females in combat...your opinion of?

Question

Just found out that while women are not allowed to hold combat MOS (jobs) they are put into combat zones. So they can be shot at and blown up but they are not allowed to have jobs that make them more combat ready than the normal basic training. ????

Just for clarification. I do not think women should be in combat positions for alot of the reasons that were stated below. However if the military is going to put us in a combat zone anyway why not allow those who want to hold combat positions to do so? I hope to soon be a medic in the army reserves. I will be in a combat zone. I would like to be trained beyond what I get in basic to handle a combat situation.

Answer 1

You cant have women in combat.

not because of any question of physical conditioning or anything like that.

The reason is psychological, men's natural instinct is to try to protect women. in combat a man may do something stupid trying to protect a female that really doesnt even need the protecting.

Also, sexual tension is a large issue with it. Distracting for both the men and the women, and dangerous in a warzone.

Answer 2

While I agree with you, I'm gonna play a little bit of the devil's advocate. There is a difference between being in a combat zone, and having a combat job. While you may be in a combat zone, that's nowhere near as dangerous as going out and looking for a fight, so to speak. That's not to say that it's fair, I think women should get the same training, but the fact of the matter is that women don't get the same training, and I for one would not like the fate of my squad resting on someone who has sub-par training, female or not. I think that the whole system needs an overhaul, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that happening any time soon. Those military bureaucracies tend to be pretty archaic, and change only happens when there is no alternative. The wikipedia link has a pretty good discussion on the matter in the article. It's interesting, if nothing else.

Answer 3

You have a good point, and it has been brought up 7 times at the Pentagon level in my 30 years of service, unfortunately it has never been approved. The Pentagon based its decision on a fact study of Women in front-line combat units in the Israeli Army in the 1972 War. Fact was that women can kill just as good as a man, what the Israeli Army found out was that they got more emotional, and sometimes at a time that caused more Israeli casualties. The Israeli disbanded women in front-line combat units after this study, and the documents (over 800 pages thick) it what the Pentagon based their decision on. Now, in the war on terrorism against insurgents, anybody can be attacked, and everybody can become involved in a fire-fight. 16 brave women have died in Iraq, 8 in a fire-fight after their convoy was ambushed. At least their should be an award for women who are actually involved in a fire-fight.

On a personal note, with 30 years carrying a rucksack, there may be some women who can meet the criteria, and I do not see any reason why they shouldn't....but I must tell you, it is one hell of a job.

We do need more female operatives and CIA field agents. A MOS in military intelligence (counter-intel) or military police may help you in your goals.


PS: The Israeli women did do a good job

Answer 4

well i was an MP in the army, and that is the next closest thing to infantry, we basically did what the infantry did in Iraq. I was ready and trained for it. be careful in believing what you hear, it is not all true. it is true that women cannot be in an infantry unit or special forces or rangers, the reason for that is because it is hard for the people to accept the fact of women being in combat, another reason is because there are too many women who would not want to be infantry, the numbers would be too low, and if you have ever been around an infantry unit, you know that it would be a BAD idea to have just a few females surrounded by all those males. and another reason is because the enemy is less likely to surrender to an army with women in it because they would feel shameful they would have gotten "beat up by a girl", enemies are more likely to surrender to men.

Answer 5

They receive the same training as their male counterparts in whatever unit they are assigned to. While women traditionally will not be found in infantry positions, they are commonly employed in support units that may be close to the hot zone. They, like the men they train with, are given the skills necessary to perform their assigned duties. A male clerk will have had no more combat training than a female clerk.

Answer 6

I think that women should have as much right to train in the same way that men train, but that is not going to happen with the current leadership. They don't believe that women in command positions can do any good. Condi is just a token person of the cabinet she has no say of her own she just says what she is told to say. So don't plan on anything changing soon in the military for women.

Answer 7

Ummm, i think you mean that they are not allowed in the front lines, but they are given combat training if they chose to go into combat (this is during recruitment when they chose what field they would like to go into). All soldier's trainings are specialized as to what field they chose to go into.

It is not true that they are not allowed in front lines because men will feel a need to protect them. the reason is because of a military law that was passed many many years ago, but that has never been challenged or overruled by the supreme court (believe me, i studied this in law school). So it is against the law to allow women in the fron lines until this law is overruled! The reasoning behind why this law was passed is because of steriotypes that wome are care givers and mothers of out children, so how could you put them in the froint lies to die -- which is so not true, there are plenty of women out there that are much tougher than men!!!

Answer 8

Women in the military are allowed to carry weapons they have trained with and use them if they have to. Women receive the same training and weapons as men do, but are not placed in actual combat situations. Any woman should be thankful for that. Some of these situations include being in the wilderness (desert, jungle, etc) for weeks at a time or longer. Can you imagine being on your period while you are in a fox hole hiding from the enemy and no bathroom for miles? What about pregnancy? From what my dad told me about his experience in Europe in WW2 and the tales I've heard from friends about combat in Vietnam, I am very thankful that I will never be asked to go into combat.

Answer 9

Actually all basic training is now more infantry style. It is longer than it had been. In fact I think it's 12 or 13 weeks. That's what combat MOS's did when I went to basic.

Answer 10

They recieve very good training (Marines, Army). But there are alot of reasons why women aren't allowed "In combat", if this is a feminist trip get over it. Women, like you said, can have a very similar dangerous job that they DID recieve the same training for as the males.

Answer 11

Yeah, isn't that interesting? It's a political maneuver. This way we can say that women are in combat positions. The fact is, which would you prefer to be rescued by if you were wounded on the battle: your 6'1 200lbs muscular pal who benches 300lbs? Or miz independent at 5'4 120lbs with more body fat content than muscle? In this media-fed culture, that sounds like a sexist statement. But look at it again, it's just stating facts. I know there are the exceptions. But as a rule, women have weaker and more fragile bodies. Once again, merely stating the facts. One more question...as the enemy, which of these would you prefer to come up against in a hand-to-hand combat scenario? Let's use reason to dictate our actions, and stop using our emotions to fill the military.