Women in Combat

[FlakJacket]

I ran across this article from the BBC site a while back, right before my phone packed up for a fortnight the bloody thing, and found it rather interesting. What are people's opinions on the subject- should women be allowed to serve in whatever branch of the military that they choose? Since the article covers only the US, what are some of the Euro's country's positions on this one? Any of the ex-military people got an opinion on this? Personally I say if they want to, and they pass the same tests and traing as the men then they should be allowed to.

[Ancient History]

Any branch, yes. Front lines? Sure, why the fuck not. About time that liberated woman crap came back to bite a few of 'em in the ass.

Sorta kidding. Woman are at least as good as men at killing people. Those few who couldn't make it on the battlefield are probably the same who can't make it through boot camp.

[BloodHound]

Dude, if you knew some of the crazy women in the service, like a few of my friends and classmates, you'd never question the ability of women on the front.

[MooCow]

The problem I have is that this is a bit of a catch 20/20.

Women will never be viewed as complete equals to men until they serve in the same numbers with men on the frontlines. We can not put a woman on the frontlines until she is seen as an equal.

A friend of mine, who has combat experience, noted that men still tend to be protective of women. It's eons of instinct talking, and it ain't gonna be wiped out in a few generations. It's all fine and dandy to put it aside in normal everyday life, but it becomes much more difficult in a combat situation (where you rely heavily on instinct).

Even greater of a problem, is POW situations. Men can be trained to be tortured. They can be trained to watch other men be tortured. However, a very large percentage of men will break at the site of a woman being tortured. Regardless of whether she is a fellow soldier, they will break because she is a woman.

Such attitudes will take several generations to breed out. We can not start breeding them out until women are placed on the front lines. Therefore, there will be a vulnerability gap for sometime to come.

Is it a reason to keep women off the frontlines? Yes it is. However, the greater need to ensure that women are made equal members of society (truley, not just in word) is a reason to place them there. We must recognize that doing so will place our soldiers in danger, and when lives are lost because of it we must cling to the knowledge the evnetually the world will be a better place for it.

[Johnny the Bull]

Anyone dumb enough to want to serve on the front lines should be allowed in.

[Reika]

This is scary, this is the second time this week I've agreed with Moo on something.

What Moo said is fairly close to what I think.

[lorg]

Sure thing, if they want to just send them out there. They want to be equal to men they bloody well should stand in the frontline. Don't think there are any indications that women can't be as a good as killers/soldiers as men, atleast not in this day in age. Sure when you had to wear a full metal armour and go out and hack people to death in melee women where at a clear physical disadvantage. But today? Nah. They can sqeeze the trigger just as well as the next guy with the proper training.

The POW|Men being protective issue, well sure that is a problem but that is something men have to overcome. Not something you can hold against women as far as I am concerned.

[WillyGilligan]

Sure when you had to wear a full metal armour and go out and hack people to death in melee women where at a clear physical disadvantage. But today? Nah

Have you looked at all the gear that we send infantry troops into the field with anymore? You've got your weapons, that's a given, but you have to take ammunition for an M16, which you wouldn't have to when fighting with a sword and shield (you would if you were an archer, but then you wouldn't be wearing the armor). Flak vests weigh less than full plate, but you'd be more likely to be on a horse if you were wearing full plate anyway. You've also got, at minimum a gas mask to deal with, and quite often have to do your business wearing full chem gear on top of the equipment. All told, I figure that specific equipment has gotten lighter, but that's just allowed us to pile a greater variety on our troops in the field. I'm not saying that this definitely bars women from combat, but I think that physical strength is still an issue.

[lorg]

I didn't mean to imply that weight and physical strenght was not an issue just not as much of an issue. I never had to wear a flakvest or drag a machine gun thru the forrest but sure it is heavy stuff. I went to the shooting range less then 10 times and after that I had a deskjob. Come to think of it I never even saw a modern piece of body armour. So I didn't disagree with that at all.

Doesn't the flakvest give a bit more mobility then a medieval metal armour of some kind? Sure it is alot of heavy stuff you have to lug around. The total weight might as you say about the same now and then, just more stuff now. But if you can't cut that you'll be cut in basic training won't you? So it is not an issue after that is it? If a woman in training has proven herself then send here to do her job. After all there are men that couldn't cut draggin all that equipment around either so I don't see it as a gender issue but something that depends on person to person.

[Kitt]

I do agree mostly with Moo, but I don't agree that there's any reason to keep women from the front lines.
As far as I know, in order to get out of basic, one has to be able to carry a certain amount of weight, and it's not light. You have to do a series of activities that are very difficult, and if you fail, you don't go on. At least, that's how it worked when my dad was involved with all this crap. I don't see them having a much easier path for women.
I do see one major problem, but it's sort of a two-way argument. Let's assume that a single man & single woman in a company suddenly become all affectionate and essentially... "hook up." If either one of them gets hurt or killed, the other one has the potential to either go crazy and attack like hell, getting themself killed, or just break down and become useless, which is a major liability. Then again, the same can be said for two men that get into that position.

Personally, I have to agree with Johnny right about now. Anyone who's fucked in the head enough to want front line action should get it. We need more sacrificial idiots.

[paladin2019]

Problems....

Physical strength differences between the sexes. Men are built to have more upper body strength. It's a simple medical fact of our species' sexual dimorphism. The difference is so great in fact that during the various US services' physical fitness tests of upper body strength, the scoring standards for female servicemembers max out below the minimums for male servicemembers. Or, in the case of the Marine Corps, female Marines do not even perform the same exercise.

Modern body armor (vest, plate inserts and helmet) weighs about 10 kg. This has almost become mandatory articles of kit. Add a rifle and minimal ammo, that's another 7. And then every other bit of mission essential equipment that has to be included in the fighting load. Doctrine from before the days of "light" body armor that effectively stops assault rifle rounds says it should be limited to 17 kg. That's been met by weapons, ammo and armor. Chemical protective gear, navigational aids, first aid equipment and, oh yeah, water are not even accounted for yet.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't women who can handle it.

Hygiene. This is the bigger problem. The nature of an Infantryman's life is privation. I believe the male anatomy is a bit more unforgiving than the female's when it comes to the subject of neglected hygiene. There are pharmaceutical fixes to this, but at what cost. How much extra weight does it involve? How much extra logistical support to supply in numbers? How much should a woman carry when deploying?

The current Army standard is to provide female soldiers with hygiene facilities with hot water at a minimum every three days. As I said, the Infantry is about privation and living off your back. Is it tactically efficient, or practical, to conduct this kind of hygiene operation this often? Will it breed resentment in the male soldiers and break down the team's coheson? This is not something that men just have to get over. This is something that adds another level of danger to their operations. (This is the same rationale behind barring openly homosexual soldiers, but that's another debate.) Whether to accept the risk of a possible loss of cohesion is a decision for the US's legislature, as they enacted the restriction in the first place.

And no, the Army can't just allow female soldiers to neglect their hygiene for the sake of expediency or because they want to show that they're "hard" or some other ridiculousreason. To do that opens them up to becoming a non-combat casualty and would leave an empty billet in their squad and thus reduce it's combat power. Extrapolat this to a larger number of women, maybe an average of 2 for every 9 man Infantry squad, and the scale of this risk becomes evident.

[Daki]

Israel tried it. Need to go look through on the results of that.

[MissTeja]

Dude, if you knew some of the crazy women in the service, like a few of my friends and classmates, you'd never question the ability of women on the front.

Paul, you've never known any women in the service, have you?

As for moi, get the women out there if they want to be out there. Train them right and make damned sure they're capable. If it's a smaller population than the men, so be it. We're not built like they are, but I will consistently defend the fact that I truly believe women have something to offer than men to war. It's not easily-describable, but it is the same thing I see changing in policing as more and more women enter the force. I'm definately not one to go all feminist or anything of the sort, but I do think it'd be to our advantage to get more women not only on the frontlines, but more importantly - up the ranks.

[DV8]

Israel tried it. Need to go look through on the results of that.

As far as I know, everyone in Israel is in the military. Men and women alike. They have to come back each year for a couple of weeks/months, and if you're incapable, then they'll see that you get a deskjob.

[Daki]

That fits with what I vaguely remember about it Deev, thanks. I just want to brush up because it's a factor in what I want to say.

[Salvation122]

Women should not serve in the infantry, on submarines, or in air combat operations (specifically fighters; bombers I have less of a problem with.)

[Daki]

or in air combat operations (specifically fighters

Reasoning? I ask this before Gunny comes in here and tells me to rip you to pieces.

[DV8]

From what I heard at the airforce, a woman's body is usually better at handling higher g-forces. I couldn't tell you the reasoning behind that, though.

[BloodHound]

Dude, if you knew some of the crazy women in the service, like a few of my friends and classmates, you'd never question the ability of women on the front.

Paul, you've never known any women in the service, have you?

Uh...I think you've mistaken me for someone. But, yes - a few service girls down at Witchita Falls and quite a number of ladies in the Colorado Springs Area.

By the way, those flak vests are heavy as hell. We did an assault excercise with those things for the frist time, damn near wore me out before our team leader "died" and we had to drag his ass to the finish line.

I might also pull up the point that women on the majority are more emotionaly persuaded than men are. I would take an order to kill and, well, kill it - whatever it is.
Like an if/then statement - if it moves, then it dies - I dont think that women are as easily trained into doing that.

[Daki]

From what I heard at the airforce, a woman's body is usually better at handling higher g-forces. I couldn't tell you the reasoning behind that, though.

I couldn't say one way or another, but I think women dfinitely have the advantage when it comes to being the right size for a pilot.

[Daki]

I might also pull up the point that women on the majority are more emotionaly persuaded than men are. I would take an order to kill and, well, kill it - whatever it is.
Like an if/then statement - if it moves, then it dies - I dont think that women are as easily trained into doing that.

Wow... how insulting. On the majority, the only thing I would on the debate of men and women (as it pertains to the subject at hand) is that women have a higher pain tolerance than men. Survival instincts and combat training effectiveness is in no way gender specific... it's entirely based on the person because for every female example you find of "more emotionally persuaded" I'll find a male equivalent. That entire statement of yours is buying into old stereotypes that don't exist.

Related note, I could see that in a mixed gender army, the men being more emotionally persuaded in combat than women. You'll have male soldiers who buy into the stereotype that a woman cannot handle herself in combat and will make efforts to be overly protective of that woman and risk end up getting injured/killed because of it.

[MissTeja]

Dude, if you knew some of the crazy women in the service, like a few of my friends and classmates, you'd never question the ability of women on the front.

Paul, you've never known any women in the service, have you?

Uh...I think you've mistaken me for someone. But, yes - a few service girls down at Witchita Falls and quite a number of ladies in the Colorado Springs Area.

No, I was directing your comment to Paul. He's a Marine.

I might also pull up the point that women on the majority are more emotionaly persuaded than men are. I would take an order to kill and, well, kill it - whatever it is.
Like an if/then statement - if it moves, then it dies - I dont think that women are as easily trained into doing that.

Whoa, dude. I think I know what you're sorta getting at, but I cannot say I agree with it. Of course, I'm gonna avoid getting to delved into the subject cause it's one I get touchy about. S'good you have an opinion, though.

[3278]

Say what you will, I think there's validity to a lot of the old stereotypes. We want to believe otherwise, because we've been taught equality our whole lives, but the simple fact of the matter is, not all groups are identical. You can spend your whole life believing blacks and whites have the same morality, the same abilities, the same ethics, but then when you actually spend time with large amounts of each race, you realize that the cultures which semi-closely follow those races do have certain tendencies.

We're not just talking about American women, either; around the world, there are large numbers of women who /live/ the stereotypes we consider "old." It's hardly limited to third-world nations, either: while many of the women in Europe and America in "our" generation are, as you might say, "liberated," there are still so very many who are not.

We will never know until we try what will happen. My instinct tells me it's a bad idea, if only because we have plenty of jobs for everyone in the armed forces. If there were a shortage of men in front-line units, then perhaps it would be logical to begin discussing the complex and costly logistical alterations required to integrate women into these units. For now, I think we're doing just fine.

On the other hand, we may find women make vastly better fighter pilots, because their reactions and psysiology are superior in general to men's. Perhaps they will make better infantry then men, because they will be more brave, more fierce, while possessing better judgement in crisis situations. Certainly, there are precidents, cases in the past where women have made strong and superior fighters.

I believe, however, that such an alteration would be complex and costly, and is uneccessary, unless and until such a time as it can be conclusively shown that the inclusion of females in front-line units would be worth the expense and friction of the inclusion process.

[Sock_Monkey]

From what I heard at the airforce, a woman's body is usually better at handling higher g-forces. I couldn't tell you the reasoning behind that, though.

I couldn't say one way or another, but I think women dfinitely have the advantage when it comes to being the right size for a pilot.

The whole theory behind it is the fact that a woman's center of gravity is lower than a man's due to their different hip and pelvic structure. Consequently more of their blood and mass has less travel than a man's when pushing higher G-loads - hence less pain from the compression of the spine, less travel of blood to the legs enabling them to resist black out. The Germans tested this extensively in WW2 if I remember. Women are supposedly more resistant to pain than men are - the whole dealing with childbirth thing.
In reality the differences experienced by men and women in an airplane make for a microscopic difference in their performance given two similar individuals.

However...

Women suffer from two disadvantages as pilots that I have noted. Women see color better than men, it has to do with their eyes having more cones than rods than a man's eyes. While this might sound like an advantage, it is only so given periods of bright light. What this means is men actually have better vision in periods of low light. Since the rods are what govern your peripheral vision as well, it also means men pick up moving objects better than women. In addition its the rods that help with depth perception which leads to the other male advantage in that men generally think in three dimensions better than women. (this also comes from experience teaching both men and women how to fly)

Given that air combat is largely resolved on two main things - first who gets there the fastest with the mostest - and secondly who sees who first - It puts a deffinite advantage in the mens court.

Lastly simply once again its also a logistics concern - most aircraft are designed for men to pilot them. Altering the cockpits for drastically differing sized individuals to accomodate women is not only impractical, but costly.

Now if women really have this burning urge to be on the front line, why don't most nations look to the best example of putting this into action. In WWII the Russians had all women squadrons, AA batteries, AT teams etc. Why? It simplifies logistics - from uniform sizes to specific medical supplies, plus I hate to say it but men and women and the birds and the bees and all, *ahem* differing entertainment venues.

I mean as much as some people like to fight it, men and women are two different creatures and that's something that (hopefully) won't change, so we might as well just get used to working around it.

[paladin2019]

Israel tried it. Need to go look through on the results of that.

Specifically, Israel fielded mixed gender Infantry units ca. the 1973 war. It was found that the men in said units were more likely to disobey orders to leave wounded women than wounded men in less than favorable tactical situations. Thus, as another poster said, the male soldiers bought into the old stereotypes and put themselves at extra risk for female soldiers.

In all, a breakdown in discipline that must be avoided. The problem is not in one soldier trying to help/protect/save another, it it in that soldier disobeying orders to do so and becoming a casualty himself. Thus, more combat power is lost and more resources must be eventually dedicated to additional casualties.

[Cain]

As for submarines, I honestly think we should go to an all-female sub crew standard.

Why? Several reasons, actually. Women tend to be physically smaller than men, meaning less O2 consumed. Smaller stature also means more room for other stuff, and space is always at a premium on a sub. Women also tend to have better interpersonal skills, so crew frictions can be dealt with more readily.

[MooCow]

The POW|Men being protective issue, well sure that is a problem but that is something men have to overcome. Not something you can hold against women as far as I am concerned.

That's a ridiculously simplistic way to look at it. You don't just tell someone to overcome ten thousand years of instinct, especially when our culture still tends to support that instinct (although to a much lesser degree).

You don't solve a problem by ignoring it.

I do agree mostly with Moo, but I don't agree that there's any reason to keep women from the front lines.

The safety of the country isn't a reason to keep someone off the front lines? Strange point of view if you ask me.

As far as I know, in order to get out of basic, one has to be able to carry a certain amount of weight, and it's not light. You have to do a series of activities that are very difficult, and if you fail, you don't go on. At least, that's how it worked when my dad was involved with all this crap. I don't see them having a much easier path for women.

If it was your intention to address my argument, I don't think you really did.

Let's assume that a single man & single woman in a company suddenly become all affectionate and essentially... "hook up."

Hence the reason why the Military largely forbids this. In the case of offical hook-ups, one of them will be transfered to another job.

[Sock_Monkey]

As for submarines, I honestly think we should go to an all-female sub crew standard.

Why? Several reasons, actually. Women tend to be physically smaller than men, meaning less O2 consumed. Smaller stature also means more room for other stuff, and space is always at a premium on a sub. Women also tend to have better interpersonal skills, so crew frictions can be dealt with more readily.

Women also float better than men.

[BloodHound]

(as it pertains to the subject at hand) is that women have a higher pain tolerance than men.

I have a hard time beleiving that without eveidence.

Survival instincts and combat training effectiveness is in no way gender specific... it's entirely based on the person

That is entirely true and I agree whole heartedly, but i am only stateing what I perceive to be correct based on my own opinion and obervations from military service. I didn't mean to offend anyone and I'm sorry if i did.

Related note, I could see that in a mixed gender army, the men being more emotionally persuaded in combat than women. You'll have male soldiers who buy into the stereotype that a woman cannot handle herself in combat and will make efforts to be overly protective of that woman and risk end up getting injured/killed because of it.

you actually see that now in combat - except that its men for other men, a seargent would willing risk his life to bring back anyone of his troopers as would any of his teammates. I dont know if you are or have ever been in the military, but the one thing that every soldeir holds dear is that their teammates will always pull their ass out of the fire and everyone is completely dependant on everyone else. You watch each others back and you leave no one behind. Risking life and limb is what gets you medals from the brass, but earns you something more from your comrads - respect.

[crone]

I read along detailed post from an Army training sergeant on this, in a blog that's been deleted. I can't remember everything he said but his main point was that it was good to have women in the army wherever possible, because the greater the pool to choose from, the higher they could set the standards (not just physically). But for infantry, the physical requirements were so high, very few women would be able to meet them. If there are quite a few women in a group, the men get used to it, and it doesn't cause problems that can't be dealt with. But if there was only one woman in a hundred guys, then she would always be the odd one out, and it would affect team cohesion.

He also had a lot to say about Israel's example, which I don't remember, but it was along the lines of, there were other things going on (to do with morale and leadership), that affected the situation as much, or more as women being present.

[Ancient History]

... but more importantly - up the ranks.

Eh. My mother was in the army, 4' 8 1/2", raised two kids on her own and made it to full colonel. She'd be the first one to tell you that promoting someone because of gender or ethnicity is a bad idea...she spent a lot of years in EO and dealing with that sort of thing. If they are qualified, then of course people should be promoted, regardless of sex or ethnicity. But some of those promoted just to fill in a perceived "gender gap" have been serious mistakes.

Not that all of them have been mistakes because they were over-promoted to fill a "gap," mind. A number of officers, male and female, are politickers not qualified for their positions who had the right connections to get promoted to jobs they then fuck up on.

[Salvation122]

or in air combat operations (specifically fighters

Reasoning? I ask this before Gunny comes in here and tells me to rip you to pieces.

For the same reasons as infantry, and also because while women generally handle Gs better, they handle them much worse about one week out of the month.

[Cain]

So why don't you support women on subs? Like I said, an all-woman sub crew would do better than the present all-male crews.

[TheScamp]

For the same reasons as infantry, and also because while women generally handle Gs better, they handle them much worse about one week out of the month.

So, menstruation causes intolerance to higher G's?

[Reika]

For the same reasons as infantry, and also because while women generally handle Gs better, they handle them much worse about one week out of the month.

If you're going to say it's menstruation, I'm going to have to say bullshit after a google search. here, here [/here] and this [url=http://www.mil.za/Magazines/SALUT/Sept%6099/sep6womenpilots.htm] article discusses the whole precept of women in the armed forces.

[3278]

Why? Several reasons, actually. Women tend to be physically smaller than men, meaning less O2 consumed.

Smaller physical size does not necessarily equal lesser oxygen consumption. Also, oxygen consumption is no longer a significant issue on nuclear-powered submarines like those in the US.

Smaller stature also means more room for other stuff, and space is always at a premium on a sub.

Not that much of a premium. Maybe in WW2, the handful of square meters you'd save would matter, but today, it's just not not enough of an issue. Humans are the smallest part of subs.

Women also tend to have better interpersonal skills, so crew frictions can be dealt with more readily.

Can't even respond to that. Laughing too hard.

[Salvation122]

So why don't you support women on subs? Like I said, an all-woman sub crew would do better than the present all-male crews.

Because you probably could not find enough willing, qualified women to crew them.

[WillyGilligan]

[quote="Cain"Women also tend to have better interpersonal skills, so crew frictions can be dealt with more readily

.

Can't even respond to that. Laughing too hard. [/quote]

I can't speak to the scientific method here, but from talking to my wife and other women who went through basic training in the Air Force, the female flights were complete and utter hell. They'd start to synchronize thier cycles, everyone hated everyone (not necessarily related to the cycles), and the sheer level of back-biting internecine conflict was staggering.

Likewise, I seem to recall several articles, books, etc which have come out in the last few years talking about teenage girls and how cruel and vindictive they can be in forming cliques and just in general trying to establish dominance over each other. As I said, I can't speak to this definitively, but I'd have to agree that women are generally more subtle in interpersonal relationships. I just don't know that it makes for greater unit cohesion.

[Salvation122]

For the same reasons as infantry, and also because while women generally handle Gs better, they handle them much worse about one week out of the month.

If you're going to say it's menstruation, I'm going to have to say bullshit after a google search. here, here and this article discusses the whole precept of women in the armed forces.

Your first article states that women do not adapt as well to high Gs and that their performance is (somewhat) lower; I'll try to dig up the whole study later. Your second article says:

There is, however, potential for an abnormal or complicated menstrual history to alter a woman's fitness to fly. While most cases of premenstrual tension are mild the occasional woman finds this syndrome debilitating. Severe premenstrual tension may be associated with aches and pains in the lower abdomen, back, and breasts, headaches, weight gain, and personality or mood changes. Any of these symptoms may make a woman unfit to fly during the premenstrual period. Such severe symptoms, if unresponsive to treatment and if likely to interfere with the safe conduct of flying tasks, should probably make a woman either temporarily or permanently unfit to fly. A woman whose symptoms are well defined and predictable and who is responsible and intelligent could justly argue that she should not be permanently precluded from flying as she is able to voluntarily ground herself during the premenstrual time period. I would seriously consider supporting this logic in the case of a civil private licence but suggest that the (often) lack of flexibility in commercial or military flying may make her unfit for these duties.

...so thanks for making my case for me.

Basically, women have health issues that make them less dependable than men for vital highly physically-active combat operations. That's objective fact. I'm sorry, but that's just kinda the way it works.

[TheScamp]

Basically, women have health issues that make them less dependable than men for vital highly physically-active combat operations.

Certain women with extreme cases of untreatable PMS, you mean.

[3278]

Willy: Likewise. I /have/ heard decent arguments made that women have "better interpersonal skills," but only when in mixed company. When it's women and women, it's all under the pink. Nothing is more vicious than the way girls treat each other. With boys, it's punches and kicks and dirty looks; with women, it's psychological, social, emotional torture.

[Serious Paul]

Not that much of a premium. Maybe in WW2, the handful of square meters you'd save would matter, but today, it's just not not enough of an issue. Humans are the smallest part of subs.

While I agree mostly with this statement I feel it needs to be qualified a little bit.

Square meters still matter-just not on the same scale or in the same way. After all you still are operating with limited space. Most submarines make use of the little space they have in a very economical fashion. Hot bunking is still a common practice.

For those of you not familiar with hot bunking, it works like this. One bed-three people. You sleep in shifts. This cuts your crew space by about two thirds.

Using the bathroom on a warship is also a different experience. I'm glad I never had to share as few johns as a sub must have.

Anyways, I'm sure you can see my point here. I do agree with 3278 that while I don't object to a fully female crewed boat, its not likely to be any better than a male crewed boat just because of gender.

Because you probably could not find enough willing, qualified women to crew them.

Although that begs the question brother man, is it because they're not intrested, or is because the Navy isn't?

[Salvation122]

Although that begs the question brother man, is it because they're not intrested, or is because the Navy isn't?

My guess would be that the answer is something along the lines of "Yes."

[Salvation122]

Basically, women have health issues that make them less dependable than men for vital highly physically-active combat operations.

Certain women with extreme cases of untreatable PMS, you mean.

I am, obviously, not intimately familiar with menstration, but I know that the intensity of my friends' cramping and whatnot is somewhat variable. Just because you don't have a history of it doesn't mean that you won't get sick and put your force at a disadvantage.

[3278]

Square meters still matter-just not on the same scale or in the same way.

Absolutely. I should have been more clear. While space matters quite a bit - and always will, in underwater combat craft - the difference in space between 200 females and 200 males does not matter enough to be concerned with in the modern navy.

[TheScamp]

Just because you don't have a history of it doesn't mean that you won't get sick and put your force at a disadvantage.

How is that any different than, say, explosive diarrhea?

[Salvation122]

Just because you don't have a history of it doesn't mean that you won't get sick and put your force at a disadvantage.

How is that any different than, say, explosive diarrhea?

It's not. The problem is that, when comparing men to women, men only have to worry about explosive diarrhea, while women have to worry about the diarrhea and PMS. Since you try to minimize risks, and since we have no shortage of talented pilots, there is no compelling reason to take an additional, possibly mass life-threatening risk to allow the (few) women who want to fly fighters to do so.

[3278]

How is that any different than, say, explosive diarrhea?

Percentage of force effected? While I don't think menstruation is an unavoidable barrier to service, it can be a liability, no matter how minor or major it might be. In situations in which hygiene is at a premium - infantry, particularly, but subs as well - having ten percent of your forces [for instance] having even minor health problems which require hygiene [beyond even that of explosive diarrhea (cha cha cha!), which mostly requires you to vent your ass over a hole] and which will tend to occur at more or less the same time is a serious force depletion.

It could certainly be worth it, if it could be shown that women were needed [because of a shortage of willing men] or that the benefits of their participation would outweigh the drawbacks. Since I don't think anyone has come up with anything that would make women even a clear equal to men in combat operations, except in certain unique circumstances, I believe it's clear that the idea simply does not have enough merit to consider.

I would change my mind, certainly, if a clear advantage to all-female subs or mixed infantry or whatever could be found, but even then, such advantage would only apply to those areas in which women are equal; women being better fighter pilots doesn't mean women should be infantry, for example.

[edit]It's worth noting, also, that the costs are not always direct. For instance, even if subs could hold more equipment because women are smaller, it would require a massive redesign of some very expensive equipment to see any kind of benefit at all. This requires massive expenditure for dubious return. In mixed-force conditions, the simple addition of secondary facilities is an immense cost; even if you're talking about unisex facilities, you have to consider just the additional expense of things like sanitary towel dispensers, inclusion of female hygiene products into basic kits, redesigned uniforms, and so on. These costs could be overcome, as I say, if major benefits to female inclusion could be found, but they have quite obviously not been.[/edit]

[3278]

(as it pertains to the subject at hand) is that women have a higher pain tolerance than men.

I have a hard time beleiving that without eveidence.

My [brief] research and my experience tell me that while women have a greater physiological tolerance to /extreme/ pain, the social atmosphere in which most [American] women are raised in makes men more able to deal with moderate and lower levels of pain. It's all generalization, of course; my pain tolerance is lower than most girls with older brothers, I'm sure. And my pain tolerance is lower than that of most other men, I would assume, as well.

To quote from the Journal of Pain [oh, how I'd like to work for them], "Sex differences in responses to experimental pain have been widely reported, with women typically showing lower pain threshold and tolerance than men. One possible explanation for these differences is that traditional gender roles may lead to sex differences in perceived ability to tolerate pain." Which is to say, whether girls can handle it or not, they don't /know/ they can, because they don't get hurt as often.

[Cain]

Although that begs the question brother man, is it because they're not intrested, or is because the Navy isn't?

My guess would be that the answer is something along the lines of "Yes."

I recall reading somewhere that all deep-sea research stations run by the US Navy are exclusively crewed by women, for more-or-less the reasons given. I'd say that you might be surprised.

Look, history has shown us that while women are less likely to respond with violence, they have equally aggressive emotional responses. "Come home with your shield or upon it!" was the cry of the Spartan Mothers, after all. In some cases, women may even show greater emotional aggression than men. I'd say that it's a worthy experiment to try-- we could end up with the best sub crew afloat.