
what is to stop enemy troops from using gang rape as a terror tool on captured women soldiers ?
Women also cannot physically carry the same amount as men, use them for other jobs but the front line should not be for them unless as snipers.
When all the men are dead than women can go.
In response Quote:”women can not face the tension “….in combat.
In WWII Soviet women fought alongside men so women have faced the tension in combat and have done very well.
This issue is already out of date. You might as well argue that women should not wear trousers. Women should not have the right to vote.
Yeh, right!
The physical argument seems to be based on the assumption that male infantry are elite athletes. They are, for the most part, not. There are many women athletes that could best the typical male soldier in all the ways that matter. However, the cultural problems are real, and must be addressed.
When the military is an all-volunteer force, I suppose some of the arguments become simpler. So let’s turn it around.
Let’s assume that the draft is re-established. Would everyone agree that women should ne REQUIRED to serve, even in combat roles, exactly the same as men?
I can’t imagine why not. Of course, in whatever roles they participate, they must train until they pass whatever physical requirements exist. Just like men do.
The man who suggested that women pilots should refrain from having children for a number of years reminds me of a similar comment a friend of mine made years ago. It seemed reasonable to me until I realized only the women’s long-term commitment was being questioned, while there was no mention of men needing the same requirement imposed on them. If such a requirement is imposed it should be done so for both genders, otherwise it IS sexist.
It’s simple, Bill. Men aren’t asked because it is not an issue for men. If they have children, too bad. The military is not going to give them any special dispensations, time off, or anything else.
I strongly believe that men and women together form an effective team despite the physical differences between them.
I am a male Eritrean in Germany and can tell you that Eritrean women soldiers have earned there way into the army and rightly so. They can fight just as hard as any human being in the world but no one sees the military just as any ‘job’ but as a integral part of society where everyone of society, every sey or belief needs to take his share.
Mikael
I do not think that it is a matter of physical difference. My brother is a serves in the a branch of the military, and he said that C.O.’s are sometimes afraid to enforce regulation (wearing body armor that was uncomfortable was the example given) and otherwise discipline women military personnel because there have been cases where the women have called “sexual harassment” and the C.O. has gotten into trouble. So, while I have not trouble with women serving, I think they should expect to have to follow regulations and be disciplined just as any other military service member.
If you can’t change how women are treated back home than there’s no way you can change how they’re treated in the military, and as a male I can tell you that I do treat women differently than men. This is partly because I’m a hopeless romantic and enjoy concept of chivalry and party because this is how I’ve been raised. And because I don’t want to take my good male buddy home with me and make babies with him I’m more likely to thump my chest around him.
But if we want to change the role of women in the military before we change how we treat them at home why not start with all-female front line fighting units, study the effectiveness of females in combat (I’m confident that they will either meet or exceed expectations), and then begin to integrate them into the male fighting units. Slow integration coupled with greater oversight and accountability in regards to sexual assault should help make this transition less painful.
Ive recently joined the marines and have noticed a few differences in physical requirement between women and men. My question is, does physical “inferiority” make women less able than men to deal with the stresses of prolonged combat? I would assume not, yet military policy stipulates women cannot serve as infantry. What am i missing?
A recent survey of women serving in the US Army determined that one of three have suffered sexual assault and sexual harrassment is ubiquitous. This may be a consequence of the heightened aggression of men conditioned for violence.
I think your Canadian guest has got it all thought out and researched and I agree with him.
This is all baloney. In the U.S., they said women couldn’t be police officers. We have women police officers and they serve next to the men and go through the same physical training. They said women couldn’t be firefighters. Women are now hired as firefighters, they go through the same training, they DO the job. This is a remnant of the Victorian idea that women are a “lesser breed”, they aren’t “as good” as men and they should be “protected,” and besides (as the British officer just said), “they’ll just quit and get married and have babies.”
Sure, front line combat is a rough environment. My argument is not that women shouldn’t fight in the infantry if they want to and can handle the training; it’s that if the combat environment is that bad, why are we putting men in it? We need more jaw-jaw and less war-war.
Hopefully having women serve on the front lines would reduce the every expanding culture of war. I would hope that sane, reasonably men and women would have trouble killing a potential mother.
As far as being in harms way, the only people who are truly placed in harms way are civilians. London, Dresden, Hiroshima bombings killed many more civilians, men, women and children than military personnel.
Rather than expand a cultural acceptance of who can get killed on the battle field we should stop honoring those who choose a career that results in men, women and children being killed.
It is rather depressing that women would rather join the culture of violence and war, rather than move cultures towards more peaceful means.
Aren’t men just as likely to ” get married and have kids”. Men get torn from there families all the time already, why should this be any different for women?
I think that women should be allowed to serve in the military but perhaps not in infantry level situations.
If I were in a life and death hand to hand combat situation, I would rather have a man helping me than a woman who may weigh 40 or 50 pounds less and less physically strong than another man.
To me it has less to do with the idea of a woman serving in a combat situation and more of who can help the most in a needed situation
Any man or woman who enters the military know what they are signing up for. If a person if physically and mentally capable of being on the front line there should be no debate. If men on the front line react differently when there is a woman on the front line with them, they are not doing their job properly. Your train to shoot people in combat and you should train to treat the soldier next to you the same regardless of their gender. As for the possibilities when a woman soldier is captured, that is a risk that they agree to take when they sign into the military. If a woman joins the military it should be under the same requirements as their male counterparts.
Surely it’s less about whether the person is male or female and more about the individual’s competence?
Just watch the womens’ biathlon at the Olympics.
Women with guns.
A very dangerous combination.
As a female who served in the U.S Army on a Convoy security Mission which is a combat mission. I believe men and women should train separetely and women should not be in the infantry. First, there is no discussion regarding actual training- Airborne operations, carrying equipment 200lbs plus for 20+ miles, shooting and killing. Furthermore, in the actual combat zone, men are performing functions at a high rate of speed and is somewhat animal. Women emotionally can not handle that stress for long periods of time & they also require many sanitation methods. Also, when I did train with Infantry, with in 5 dayds half the women were to hurt to train. This is not cost efficient. The gentleman who is on is wrong. Men are hiking the moutains in Afghanistan are carrying large packs and to say we should “change” the equipment is plain ridiculous.
Just think how humiliating it would be to macho male enemies to get out-fought and defeated by an all female unit!
As a former US Marine infantryman, I doubt that the training would include everything that had been previously accepted without females. It is common to fight and grapple every time there is an opportunity. With our culture as it is, I think that it would be difficult for most young men to train the same way we do now if there was a threat of sexual harrassment, or even hurt feelings. Individual skills would suffer if the structure of the infantry units changed.
This is not a good reason for not allowing women in the infantry. This is reality.
No one should have to serve on any front line.
However, if front lines must exixt because of games stupid elected politicians play, then they should be made up of both male and female well-armed (with condoms) prostitutes. That way hostilities can be kept to a minimum.
In the 21st century there should be no reason for anyone to be on the frontline. It has been proved so often in the past that wars do not solve political problems.
However, we humans continue to be the only animals who kill for the sake of killing and women have always been involved. The wives of the ancient Germans stood behind their men to stop them retreating perhaps that was better than being on the frontline themselves.
While a Company Commander in the U.S. Army Reserve, I commanded a Chemical Decon Company, made up of about 30% women. I saw both sides of this question, from the inside. Some of those women were the most motivated, disciplined and hence ‘valuable’ soldiers in the unit. But a few also got pregnant, became ‘undeployable,’ and/or had to be discharged. A few ‘whined’ when there was no latrine available and they had to defecate or urinate in the woods.
It also sometimes troubled me to think that they might possably be killed or injured in action. But then many of the men in the unit were only 19 years of age too, and seemed like ‘mere children’ to me.
While it is true that the females of our species are physiologically different from the males, in the end, I believe that we must accept that they must have the right to go and be where they choose, subject only to their individual ability and willingness to “accomplish the mission” assigned.
Should women play in the NFL
It is better to let men fight and kill each other.
The women have better things to do..
A man who sends women in the frontline, is not a man-
it is an idiot.
Who wants to loose a woman ?
we don’t want to lose a woman they want to lose us so why don’t let them try it they might give up also we did not push them to sign up in the army they want to protect the country !! that’s one of their rights we should stand and greet the women i am so happy my wife in future will fight in the front line yay i can’t describe my feeling right now as some men will have a good reason to divorce their wives if they return home without a leg or hand
What I say is simple:
I think that the military shouldn’t exist, it is as simple as that. Women AND MEN should not be in the army, so then no sexual crimes, deaths and traumas, etc. would occur. So no, women should not be in the army because we should not be having idiotic wars, but also this applies to the men that are soldiers ‘away to fight for their country’ nowadays.
I emailed this to WHYS, and I am posting it here.
I think this issue needs to be looked at in depth and dealt with in the best way possible: I think it is ending all wars and military.
That’s just me. 😀
What a bunch of sexist crap! Talking to old men who obviously think the only place for women is the home – what a waste.
It’s so simple to see what’s going on – the only path to promotion in the military is through combat leadership. Keep the women out of combat and you prevent them from ever competing with the big strong men and in so doing, keeping the status quo.
I’ve met many women who are more than equal to any man. Treating them as “special” people is the worst insult imaginable. Do you really expect me to believe that the cited report that compares male and female military performance was fairly done?
I had thought the BBC to be a reputable new organization but I can see they do nothing but pander to ignorant people.
In response to Irene of Texas – I bet if your country was being invaded you’d be one of the first to shout for the Army to protect you. If everyone becomes so educated that no one wanted to do the jobs that the likes of you seem to want them to have, no manual work would ever get done! They would all think themselves to good to do menial tasks. Now you can correct the mistakes I’ve made in this comment. As for women serving on the frontline I’m against it. Women have monthly periods ect. They are not made for fighting. Some are, but not many. I think it could cause all sorts of problems for the men fighting along side them.
Joan Anne Perth
Of course it is alright for people to protect their own country if being attacked. This however is the problem many British soldiers have. They joined up in the belief they could be ready to defend Britain if need be. They were then ordered to invade a country which had taken no action against us. It is not the soldiers (male or female), who are to bame, but politicians. They sit at home drinking tea or give highly paid interviews on TV. A frontline should therefore be reserved for the men/women in Westminster.
Home and family is the top of the pyramid of all social structures. That is where our first and last place of refuge is. That is where life begins and is nurtured in all its glory. Every other structure that the society has created is designed to fulfil a supporting role to this alpha unit called family. Women naturally assumed the top job as head of the family unit, while men served in the secondary role as supporters and defenders of the Unit. Somewhere along the line, men convinced women that what men were doing was more important. So, women foolishly abdicated their top jobs and downgraded themselves to a lower position.
This irresponsible act has left no one in the top job, and as result, today there are broken homes, broken families and broken societies. The children are growing up on the streets turning into criminals. This is the West Side Story.
Women should not be discriminated. The fact that they have joined the army willingly, they should be sent to the front line to prove their capacity.
I understand that the Srilankan Tigers had a lot of women fighters in the for front and the were even better than the men.
ma sister is serving with the U.P.D.F IN Uganda she is doing well and she has been active in the battle fields, two bulet injuries but she is still in the forces that is what she loves.. women can do all things men can do..
make the female standard for entry the same as the male standard for entry if anybody meets those standards whether female or male can join.
does anybody not remember the Russian female sniper during WWII
the main society is always slow to adopt.
their are females in violent crime gangs as killers and other organised crime.
Think of the female cop who killed the guy in Fort Hood and the many other female cops that risk their lives alongside with the male cops.
Reminder to the lefties: The Soviet Union engaged in many wars and invaded many countries. It seems you only object to war when non communist countries go to war.
Reminder to the righties: His comment had absolutely nothing to do with the Soviet Union’s reasons for going to war, politics, government, or culture. He was simply affirming the effectiveness of women on the battlefield.
I believe women are allowed to serve in the US military in some combat roles as pilots of attack helicopters and jets and as crew aboard surface vessels. They are however barred from special forces and frontline infantry. However, in the modern world there are no real frontlines anymore, so I would say women should be able to serve in all roles. The Special Forces won’t present much of a problem since any women capable of getting through the selection process will be able to take care of herself and special forces are more disciplined so rape is unlikely. Small forward operating bases (like in Afghanistan) and submarines could become hotspots for rape and abuse though, so there should always be more than one woman in a unit.
P.S.
If women are allowed to serve in any unit they should also be required to register with selective service, that’s only fair.
I do not see any reason why not. My aunt, my mother’s only sister joined the liberation struggle and was there to the very bitter end. She and lots of women fought alongside men for the independence of my country. My mum said the war changed a lot of things including the general perception about the ‘traditional’ roles of women. I was actually surprised to hear the role of African women in combats being limited to a cursory reference to the wars in the the troubled parts of present day Africa and no attempt was made to talk about women like my aunt but hey ho what else is new when it comes to Africa. I personally think any man or woman who is up for the job should have the job, enough of the stereotypes.
Jo
Sorry – but woman are not physically equal to men! They have a huge gap in their torso called a ‘womb’ which does not compensate for the massive wall of muscle that occupies the same space in a man and what gives men their extra strength. Men ARE physically superior to women (- just on strength alone mind!)….and Sure, women can do the same things and are damn good at it but in a War Zone, you do need that extra ounce of stamina and to be able to DIY without tying up the troop with conflicting emotions on keeping an eye on their women soldiers And on the enemy. SOrry = the girls may not want to hear this but it’s true. And it’s not about men being gallant and ‘allowing’ their women to be emancipated or soldiers etc, its about reality and capability. Lots of women are capable, but only the majority built like a Russian fish-wife (apologies lady Russians) would be any good on the Front-line. (in war yes but not on the Front line)
On the other hand we have always had women Warriors – well think of Zena and the Amazon’s (although that detracts from it a bit as they were pretty strong and used to fighting hand to hand and not armoured up shooting guns’n bombs from a distance). Equality yes, Front line for women No, but – if they Are capable they should be given the choice!
@uneza:
“why cannot they protect themselves from rape, sexual harrasments, etc? obviously if women are likely to fall victims to such acts, they might as well just not endanger themselves and stay where its safer for them.”
You are blaming a potential victim of rape for endangering themselves?! That is ridiculous. Women shouldn’t HAVE to protect themselves from rape! Men should protect themselves against the impulse TO rape!
Your argument completely misses the point.
Completely ignoring the inequalities inherent to selective service (for now), blaming women for men’s possible actions causes me to think that a requirement for high-ranking military officials is some kind of mental handicap. Really, people? Saying that men will feel overprotective and put missions in jeopardy is analogous to arguing that blacks should not be allowed into predominantly white southern private schools because the risk of racism would jeopardize the school’s friendly atmosphere. If people are exhibiting behavior contrary to the goal of an organization, changing their behavior should be the number one priority.
I know its somewhat late but you have to read this:
There are two major things to look at here;
Firstly, by not allowing women the choice of serving on the front lines of conflict, you are effectively saying that women are not allowed too partake in actions that will decide their own fate and the fate of others in their family and their country. In other words, by not allowing women on the front line you deem them as lesser people, just like before women were allowed the vote.
Secondly, the more active armies of the world are made of professional people, who although human at the end of the day, take their jobs very seriously. Women are not a disctraction in combat situations, and the threat of distraction is less so if they are not in an infantier role (Medic for example). So the idea of distraction is a myth really 🙂
Pity I was on shift and couldn’t reply in time 🙂
Joan of Arc was the greatest female soldier in history. She won the 100 Years War for France. The fact that such prejudice against women in soldiering roles still exists is pristine proof of our planet’s primitive civilisation.
Yes, I absolutely think women should serve on the front line. We may have more lovemaking with the enemy than war.
– @ Shadrack Nuer Machut -February 20, 2010 at 13:04
“I do not second women to be in the front line for defence. They are only purposly created by God to bear children. Therefore we need not to put them in a dangerous place.”….
Wow! after I stopped laughing I’ve got to ask – Is that actually what God said?? – sounds like you see women as some sort of ‘chicken’ then???
….Could be I do a complete U-turn on one of my comments and say that if your country is ever invaded and overthrown – lets hope its by a bunch of women warriors –
Sometime back, I had commented on a similar topic; For obvious reasons, I’m against women serving on the absolute front-lines (like the FUPs) in the battle-fields. There is no need to do that, when they can be very effectively deployed to do the other important duties, just behind the front-lines i.e. right up to the level of Battalion Hqs.
“Joan of Arc was the greatest female soldier in history. She won the 100 Years War for France. The fact that such prejudice against women in soldiering roles still exists is pristine proof of our planet’s primitive civilisation.
Shakhoor Rehman”
Really? She did it on her own, on the frontlines? Wasn’t she more like a modern general and aren’t women already allowed to become generals? Yes, they are.
I already made my position clear on the matter, but you are talking utter nonsense.