Women in combat, what does it mean for society as well as the military?

Question

While women have been engaged in combat throughout history, should we as a nation purposefully put them in such a position? In recent history, the only nations that seem to have purposefully trained women for frontline combat were communist (Soviet Union, Vietnam, Nepal, etc) or socialist (Denmark, Finland, France, etc.). Technology increasingly makes the physical factor obsolete to the point where theoretically even underage children could perform combat duties. While women have shown themselves to be capable in many instances, is it morally and ethically right for our society and our nation?

On further investigation you'll find that they pulled women from combat in 1948, only to experiment with them later in 2001.

To play devil's advocate here, would anyone be in favor of a conventional enemy pitting women in combat against us?

Why no calls to integrate the NBA, NFL, Male Olympics and abolish the female counterparts?

Answer 1

Only if there was an absolute need. The physical factor is very far from obsolete. Weapons an equipment still weighs alot and the average woman and even the above average is not capable. And also take into consideration social issues, for instance men have a habit of assuming protective roles over women.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/01/israel.soldiers.ap/index.html

Answer 2

During the War of Northern Aggression, many women followed their husbands into war, many of them disguising themselves as men and even raising their own troops and leading in battle very effectively. The physical aspect of military service applies to men as well as women, there are many men who cannot meet the physical requirements too. I had women who worked for me that were much better than the men, which may be partly caused by the fact that they had to have better qualifications and more education than men to enlist in the first place.

Physical "man dance" sports can not be compared to military service since the main requirement there is physical size and the majority of men cannot compete in that arena, let alone women, although I suspect some of the professional women athletes would acquit themselves quite well. This argument is just a red herring.

Answer 3

I think you have lost the plot, when woman burned the bar, they decided to take on Menes jobs, in lots of cases they earn more money than men.
It is a changing World , not always for the better but if you don't get with it you will be left behind.
don't expect the little women to be into the pots and pans she is more likely to be on the Internet and if you can;t cook it is time you leaned.
there is no morally or ethically problem with society anther than what society wanted to become.
And although some would like to turn back the clock try and make them give up there Ipod or computer,
good luck with reforming the nation.

Answer 4

Physical factor isn't an issue - if some women can meet the standards, why not? Blocking women from entering combat roles because only a small percentage of women would be able to hack it is lunacy. Strength and fitness isn't a valid excuse - if a special forces group lacks black or Asian members, would it be fitting to block the rest of their ethnic groups from trying out?

Traditionally, women have been the stay-at-home types, nurturing the young, cooking, cleaning, work while the men are away at war, etc. However, women have been issuing demands over the years. They wanted to vote, they wanted equal wages, equal job opportunities and equal status among other things. If they really want to be so equal, it's about time they got more proactive about some of the ignored issues, like entry into Infantry roles.

Answer 5

This is just one example of the whole equality question. If they want to go, what gives anyone else the authority to say they cannot do what they want? Let them go.
On the flip side, they would have to meet the requirements of the job they want to perform. This was always the source of arguments when I was in, why are there male and female standards? There should be one set of standards for a given job and any applicants who meet those standards get to do it. I remember one female in my company was all happy that she had maxed her PT test by having done a whopping 40-something push ups. If I had done only that many, I would have failed my PT test. Now, how is that equal? Do NOT say that females don't have the upper body strength that males do. I could introduce to some females I knew that DID.
Bottom line is, if people REALLY want to be treated equally, then one set of standards applies to everyone. Who cares how old or what sex you are. I never did, all I was worried about was if they were competent enough for me to feel safe on the perimeter with them. Have a job with set requirements needed to accomplish the mission of that job. Everyone who wants to can equally try and meet those requirements. If they meet them, have fun; if they don't then train up and try again later. And, when on the job do not expect any sort of special accomodations.
Some people are willing to fight for those who don't want to fight. On a local level, these people are called police officers. Now, keeping in mind how capable the bad guy is, what standard needs to be set to effectively fight off the bad guy? Again, whoever meets the standard, let's go.
If someone feels it is not morally acceptable for females to directly engage the enemy, they need to get a better understanding of the enemy's/bad guy's morals and ethics. Somone has to fight them because when [not if] diplomacy fails with certain enemies, those enemies ARE going to fight with us. There's strength in numbers, irregardless if those numbers consist of capable males AND females.

Answer 6

They're more agile, better able to handle long periods of stress, and take up less room and smell better than guys. If combat ever evolved to remote controlled robots, would it matter if it was a man or woman pressing the buttons and using the joystick? I don't think we should draft women for combat roles, but if some want to volunteer and can pass the same rigorous testing, why not?
Someones mama wearing combat boots isn't the taunt it once was. Many brave women serve their country and later become mothers. Mothers who understand bravery, sacrifice, commitment, toughing things out, and putting others first. They can be/are a great example of modern American womanhood, or at least show another viable option for ladies who can handle that tough occupation. It's not immoral or unethical. Drafting them to sweep for mines by walking out onto the field would be immoral and unethical. I know things just aren't like that. If she can put a round where it needs to go, carry her own weight, and perform her job without trouble, why not?

Answer 7

When women joined OUR service or rather particular mocs,there were problems such as favoritism corruption and the like.the women allways tried to be one of the boys but were brushed off.It wasnt till self defense that I changed my mind.Back then I was 6ft 5in.and was pretty tough so I thought.A girl about five foot6 named becky dropped me like a bad habit.You cant win an arguement nor a fight if thier properly trained.We became close friends but other than dinner in or out we never "dated".we were just close. I believe if they wish to die for what they believe in thats thier choice not yours.

Answer 8

Women have been a part of the military, often in unofficial capacities, for as long as we have been fighting wars. They just were never treated as well as the men after the war was over.

I think it is incomprehensible to eliminate half of our population based on gender. As you have stated, the physical factors have become largely obsolete.

I don't see a moral or ethical dilemma here: How is it worse for a child to potentially lose a mother vs. a father?

Answer 9

As far as I can see, the United States Military will never draft females. If a women is in the army, she is there by choice. I think its irrelevant that the countries you listed were communist and socialist, you didn't give any evidence that it had a profound impact on said nation. Women should be able to serve their country if they want to, and I don't see you in any position to say they can't.

Answer 10

The thing is, we as a nation wouldn't be "putting them in such a position." We as a nation would be ALLOWING them to work in such a position, if they so wish.

It seems unfair to not allow professional soldiers to go to the front lines, when they're trained and ready to, just because they're women--and not just because combat pay earns more.