Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Why not allow female soldiers to have combat roles?

  1. Oct 1, 2012 #1
    It's my understanding that the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marines do not allow women into combat roles such an infantry, armor, etc. The arguments I've always heard/read against allowing women into combat positions have never made sense to me.

    One time I read someone write that it would be a bad idea to allow women to join the infantry because it would result in situations in which a woman would be present when a man is wounded, but she could not carry the wounded man because she would be too physically weak. This is a foolish argument for two reasons. First of all, some women are stronger than some men. I'm sure that the strongest women in America are stronger than the average male US Army infantryman. If physical strength is the determining factor, why not just require all potential infantry troops (females and males) to pass equal strength tests in order to join the infantry? If we did that, that would filter out the women that cannot carry a wounded man, while allowing the women that could carry a wounded man to join. Secondly, having female military troops would not have to be in lieu of having male troops also. If a woman cannot carry a wounded male soldier, that does not mean that she cannot fire a rifle. All oars in the water.

    Another argument I've read against women being in combat positions in the military is that it would be a problem because some women have prepubescent children, and it would be a hardship to their children if they were killed. First of all, it seems to me like this argument could just as well apply to prohibiting fathers from being in combat positions. Furthermore, the military could just have a policy against prohibiting mothers from joining combat positions.

    If you don't think that women should be allowed to join combat positions in the military, please tell me why would should not be allowed to join combat positions in the military.
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 1, 2012 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Women are allowed in combat positions in the US military.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/womnen-in-combat-army-batallions_n_1519054.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  4. Oct 1, 2012 #3
    You didn't say what I thought you said at first.

    I had to edit this.
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  5. Oct 1, 2012 #4
    "Under the new policy, female officers and non-commissioned officers will be assigned to combat units below the brigade level. The change will open up about 14,000 new jobs for women in the military, but there are still more than 250,000 jobs that remain closed to women.

    The new jobs within combat battalions are in personnel, intelligence, logistics, signal corps, medical and chaplaincy."

    Evo, you have to read that link carefully. Your link indicates that women are allowed into combat battalions, but women are still excluded from the combat positions like infantry.

    Yes, women can be paramedics in a combat battalions, but why not allow women into combat positions like infantry?
  6. Oct 1, 2012 #5


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Women will be allowed in infantry combat positions.


    The military is already moving in the direction to allow women in direct infantry combat.

    US Army plans

    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  7. Oct 1, 2012 #6
    Something I came across recently:
  8. Oct 1, 2012 #7
    Evo, you're not reading your links carefully enough. The following is from YOUR link:

    "Marine officials have emphasized that women who successfully complete IOC will not receive the Corps’ 0302 infantry officer designation. Defense Department policy still bars the services from assigning women to jobs whose primary mission is direct ground combat, such as infantry and special operations."

    The Marines allows women to go to infantry training school, but the Marines don't allow the women to be assigned to the infantry. If I just read the headline of your article and not the entire article, I would think that the Marines allow women into infantry also.
  9. Oct 1, 2012 #8
    Instead of just allowing women to attend infantry training school and disallowing said women from joining the infantry and instead of saying that the military is moving in the direction to allow women into direct infantry combat, why not just allow women into direct infantry combat?
  10. Oct 1, 2012 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    As the marine corps paper states
  11. Oct 1, 2012 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I assume the rank of gunner in a UK artillery regiment is a combat position ...

  12. Oct 1, 2012 #11
    Evo, to heck with recommendations. That's just more red tape. Instead of using the female officers' performance at the IOC to inform a recommendation in mid-November, why not allow female soldiers into the infantry now?

    Furthermore, that is just for the Marines. What about the army?
  13. Oct 1, 2012 #12
    rootx, I think that women should be allowed to serve in the infantry in America and in the UK.

    Why doesn't the UK Army allow women into the infantry?
  14. Oct 1, 2012 #13


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I posted the link to the Army.

    Change isn't going to happen overnight, they are "moving in that direction". I believe the army link I posted addresses some of the "issues". I don't know any more than what's on the internet.
  15. Oct 1, 2012 #14
    I read your link. All the "issues" that the link mentioned were foolishness.

    Why are we only moving in the direction of allowing women into infantry now? Why weren't women allowed in the infantry from the beginning of the war on terror?
  16. Oct 1, 2012 #15


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I am in favor of allowing women in combat roles, but only if the physical requirements are made exactly the same for the women as for men.
  17. Oct 1, 2012 #16
    I have to wonder if gender plays a role when someone is held as a war prisoner. For example, what if female soldier goes into pregnancy when she is captured by enemies.
  18. Oct 1, 2012 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Totally agree.
  19. Oct 1, 2012 #18


    User Avatar
    Education Advisor

    Well, first let me state I served as a grunt in the military. Let's just say this, I don't particularly care if women serve in combat or not. If a woman wants to be an 11 bang bang (infantry) and can do the minimum physical requirement for a male and not burden the team (I apply this standard to weak male infantrymen too.) then I have no physical problem with bringing them to a cop where we only shower once a month.

    If they can get over the hygenie issue, the sexism that will occur (it will, so let's not pretend it won't), and meet the physical requirement to do so, then fine.

    The problem is this: Americans are not ready for females to return in large numbers in body bags. Culturally, we can accept 20 something year old guys going out and getting killed. Yet, it's very difficult for us to accept the same fact for women. Heck even in combat, I was able to look at male insurgents torn bodies and feel ok, but the one time I saw a woman the same way it tore me up.

    If there is a real argument against letting females into combat roles is this: Combat arm men (who are mostly ubran inner city or rural kids) are not ready to see females get torn apart. Because unlike in the movies, no one dies cleanly. It's easy to sit here, academically argue for it, but let's face it, noone here is going to be out there in the dust with the ruck shooting the rounds. So, before I can say, let's push for letting women in the Infantry, I need to know one simple thing, how will letting females wear the blue cord improve the fighting force?
  20. Oct 1, 2012 #19
    I think it's essentially this but with a slightly darker side. Female POWs would be at a different type of risk- sexual assault. A lot of unpleasantness would stem from that. No idea if that's why though
  21. Oct 2, 2012 #20
    The problem with the whole idea of "let women do the same jobs so long as they keep the standards equal" is they will likely never do this, because then too many women would fail, which leads to the feminist groups crying foul, and thus political pressure being applied to push a certain number through regardless of whether they can meet the standards or not. For example, they keep separate physical standards for men and women for firefighting and police forces even for the most part. When the Navy first opened up the flying of fighter jets to women, they had to push multiple women through who weren't technically qualified to fly the aircraft, leading to one ultimately killing herself and another one being barred from flying later on. And that's a job women are physically capable of doing.

    It also creates a lot of problems regarding hygiene (men can go without showering for weeks in the field, women cannot without becoming susceptible to various diseases, and if a woman gets her period in the wilderness, that can attract wild animals like bears, or the enemy if they know how to track it (sometimes infantrymen will defecate into a bag to hide the stench)), there's the issue of checking for ticks, where infantry soldiers check each other's private parts, and so on. There's also the issue of carrying the loads. An infantryman needs to be able to carry loads of well over 100 lbs, sometimes up to 130 lbs. That is very hard for a lot of men.

    Here is an article by a female Marine combat engineer on this subject: LINK

    They will probably allow it though, as the military sees the writing on the wall with this administration, but it is bad to push for policy in the name of political correctness IMO. No one is claiming women lack the bravery or intelligence to do the job, but there is a sizable strength and size difference between men and women. And if the feminists want full 100% equality, are they willing to require that all girls, upon turning 18, register for the Selective Service?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook