Women in combat, bad/good idea?

[Stego]

I'm gonna go old school Stego on this topic and say show me your fucking car. If you ain't got one, you don't fucking rate an opinion.

[The Progressive]

I'm gonna go old school Stego on this topic and say show me your fucking car. If you ain't got one, you don't fucking rate an opinion.

As a driver of an Acura TL, I'm definitely qualified to state my opinions here.

The rest of you pedestrians just have to suck it and shut up.

[Lord O' Bones]

I'm gonna go old school Stego on this topic and say show me your fucking car. If you ain't got one, you don't fucking rate an opinion.

I have racked my brain and do not recall this metaphor in this context. In the interests of clarity: What?

[Skyrazer]

I'm gonna go old school Stego on this topic and say show me your fucking car. If you ain't got one, you don't fucking rate an opinion.

I own a 2007 Toyota Yaris YRS Sedan, automatic, 1.5L in dark grey. I have my receipt, comprehensive car insurance, registration and driver's license as proof of my ownership of said automobile. Do I qualify for this discussion now?

[TheKassi]

I figure the best way to take the entire controversy out of this whole topic would be the creation of Amazon units, starting with the Australian special forces and combat pilots, and working your way down to infantry. This course of action will definitively answer a few questions.

Can women preform just as well and or better then a man in combat roles.

Do natural physical predispositions present hazards that will drag down squad performance, and if so can those hazards be mitigated.

Will this negatively or positively impact female recruitment.

Until we actually have such information we are pretty much just spouting uneducated opinion, as there is little hard data in the past ten or twenty years to work with.

I believe it is wise to start with the air force because in such a role the physical differences between men and women will have the least impact. I believe it is wise to also start with special forces because a) it is a role in which a small group can have a large impact and b) because it is the toughest job there is, and if gals can hack it then it will be very hard to argue they can not be part of tank crews and infantry.

Lastly, I believe the creation of Amazon units will have one profound advantage. Western Military might rests on innovation above all else. If there are problems presented by a a lack of physical strength or body mass I do not believe a bunch of female soldiers will just pout, feel sorry for themselves, and ask for a man to come open the pickle jar for them.

I will believe they will put their best effort into creating solutions for those problems. When a bunch of people who wish to serve their country, protect their families, and prove they have what it takes to do both put their minds to solving problems, only good things come from it.

[Shryke]

I have a 1993 Caprice Wagon, thereby qualifying me as having bigger balls then any of you.

[Lord O' Bones]

I believe it is wise to start with the air force because in such a role the physical differences between men and women will have the least impact. I believe it is wise to also start with special forces because a) it is a role in which a small group can have a large impact and b) because it is the toughest job there is, and if gals can hack it then it will be very hard to argue they can not be part of tank crews and infantry.

In the US military, the Air Force and the Navy are fully integrated for all combat roles but for special forces.

I agree with you as far as tank crews. Artillery units, and armored cavalry as well (if they haven't already.)

Your Amazon idea is intriguing. With male non-coms initially though, I would think.

[Galactus]

The argument is simple: Does the hassle of organization outweigh a potential 50% increase in the recruitment base?

I'd say it depends on the situation, but in most cases I'd guess it does.

[Galactus]

Really? Any idea why?

Yeah, IIRC the shooting sports tends to be the ones that have the closest results, so I'm unsure of why this should be the case.

(And of course, no one would call Lyudmila Pavlichenko a bad shot...)

[TheKassi]

In the US military, the Air Force and the Navy are fully integrated for all combat roles but for special forces.

I agree with you as far as tank crews. Artillery units, and armored cavalry as well (if they haven't already.)

Your Amazon idea is intriguing. With male non-coms initially though, I would think.

I do not intend to be a stickler, but this is about the Australian armed forces, and I think it would be wise if they produced a lot of data, and for all that data to be their own.

(That of course assumes that Australian women do not already fly in combat, which I of course could be wrong about. It is just an assumption with little to nothing backing it.)

There are two major reasons this is a controversy. The first is lack of data. The second is perception. Women are commonly viewed something other then simply smaller and weaker men with breasts and an indentation where their penis should be. Cold hard facts will solve both problems, but when you are using facts to combat preconceived notions, it is better to use data you have created, rather then just second hand reports from other nations.

“Well America does it, and they have had success†is an easy argument to discredit. Look at how conservative Americans respond to arguments that start with: “Well in Europe...â€

[Exa Inova]

As a non military man I say why not? If it can give you an edge go for it. Are there situations where a female special forces crew would be better suited? Some infiltration, deep cover, long term operation or whatever then why not?

Also creating an all female unit will probably have its advantages.

And another thing. To me, fear of rape could NEVER be an option. Any man who cant keep his urges under control is per definition unfit to serve in whatever unit unless the purpose of the unit is to rape as much women as possible.

[Mentat]

I think women should only be allowed to serve in the military if they're as tough as Vazquez. Actually, I think men should only be allowed to serve in the military if they're as tough as Vazquez.

I'm gonna go old school Stego on this topic and say show me your fucking car. If you ain't got one, you don't fucking rate an opinion.

My Credentials

I also should add I shot Sniper Wolf and watched her die. I won't pretend it wasn't tough, though.

[Lord O' Bones]

I do not intend to be a stickler, but this is about the Australian armed forces, and I think it would be wise if they produced a lot of data, and for all that data to be their own.

I'm 99% certain the conversation has transcended that. The thread title strongly implies a general discussion at the least.

(That of course assumes that Australian women do not already fly in combat, which I of course could be wrong about. It is just an assumption with little to nothing backing it.)

Australia has an Air Force? (To quote a wise Australian: "Hur hur!")

There are two major reasons this is a controversy. The first is lack of data. The second is perception. Women are commonly viewed something other then simply smaller and weaker men with breasts and an indentation where their penis should be. Cold hard facts will solve both problems, but when you are using facts to combat preconceived notions, it is better to use data you have created, rather then just second hand reports from other nations.

And 90%* of the posters in this thread that are tentative 'yes' would agree.

“Well America does it, and they have had success†is an easy argument to discredit. Look at how conservative Americans respond to arguments that start with: “Well in Europe...â€

No it isn't. If anyone does it and has success it's more difficult to discredit. And using "how conservative Americans respond to arguments that start with: 'Well in Europe...'" is beneath your previously evidenced debating skills.

[Lord O' Bones]

Buncha wankers. Google is your friend.

I googled "show me your fucking car" to no result. Apparently my attention to detail has slipped. To which I say: "I do not know, but I will find out."

[Stego]

A car is a combat action ribbon.

[Shryke]

A car is a combat action ribbon.

My car is still bigger then yours.

[Lord O' Bones]

A car is a combat action ribbon.

I have enough ribbons, but I don't have that one.

I have served with women and have lost shipmates in violent fashion, though never a woman shipmate. We are also mostly speaking of hypotheticals and out of date evidence. Is my opinion completely worthless? I only ask to determine how far you will take your dismissal of opinion here, because of the hundreds of Marines and/or combat veterans I've personally interacted with, I can count you and one PTSD Ranger as being known to me as 'readers,' and I'm always uncertain when dealing with you unfamiliar types.

SPOILER: Something a CAR awardee may not want to speak about to a non-CAR awardee

Additionally, have you experienced the loss of a female Marine or shipmate in combat? Or are you extrapolating your feelings of combat and of protecting women into your opinion of this subject and finding it to still ring true?

[Lord O' Bones]

My car is still bigger then yours.

Hilarious.

[delete this account pls]

I have a Ford Laser.

Hur.

[tzanth]

I haven't read a single coherent post in this thread that argued against the ability of qualifying women to serve without relying on misogynistic chauvinism.