So why don't women in the armed forces engage in face-to-face combat?

Question

I wonder why you don't find any women's rights activists complaining about that. You don't need to be 6 ft tall and 200 lbs to pull a trigger. But when it comes to a lack of women in "executive" positions you can't shut 'em up. Did somebody say hypocrite?

Answer 1

There's a Federal law which prohibits placing women in combat arms assignments in the Armed Forces. Lobbying for that was done, in part, by the Defense Advisory Committee On Women In The Service (DACOWITS), a group consisting of women in the the service and in positions of civilian management and leadership.  

Answer 2

Women are denied combat positions for a few reasons.

1. Hygiene reasons. At times, you have to live in the field for 90+ days. Women have periods. Women can't keep all their feminine hygiene products in their rucks to keep them supplied long enough.

2. If I get shot and can't run, how many women can pick me up or haul my body in full battle rattle?

3. If a woman gets shot, it's hardwired in men to play the role of the hero. It's what we do. We will show concern for the hurt woman and stop fighting to help, rather than returning fire until it is safe to perform FABC.

Answer 3

it is actually against the law for woman to be in combat situations. Although techinically everywhere in IRAQ and Afghanistan could be considered a combat situation. It's the same reason that women dont have to register when they become 18 like men do.

Answer 4

Women see face-to-face combat all the time, you ignorant puds. Just three months ago a female medic was awarded a Silver Star in Afghanistan for running through a firefight to fix up her guys after an IED explosion.

You know nothing about modern warfare.

Answer 5

There are several reasons.

First, men have a natural instinct to protect women.  So, if a woman got injured in combat, the men in her company/flight/platoon/whatever would rush to her aid and potentially endanger themselves, whereas if a man is injured, his company/etc is more likely to be a bit more rational.

Second, there are different physical limitations for men and women.  Our muscular structure is different; that's just the way it is.  Therefore, for a specialty with a lot of challenging physical requirements, for example a Pararescue Jumper in the USAF, many women would wash out of the training, and then the Military has wasted money training them.  For example, of 400 SERE Specialists in the US Air Force, only 4 are female.

Finally, there is no reason to change the law right now.  There is not a true shortage of men willing and able to enlist in combat-related positions.  Some of them may not be physically capable and may wash out, but many men are still eager to serve their country.

My last point is that although women cannot serve in traditional combat roles, many women are currently facing the enemy because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not traditional warfare.  There are no clearly defined battle lines; women are at risk just as much as men are, whether they are patrolling the streets as military police/security forces, working on an explosive ordinance disposal team, or even as part of the medical services field.