Women in combat. Do you agree with it?

However, Israel also do it and to my knowledge they are not so woke, it seems to be a matter of survival.

Israel doesn't even do that (put women to fight as combat infantry on front lines), and they have the highest percentage of women in their military out of all the nations in the world. They have frontline roles like medics, artillery support,logistics, but Israel doesn't use women as frontline infantry. And they definitely cannot afford to lower standards that could compromise the outcome of battles.

What are the disadvantages of women in the military?

CONS Overview:

The standards of physical fitness have been set to suit men, and women attempting to reach them will over-stretch themselves. In addition, combat units engage in activities designed to suit men's capabilities. Women serving in integrated units will suffer higher injury rates as a result of this.

Israel itself admits women are not in the elite spearhead brigades (Golani, Givati, Paratroopers, Nahal) or special forces. They remain male-dominated because of physical standards and casualty risk.

Hmmm, women shouldn't be allowed to push buttons that launch nuclear weapon's.

Barefoot and pregnant, am I right?

I believe in people having control over their bodies. So if woman wants to defend from threat, she can.

Eh, I think women are able to serve in war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyudmila_Pavlichenko

But it depends a bit on 'how they serve in war, which varies by country.

Your reproduction argument for instance, varies by country.

America is big on Freedom, Individuality.

Less so on Tribe of 'People, Ethnicity, Religion.

Lot of Women's Rights in America, they're not just Reproductive Machines.

There's also the problem of implementation,

Lyudmila Pavlichenko 'great soldier I'd assume.

Maybe she could and maybe she couldn't pass USA modern standards for soldiers.

Maybe she would maybe she wouldn't get injured by some trainings, requirements, expectations we have for soldiers in America.

Maybe we have many uneeded harmful trainings, requirements, trainings for soldiers.

I 'think women 'are physically weaker than men, 'generally speaking.

Maybe get injured more.

. . . But does one 'need certain trainings, requirements, expectations of training we have for soldiers in modern USA?

Maybe not.

Bravery, good aim with a gun, maybe all one needs.

. . . Course, Russia was grinder in WW2 I've heard, not as if they had high intentions of people surviving all the time maybe.

Course there is other knowledge that is good, such as hygiene in field, awareness of leaving evidence for enemy intelligence, not smoking at night in view of sniper.

Lot of knowledge not 'physical though.

. . . I don't really 'know though. I don't have experience or study in subject of physical strength in wartime.

I 'suspect modern US military bit too focused on physical fitness and standards,

And training, forced marches, carrying heavy packs, maybe causes unnecessary injuries.

. . . Not that training or standards are bad,

Just maybe way US military currently is, harmful to body often.

A couple of surveys I've noted rank women in the military at 18% of all women, rounded up. Another survey ranked women who are celibate by choice at 17%, rounded up. Comparing these two figures, it would appear that the reduction of potential procreation of the human species is not all that affected by women in military combat roles. I'd say if a woman wants to be in a direct combat role, i.e., front-line infantry, and they pass the physical requirements, they ought to have the right to serve in that capacity.

one exception: if a woman has children already, and is in military service, I suggest she not choose to be in front-line combat, because shew already has a more important necessity in child rearing - a seriously necessary role. Other non-combat roles in the military ought to be her chose role.

There should be no sex discrimination in the military. Women and men should be equally subject to the draft. Both should pass the same minimum standards for a given age, with the option of being held back in basic training until they eventually do. If, say, a candidate (male or female) enlists with the Marine Corps and is simply unable to pass the physical standards of that branch but could pass the standards of, say, the Army, then they should be reassigned to the Army and cycled back through an expedited round of Army basic training.

No sex discrimination in who gets assigned the dangerous jobs. The stresses and rigors of army life naturally reduce female fertility, but nonetheless both the man and woman involved should be held equally liable in the event of an unauthorized pregnancy in a wartime theater, with both being sent off to the brig for the full duration. The punishment shall be shared by both, and to the extent that pleading the belly is in fact a privilege to get out of a dangerous situation, that privilege shall also be shared by the father. After this period both shall be either sent back to the wartime theater or dishonorably discharged, depending on the needs of the Pentagon.

Pulling a trigger doesn't take a lot of effort.

Just needs regular finger exercise.

And as Faux indicates, statistically speaking 18% probably do a lot of finger exercise.

Just saying.

Nonetheless they would be more than helpful in the field kitchens, whipping up tasty treats for the men.

And washing up afterwards.

Every time ive seen a woman most effective in combat is when she defends her home and children directly. Let them be keepers of the home, the men will be keepers of the walls and borders.

Need i remind you there has never been a female navy seal.

Israel doesn't even do that (put women to fight as combat infantry on front lines), and they have the highest percentage of women in their military out of all the nations in the world. They have frontline roles like medics, artillery support,logistics, but Israel doesn't use women as frontline infantry. And they definitely cannot afford to lower standards that could compromise the outcome of battles.

Are you sure?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4yVZwqtWlQ

I'm not so interested in knowing the reasons of recruiting women on the frontline, but just using the common sense you can tell it's a nonsense. What'd happened if your partner fell down wounded? To my knowledge women don't have the strenght to lift a body and take it back to a safe place.

A couple of surveys I've noted rank women in the military at 18% of all women, rounded up. Another survey ranked women who are celibate by choice at 17%, rounded up. Comparing these two figures, it would appear that the reduction of potential procreation of the human species is not all that affected by women in military combat roles. I'd say if a woman wants to be in a direct combat role, i.e., front-line infantry, and they pass the physical requirements, they ought to have the right to serve in that capacity.

I understand women are free to choose a career, that's why there are other roles in the military that they can do without compromising their lives.

I disagree with your logic, though. Just look, 86% of American women are mothers, so that leaves us with 14% of women that don't have children but this doesn't mean these women want to enrole in the military.

one exception: if a woman has children already, and is in military service, I suggest she not choose to be in front-line combat, because shew already has a more important necessity in child rearing - a seriously necessary role. Other non-combat roles in the military ought to be her chose role.

I was referring in the hypothetical case that a country gets into war, like Vietnam for example. What would have happened if the American government had forced young girls to join the military? That would have been a scandal.

There is a huge difference between being on the frontlines and being on the front lines as an infantryman. (or I guess infantry woman)

Repair a tank tread (like your video)... sure...a sergeant major providing logistics to the frontline like your video shows...sure....breaching doors in house-to-house close combat...absolutely not.

Israel can't afford to lose those skirmishes.

Pulling a trigger doesn't take a lot of effort.

Yes, it's easy, but a soldier should also be capable of walking a long distance with 50lbs on the back, without considering the rifle.

Besides, as the video pointed out, having women in the frontline is a huge distraction. Even me when I drive along the streets I can't focus when I see hot chicks passing by.

There is a huge difference between being on the frontlines and being on the front lines as an infantryman. (or I guess infantry woman)

Repair a tank tread (like your video)... sure...a sergeant major providing logistics to the frontline like your video shows...sure....breaching doors in house-to-house close combat...absolutely not.

It doesn't matter if they are at the rear, they are on the frontline anyway, there is a high risk of dying.

not really, there's a risk, but it's not even close to the risk of ongoing gun barrel to gun barrel engagements.

The only reason America let women join the military is after they lost several wars in a male on military. Eg Vietnam, Korea. But even with women in the military they lost in Afghanistan and Iraq. Introducing DEI and trans in the military is Americas only hope of changing the future outcome of wars.

if women go to war and eventually die, a society loses its capacity to reproduce and recover from depopulation.

One of the greatest threats against the well being of human civilization is overpopulation.

Wow, Malthusian much? 1800's is calling, they want that philosophy back.

And fat ugly men had bone spurs.

My logic that 14% of woman can be combatants? You missed it. I never said women who are celebate should be combatants. I said it is their choice.

Fact is, some men are stronger that some women and some women are stronger than some men.

And combat strength is as much about mental ability as it is about the ability to carry 50lbs and a gun.

Notwithstanding, that frontline cannon fodder is what it is and techno-war is fought from a safe distance.

I used to be for women being able to do what they want in the military until I found out the number of sexual assaults that happened to women in the military. Seems to be a problem for men too, but not quite so much so. I have no problem with women doing supporting roles, but they should not be on the front lines with men in any way, shape or form because those men are already hyped up to be aggressive and sexual assaults are more likely to happen.

Not all of military work is all muscle no brain.

Notwithstanding, that frontline cannon fodder is what it is and techno-war is fought from a safe distance.

War tactics have changed a lot, that's true. Even Russians understand that it's not worth sending troops to an innecesary butchery as they were doing recently in the Ukraine conflict.

Now the best way to win a war is by using kamikaze drones and long distance missiles. Either way, the hand to hand combat can't be ruled out, that's why I think women shouldn't be on the front line because of what I argued: not having physical conditions, being a risk for depopulation, and being a huge distraction for the male soldiers. Though, they can be in other roles like flying drones or any aircraft, repairing equipment, nursing, cooking, and the like.

My logic that 14% of woman can be combatants? You missed it. I never said women who are celebate should be combatants. I said it is their choice.

No, you didn't but you suggested that it was a possibility.

One of the greatest threats against the well being of human civilization is overpopulation.

What do you mean by that? Do you think wars are a necessary evil?

This is curious because people think otherwise nowadays, that depopulation is a threat. Fewer people wants to have children and that would be a serious risk for the sustainability of the system.

What about my following statement from post #8 does not imply freedom of choice?

I'd say if a woman wants to be in a direct combat role, i.e., front-line infantry, and they pass the physical requirements, they ought to have the right to serve in that capacity.