Do females fight on the frontlines in the military?

nitr0x2 · 11-11-2009, 09:03 PM

Are there women in the army or marines that engage in firefights with insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Honest question BTW.

CreatureLord · 11-11-2009, 09:08 PM

Yes.

neonhypoxia · 11-11-2009, 09:12 PM

Yes. I have a cousin who got back from Afghanistan a few months ago. She is a lesbian, but she's a lipstick lesbian so I think it still counts.

jackal337 · 11-11-2009, 09:28 PM

No, combat positions are not open to women. However, this doesn't mean that women in the military never see firefights.

AlbinoGerbil · 11-11-2009, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackal337

No, combat positions are not open to women. However, this doesn't mean that women in the military never see firefights.

^this^

While combat arms is a vocation not open to women, many serve in the line of fire.

CreatureLord · 11-11-2009, 09:48 PM

strange http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=...id=37016003751

CreatureLord · 11-11-2009, 09:50 PM

http://militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=833

seems there is a lot of discussion on this

AlbinoGerbil · 11-12-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CreatureLord

http://militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=833

seems there is a lot of discussion on this

Meh.

Most of the women I've seen pushing for this are not now nor have they ever been in the service.

Personally I could care less if they let them in but if so I would expect that they pull their own weight in every aspect. I agree with the equal standards in most regards but reality is a different beast. From personal experience I've only known a handful of women who wanted to be in combat arms and would actually be willing/able to hang.

Bushmaster · 11-12-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackal337

No, combat positions are not open to women. However, this doesn't mean that women in the military never see firefights.

This.

A female MP in Iraq received a Silver Star a couple of years ago.

voltio8836 · 11-12-2009, 01:57 PM

A better question is:

Do you think women should be able to serve in frontlines?

IraHays · 11-12-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voltio8836

A better question is:

Do you think women should be able to serve in frontlines?

My answer would be no. Mens natural inclination to protect women could make the unit less effective in battle. Not to mention the physical limitation.

But if people in the military say that's bullsh*t and it wouldn't cause any problems then I would listen to them, it's their call.

ElMariachi · 11-12-2009, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nitr0x2

Are there women in the army or marines that engage in firefights with insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Honest question BTW.

Hell yeah. The "front lines" are all around you. My unit was split-gender and we got shot at frequently. Insurgents don't give a **** about gender, they just aim for the uniform.

You won't find females in traditional front line units like infantry but they often work as medics, chemical/bio weapons specialists, MP's and other jobs that get them up close to the action.

HELIX35 · 11-12-2009, 02:14 PM

Yes and no

Yes because they can be MP's which guard the bases, they can be on convoys that get attacked, things like that.

No because they are not allowed into direct combat roles like infantry or any of the units that go on offensives.

HELIX35 · 11-12-2009, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IraHays

My answer would be no. Mens natural inclination to protect women could make the unit less effective in battle. Not to mention the physical limitation.

But if people in the military say that's bullsh*t and it wouldn't cause any problems then I would listen to them, it's their call.

I agree with you.

Partially because of the natural inclination, predominately because maybe 1/100 of the women I served with would be able to carry a wounded comrade, or carry an 80 pound pack for very long.

I have nothing but respect for the women in the armed forces, and it's nothing against them. But in ground warfare the physical differences are just too much.

AKR · 11-12-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IraHays

My answer would be no. Mens natural inclination to protect women could make the unit less effective in battle. Not to mention the physical limitation.

But if people in the military say that's bullsh*t and it wouldn't cause any problems then I would listen to them, it's their call.

I thought the point was to protect the members of your unit and build a bond with them, but you want to keep people from using a natural form of that?

IraHays · 11-12-2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKR

I thought the point was to protect the members of your unit and build a bond with them, but you want to keep people from using a natural form of that?

I never served in the military, but I don't think protecting other members of their unit is their main purpose.

AJbuilder · 11-12-2009, 02:53 PM

All members of the military are responsible for engaging and fighting the enemy when necessary while following the ROE at the same time. This goes for JAGS and doctors.

There are non-infantry MOS' like signal, intelligence, and comm officers and soldiers who've seen combat in firefights doing their missions, because they had to engage.

It's not like an infantry platoon goes in and sweeps the enemy by themselves. They have different support units attached to them working together. A battalion or brigade isn't organized into just infantry. You have other non-infantry units attached.

However, women are not allowed to have the infantry MOS, but they can engage head on, if needed and absolutely necessary based on the orders (or non-orders in critical situation) of the platoon sgt.

ljwede7 · 11-12-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IraHays

I never served in the military, but I don't think protecting other members of their unit is their main purpose.

Actually, it's usually the top priority.

jimbob007 · 11-12-2009, 03:45 PM

No, the capture, rape & murder of a female officer would be such a huge psychological propoganda tool. It is something that the majority of the American & British public would find virtually impossible to deal with, due to our views on females & the calls for withdrawal would make it virtually impossible for operations to continue.

nutsy54 · 11-12-2009, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKR

I thought the point was to protect the members of your unit and build a bond with them, but you want to keep people from using a natural form of that?

The possible problem being discussed is when an "unbalanced" sense of protection develops - when certain members of your unit are inherently garnering more of your attention and concern than others.

That being said, the only thing keeping women separate in our military is societal issues and "feelings".

jmonty · 11-12-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlbinoGerbil

^this^

While combat arms is a vocation not open to women, many serve in the line of fire.

except for (army) aviation.

Seife · 11-12-2009, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljwede7

Actually, it's usually the top priority.

I think the real "top priority" is to get the job done. Sometimes that may mean "protecting other members of their unit", but other times it might be something entirely different.

In this case, after achieving the real objective, watching out for each other may then be the next objective.

Skettch · 11-12-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob007

No, the capture, rape & murder of a female officer would be such a huge psychological propoganda tool. It is something that the majority of the American & British public would find virtually impossible to deal with, due to our views on females & the calls for withdrawal would make it virtually impossible for operations to continue.

That doesn't make any sense. It would result in anger, hate, a need for vengeance. It wouldn't result in a withdrawl.

nutsy54 · 11-12-2009, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skettch

That doesn't make any sense. It would result in anger, hate, a need for vengeance. It wouldn't result in a withdrawl.

Unfortunately, our country has many examples where "Run Away!" was the response when the situation became "too difficult to face". This could add one more opportunity for our enemies to take advantage of.

BigTimexXx · 11-12-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IraHays

My answer would be no. Mens natural inclination to protect women could make the unit less effective in battle. Not to mention the physical limitation.

But if people in the military say that's bullsh*t and it wouldn't cause any problems then I would listen to them, it's their call.

"Mens" natural inclination? I've never experienced that myself.

The only reasonable answer to the above question would be a yes, they should be able to serve. If they can pull the weight, then let them serve. It's not that difficult.

But in order for that to work, it would take everyone's erroneous views on the differences between men and women to cease. Unfortunately, that's a huge leap of faith.

jimbob007 · 11-12-2009, 04:23 PM

We are already seeing great calls for withdrawal on this side of the pond- due to the multiple deaths of young men due to a lack of equipment & the right equipment, I can only think what it would do the the overall national psyche, if a young woman was to be captured & made an example of.

In fact we had this scenario a couple of years ago when several sailors & marines were captured in Iranian waters, one of which was a female called Faye Turney- it became an even bigger story due to the fact a female was captured & what may be happening to her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skettch

That doesn't make any sense. It would result in anger, hate, a need for vengeance. It wouldn't result in a withdrawl.

nutsy54 · 11-12-2009, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigTimexXx

But in order for that to work, it would take everyone's erroneous views on the differences between men and women to cease. Unfortunately, that's a huge leap of faith.

"Everyone" as in "American society", you are absolutely correct. Society changes, leading to new Representatives in Washington, leading to new laws that allow females to serve in combat - along with a public who will accept the casualty counts and pictures when those start to roll in.

nutsy54 · 11-12-2009, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob007

In fact we had this scenario a couple of years ago when several sailors & marines were captured in Iranian waters, one of which was a female called Faye Turney- it became an even bigger story due to the fact a female was captured & what may be happening to her.

And further proven my by reasonable guess that you probably don't know the names of any of the men who were captured with her...

Just as most Americans can name "Jessica Lynch", but none of her fellow captives.

NotStandingBy · 11-12-2009, 04:34 PM

Don't let females fight on the front line. If females especially female officers get captured and raped/used, it will really destroy the morale.

Skettch · 11-12-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nutsy54

Unfortunately, our country has many examples where "Run Away!" was the response when the situation became "too difficult to face". This could add one more opportunity for our enemies to take advantage of.

Its idiocy. If the population became too uncooperative and we needed to stay, we could also get very uncooperative - and a lot less caring.

I don't support these occupations, I don't even support females in the military but the reason of "omg, they raped and tortured a girl" verses the numerous videos of males being tortured, heads cuttoff - etc is ****ing ****.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob007

We are already seeing great calls for withdrawal on this side of the pond- due to the multiple deaths of young men due to a lack of equipment & the right equipment, I can only think what it would do the the overall national psyche, if a young woman was to be captured & made an example of.

In fact we had this scenario a couple of years ago when several sailors & marines were captured in Iranian waters, one of which was a female called Faye Turney- it became an even bigger story due to the fact a female was captured & what may be happening to her.

see below

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotStandingBy

Don't let females fight on the front line. If females especially female officers get captured and raped/used, it will really destroy the morale.

Can someone explain to me why watching a male get his sawed off, his less demoralizing* then watching a female get raped, then her head sawed off?

There is no thought behind these posts.