OK... I rarely pipe up for this type of discussion, it usually gets rude fast. There are some really narrow opinions already posted here.
I AM IN THE US ARMY.
I do understand that some of the US standards for women and men are not really balanced. All that aside I agree there are physical and psychological differences between the sexes. What most people fail to understand is that the training is more important. You can never really tell what someone will do in a life and death situation military or no. If properly trained most people, regardless of sex, will respond correctly in any given situation. I would like you to take a look at the Israeli army. Not only is it a requirement for everyone to serve, but men and women serve side by side. Yes they even have women in their special operations units that could easily destroy an average infantry squad of US Troopers. Believe it! I've seen them when I was stationed in Egypt. The point is that woman CAN handle combat and front line combat. The US has women MP's on the frontline in Iraq going out on patrol. Just because they are not infantry, doesn't mean they aren’t frontline Troopers. What it boils down to is women want the power to choose for themselves and men want to protect their pride.

merged: 04-17-2007 ~ 10:43pm

Quote by LigerZSchniderFirst of all I am a soldier.

And I will tell you that women in the infantry isn't and will never happen! And I concur to the fullest for several reasons:

Physical standards among the ranks: If a woman was in a a 11b (infantry soldier) position, you will have to lower the standards for all military personnel in that MOS (military occupation speciality) ACROSS THE BOARD! Right now the average male at the age of 17 must pass the AFPT (Army Physical Fitness Test) with a score of no less than 60% of each events:

Push-ups - 17 yr. old males must perform a minimum of 72 correct push-ups in under two minutes in order to pass the event. A male cannot have any other contact with the ground besides the hands and the feet. Females can perform them on their knees. Males cannot.

sit ups - 17 yr old males must perform a minimum of 80 sit ups, with hands interlaced behind your head, in under two minutes in order to pass the event.

two mile run - 17 yr. old male must complete the 2 mile run, unassisted, in under 15 minutes. As the soldier gets older the standards gets lower to compensate.

The female PT standards at this age bracket are much, much lower!

My man you shoud really know the standard before you quote them. FYI The Fitness standard is 42 PUSH UPS, 53 SIT UPS and 2 mile run WITH IN 15:54 for males 17-21 years old. That is the qualification that all male soldiers must make reguardless of military occupational specialty. For women of the same age the qualifying standad is 17 PUSH UPS, 53 SIT UPS, and complete the 2 mile run with in 18:50. And the test scores points not percents. You must earn 60 points in each event (remember the scale is open ended for those who acheive more).

Isn't it something like two thirds of the world's top assassins are women?

Why fight anyway? Pretty pointless if you ask me.

Quote by tim0017OK... I rarely pipe up for this type of discussion, it usually gets rude fast. There are some really narrow opinions already posted here.
I AM IN THE US ARMY.
I do understand that some of the US standards for women and men are not really balanced. All that aside I agree there are physical and psychological differences between the sexes. What most people fail to understand is that the training is more important. You can never really tell what someone will do in a life and death situation military or no. If properly trained most people, regardless of sex, will respond correctly in any given situation. I would like you to take a look at the Israeli army. Not only is it a requirement for everyone to serve, but men and women serve side by side. Yes they even have women in their special operations units that could easily destroy an average infantry squad of US Troopers. Believe it! I've seen them when I was stationed in Egypt. The point is that woman CAN handle combat and front line combat. The US has women MP's on the frontline in Iraq going out on patrol. Just because they are not infantry, doesn't mean they arenâ?t frontline Troopers. What it boils down to is women want the power to choose for themselves and men want to protect their pride.

merged: 04-17-2007 ~ 10:43pm

Quote by LigerZSchniderFirst of all I am a soldier.

And I will tell you that women in the infantry isn't and will never happen! And I concur to the fullest for several reasons:

Physical standards among the ranks: If a woman was in a a 11b (infantry soldier) position, you will have to lower the standards for all military personnel in that MOS (military occupation speciality) ACROSS THE BOARD! Right now the average male at the age of 17 must pass the AFPT (Army Physical Fitness Test) with a score of no less than 60% of each events:

Push-ups - 17 yr. old males must perform a minimum of 72 correct push-ups in under two minutes in order to pass the event. A male cannot have any other contact with the ground besides the hands and the feet. Females can perform them on their knees. Males cannot.

sit ups - 17 yr old males must perform a minimum of 80 sit ups, with hands interlaced behind your head, in under two minutes in order to pass the event.

two mile run - 17 yr. old male must complete the 2 mile run, unassisted, in under 15 minutes. As the soldier gets older the standards gets lower to compensate.

The female PT standards at this age bracket are much, much lower!

My man you shoud really know the standard before you quote them. FYI The Fitness standard is 42 PUSH UPS, 53 SIT UPS and 2 mile run WITH IN 15:54 for males 17-21 years old. That is the qualification that all male soldiers must make reguardless of military occupational specialty. For women of the same age the qualifying standad is 17 PUSH UPS, 53 SIT UPS, and complete the 2 mile run with in 18:50. And the test scores points not percents. You must earn 60 points in each event (remember the scale is open ended for those who acheive more).

Well....this is....old:

Tim, the standards you just qouted are the NEW APFT Standards! When I enlisted the standards was what I quoted earlier. In fact those numbers I put were from a older APFT chart when I was stationed in Germany last year, which we were still basing our testing on. I am also aware of the new standards; which was changed well after I posted this. But we are missing the point: if women want to be in a combat MOS, she should be able to perfom just like her male counterparts, with no deviation because of her gender.

THe Russians had corps of Women Snipers During WW2. Not much stops women engaging in Combat in the same way as Men do, even children can fight wars these days(probably not as well though).

But there are plenty of issues which can make it impractical, it seems needless anyway. I think women would only even be drafted on mass during a poeples wars. Israel will use anyone in their army because their country has the population of Manchester.

I believe it to be this. Women can fight and die, just as well as men, it's not during combat that'll be a problem, us, with nothing to do, women with nothing to do. Then sneak attack! wiped out. but other then that I'm for it.

If men can die for their country, so should women, it's their choice and their choice alone. Tradition should have nothing to do with individual rights.

Let's see... First of all war is pointless, but, this question requires one of two answers: Yes or No, my answer is YES because women and men should have the same rights and responsibilities, women always demand it and when they give them what they want, they just ask for more (not meant as an insult, I mean, if you want the same rights, you'll have the same responsibilities too)....

WHY shouldn't women be able to fight to protect what they love and believe in?

I am in the Air Force as well, and this discussion came up during our Airman Leadership School (ALS, basically NCO prep school).

As of this time, more and more females are in the front lines already. Maybe not infantry, maybe not special operations, but convoys, security forces, and the like for the Air Force. The current fighting is everywhere, there is no front lines anymore. We all have to carry weapons around when deployed. Heck when I was in a "combat zone" in the Phillipines last year, the ones guarding us were some female Marines. And what is a Marine? Rifleman always, and they are all taught and to be profencent in their Marine Corp Martial Arts Program (MCMAPs).

My third point is this, I have a friend that is in a noncombat unit, but her unit deploys often to the desert, and when they do not, the play field games at home station. One of her jobs if she is not "working" is to provide site security. This includes being able to use and fix Light machine guns, and gernade launchers. Which to her is fun stuff.

Now if we want to say 11b for females, then they should be allowed to join, and they should have to pass the same fit test as the males, equal all around.

I think that if a woman wants to go and can meet the same standards (within reason) that men can (such as being able to carry the same pack weights, assess situations and act accordingly, etc) then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to go. I think women are just as capable as men in pulling their own weight if they really want to be a part of the situation. As long as it's up to the individual woman to choose whether or not she wants to go and fight, I say leave it up to them. They know better than anyone else what they can and cannot do.

Of course women should be allowed to help fight.
I believe in equal rights and to be equal then both sex's should be allowed to fight equally; especially if they want to fight.

It really varies on the size of the women, I guess. And how tough she is against men. I don't think it should be compulsary for women to fight though.

Ah, and considering I watched lord of the rings ~ the return of the king, ast night xD I'm quite yay for women fighting.

Eww. I'd hate to go to the bathroom infront of men though~!

Well in my opinion I think it depends. What you said is true, women tend to be a weaker sex mentally and physically. That's a sad fact but accept it. But well, you can't conclude things in general. Imagine if there are a special group of women which is trained like the men and live in a military environment for a long time. I'm sure they will get used to it and have no problem dealing with it. But anyway, most of your opinion is true I can't argue with that.

After reading all of the comments: I think practically, it wouldn't be a good idea... but I suppose morally or theoretically we all like to think that it is possible

The answer is yes. I can say that i would be more terrified of some women trying to kill me in my own life, then if they were men.

Even way back when during the Visigoth invasion of rome, the Visigoths would bring women who would scream and wail and scare the shit out of the roman armies.

My vote is no.

Why?

Well...though I believe that equality between the genders is very important, and being female I completely believe that the moral reasoning is that women have every right to be on the frontline as much as men do - they would be going through the same training, screening, etc, and therefore would be just as well equipped to deal with the traumas of battle as any man. However, I believe that there are issues that would make it more cumbersom than is worthwhile to have women in the thick of battle. And I'm not talking about "peace-keeping missions" like the current situation in Iraq when I refer to "the thick of battle" because technically, as President Bush keeps reminding us, "The War in Iraq is over". I refer to the middle of wars - on the frontline in the Gaza strip, for instance.

Now, I know I generalise, but: IN GENERAL, when Men have issues with one another, they are likely to prioritise and just get on with the task at hand and then sort out their personal issues later. IN GENERAL, women have a lot of difficulty doing this, and are far more prone to allowing emotions to take control of their priority list and screw it up. Also, there's the whole issue of sexual assaults, and the fct that the general public would, I think, be far more horrified by any images of female death on the battlefield/in enemy custody than those of male death. Then of course there's the extra supplies needed for females, what with all the menstruation..

I know women can be absolutely deadly - I try my best. I think women have an important role to play in the military, in the navy, the airforce, and in the many areas of speciality that a military career can accommodate for, but I do not think it is appropriate for women to be on the frontline as infantry. Peacekeeping missions, by all means, and as pilots, and as naval officers, as doctors and nurses, as strategists, as manufactorers and armourers...but not as infantry on the frontline.

It appears that Israel thinks women should now be allowed into every aspect of their armed forces per this article here. They are also in favor of equal treatment.

Simply I think there should be no discrimination in the millitary. I think tha women who qualify at the same standard as the men should be allowed to do it. However, the standards should be the same not some easier standard because their women. That's crap. I wouldn't feel safe knowing that someone fighiting to protect this country got through with lower expectations than the people beside them. It's not fair to the other soilders.

women are obviously weaker physically, but mentally? Ha! Is that why it takes males a longer time to learn things, such as math and science? Or does that explain, why women are better at things like, oh I don't know, multitasking? ^-^ Women can very easily be the brains of outfit, if given the chance.

As other people have pointed out, women have been, and already are, being used on the front lines. This is not a new concept. During times of war, the military will take anyone and everyone, even people that during times of peace are supposedly considered "inferior" (no surprise, then, that there was so much racial integration of the military during WWII.) To say that women can't handle life and death situations is silly--no one blinks an eye at women in the ER. And we already have women working as police officers and firefighters and other dangerous jobs. Officially recognizing the women already on the front lines as being sanctioned to be there is simply the last step.

theres nothing wrong with females in the battlefield 0.o.... hell ..... the whole equality thing is being said and taught yet people still don't feel that way sadly =/.... now if they don't want to go to battlefield meaning.. not being forced..... guys should be given the same chance too... just saying theres no difference between the sex's.... =)

if you'll ask me, i guess it's definitely fine if the woman really feels the heat on her fingers pulling the trigger and dodging death on the frontline.

but if I was a tactician, I'd rather not put a woman in the frontline, not because of their physical inferiority, but i won't put a woman on the frontline because of their softness. Frontline soldiers should be more or less merciless on his frontline enemies.

But that doesn't mean a woman has no use in the military. Nursing soldiers is a good one. It will always be the best if a hot chick is my nurse if ever I'm an injured soldier.

But for those woman who's on to more action, I really prefer a woman to be a spy. Women are better spies than men. Woman are even better assassins. When it all seems impossible for a man to do something, here's where a woman enters. You know those relationship abilities woman are capable of. Makes woman very venomous, while hiding in their cloak of a man's adoration.

woman better to be in backline, protecting her children or making a food!

I support women to be in the front lines, as long as they understand the consequences of their decisions. They're women after all, not girls. The difference is that obviously they're adults and we have no right to make those decisions for them.