- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,993
- Reaction score
- 60,560
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Contrary to what is posted in the OP, the IDF does indeed have females in ground combat roles. There are also female fighter jet and helicopter pilots.
Except a member of the IDF claims this is not accurate.
I kinda want to add to this that while I have no experience in combat myself, I have spent a very large amount of time working the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, which is an incredibly high stress environment with serious physical stress(the same 80 pounds of gear and 100 degree heat, but add in jet exhaust and the fumes from it), and women were perfectly capable of handling the environment, and in fact excelled. In fact, women in general seem to handle the stress better than men.
This still does not address your whole point on women in combat, but I thought it was worth adding.
Except a member of the IDF claims this is not accurate.
There are few roles in the military which remain off-limits to female personnel. They are engaged in highly dangerous tasks such as flying attack helicopters, driving in military convoys and are often part of foot patrols.
But they are still forbidden from serving in what is known as "close combat". That is fighting with units - mainly in the infantry - whose key role is to seek out, engage with and kill enemy forces.
1. Women do not have the upper body strength equivalant to that of a man. They physically do not have the strength to effectively carry and then efficiently deploy a weapon in combat such as the Squad Automatic Weapon, AT-4, or any type of additional combat arms outside of their primary weapon. Of course there is exceptions, and I am sure some women are stronger than most of the Marines I served with, but I am speaking in general terms. When I was in Iraq I was carrying on average of 80-90 lbs of gear in 100+ degree heat, sometimes for hours. I am not looking for 'wow' or for people to think I am tough, I am merely highlighting the very realistic circumstances that need to be considered. This is the probably the pill hardest for women to swallow when discussing the debate due to the nature of it basically calling them physically inferior to men.
History has denied women the ability to be present in combat role so history has shown nothing in this regard.2. Former head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, told The Politics Show he believed any change could lead to "concerns that operational effectiveness, particularly in the infantry, could be and probably would be, jeopardised".
History has shown that the presence of women in combat had very adverse of effect of men in combat.
A member doesn't carry the same validity as a comprehensivne national study, provided in the link I posted.
Thats not evidence, that is more anecdote.
Show me statistics of female fighter pilots repeatedly and consistantly out-performing males in practice sessions at full speed and high G.
There's the bar, now jump over it.
Why has no one commented on this yet? The OP is flawed, that really throws in question any conclusion drawn from the OP.
We have female fighter pilots and have for years now. No complaints so far from the government or anyone else.
they are actually stronger in some situations such as combat pilots.
I don't care about the issue enough to research whatever you are talking about.
It is a fact that women have better hand eye coordination. I don't care about the "high G's" or anything else.
So some one who would know, in ways you or I cannot, whether Israel uses women in combat, is going to be dismissed because her statement goes against what you want to believe? You have any credibility how?
And as far as my credibility is concerned, I am not sure in what manner you are trying to say I don't have any, whether it be intellectually on the topic or what not, but I feel my having been in infantry related combat does give my opinion some credibility. Also I like to think I am credible due to the fact I am very objective in my views and have no problem changing them if a more compelling argument is presented.
I think with the way we are now fighting combat, its inherent that women in the military be given some sort of basic infantry schooling. The Marine Corps already does this with ALL of its non infantry MOS, male and female. All Marines, regardless of their respective job, are basic riflemen. Meaning we are all trained in basic squad mauevers, special weapons firing, MOUT, etc.....I think its important(and the Army has toyed with the idea as well) that everybody be trained in some basic infantry tactics, since the attacks come from anywhere and everywhere. Its folly to have females serve on the ground as supply personell, and as in the case of Jessica Lynch, hand off their weapon to someone else when attacked. A female Marine would have likely fixed her bayonet if it came down to it.
However, even though all female Marines go through this extra training, they are still segregated from the males, just as they are in boot camp. And as was mentioned before, females do have different standards for physical strength testing(and I believe they get a few extra minutes to complete the run). Once they reach MOS schools and fleet units, they are integrated with males, and are expected to be able to perform their job, and develop the same leadership skills in the same manner a male is. So if they are going to be in a support role, they should be trained in some basic infantry tactics, since there is a chance they could be faced with an ambush.
But should they be pure infantry in their roles? I don't think so. Its not a knock on their capabilities, but rather that as a society, men are expendable. I've used this example before, using really simple numbers to illustrate the point. A country has 10 men and 10 females. They come under attack. half of the 20 people will serve in defense. Of the 10 that fight, only two come back. In scenario one, 5 males and 5 females were sent to fight. 1 male and 1 female return, giving the society a total of 6 males, and 6 females. The highest possible birthrate over the next year(to replenish the society) is 6 children. In scenario 2, all 10 males are sent to fight, whilst the 10 women stay behind. 2 males return. The highest possible birthrate over the next year, is 10 children. So we can effectively shrink the male population down to a small number, and still experience a greater population growth, than we could if we sent an equal number of women into obvious combat situations. If you put it into the context of women having 2-3 kids over the course of a lifetime, you can see the numbers would even more greatly favor the scenario where men are sent into the heart of the matter.
Its really the only rationale I can think of, as to why we have ever kept women out of combat. A natural inclination, as a species, to keep the baby farms alive and protected, so that our species can expand and grow. Its evident in some aspects of nature(think lion prides, one or two males, several females).
On top of that, you have the guts to discuss the whole topic and not myopically focus on one thing to then tout a useless solution.
Kudos to Credibility
That is not evidence for this assertion . . .
That is fine, but understand in future, when you make that assertion, you are making it without being able to provide evidence for it.
That is not evidence that women are "stronger combat pilots" , it is you making a claim about hand eye coordination.
Your rationale concerning the natural inclination of our species is very similar to what I posted earlier and I completely agree. Do you think that given the current population that a society's survival is an issue when deciding whether to send women in to combat? Or that this is just a left over instinctual trait from the past?
Do you have any reason to suggest that "in general terms" women are incapable of carrying a 14 pound weapon?
History has denied women the ability to be present in combat role so history has shown nothing in this regard.
Some clarity is probably needed here. Technically speaking, IDF females are not assigned directly to attacking units or platoons. But the flow of modern warfare is so rapid that combat lanes morph and hot zones can easily become blurred and/or indistinct. Oftentimes also, a female IDF specialist will be embedded with a combat brigade.Is what Tashah was describing an IDF parallel? Foot Patrols, but not Close Combat? More input from Tashah will be required.
Some clarity is probably needed here. Technically speaking, IDF females are not assigned directly to attacking units or platoons. But the flow of modern warfare is so rapid that combat lanes morph and hot zones can easily become blurred and/or indistinct. Oftentimes also, a female IDF specialist will be embedded with a combat brigade.
Yes it is, I figured it was common sense.
If women have better hand eye it would stand to reason they would make better pilots.
More than capable, women consistently test better than men in training exercises. "I would recommend that women are put into fighter cockpits on the basis of performance," said Group Captain Chetan Bali, who heads up the faculty of flying at India's Air Force Academy.
Same thing is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq with US female troops.
Now here you are actually giving me what I requested, but I would still like to see the statistics themselves, and how real physiological differences between sexes, like tolerance to High G, are accounted for. If she's great, but passes out at 9 g when most males don't, then one High G dogfight move erases that greatness does it not ?
On top of that, you have the guts to discuss the whole topic and not myopically focus on one thing to then tout a useless solution.
Kudos to Credibility
Some clarity is probably needed here. Technically speaking, IDF females are not assigned directly to attacking units or platoons.
But the flow of modern warfare is so rapid that combat lanes morph and hot zones can easily become blurred and/or indistinct. Oftentimes also, a female IDF specialist will be embedded with a combat brigade.
U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?