Do you think female soldiers are equally as good as males soldiers?

[Anonymous]

What do you think?

[ChrisMaster69]

You need to expand on what you mean by soldiers.

The majority of the opinions so far are from people with utterly not idea of the military.

Soldiers serve in the Army, they do not serve in any of the other services.

if you mean the Army, then which part of it?

Front line infantry, then most of the guys on the forum would struggle to be an effective infantry soldier.

You can then pull back from here on what else works as a soldier, I know a certain American Girlie that recently did some heavy tank recovery work, this is Armour, the stuff at the Spear Tip. In the real world, that would be pulling out an Abrams tank with its recovery vehicle while under fire, Likely artillery.

Then you have combat medics, EOD operators, the oh yeah girls can do those roles working along side infantry up front on the line. Your combat area takes in coming 155mm fire and there is unexplored ordnance, gets who does the EOD work, yep that girl.

one of the big problems with these questions, is people watch movies and think that’s how the military works. There are a lot of other roles that operate within FEBA, or are moving between it and rear areas. Top cover maybe some girl on machine gun etc

Take Afghan, there were plenty girls embedded with various front line infantry, including with Paras and Marines and Light Infantry.

Now in Ukraine they have girls in their army, not a recent thing, WW1 etc but really since 2014 when about a 1/4 of Ukraines military were girls (pre conscription).
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/19/1087712539/ukrainian-women-are-volunteering-to-fight-and-history-shows-they-always-have?t=1651873881082

https://www.youtube.com/embed/6ubM1cXSTFU

Anyhow, if you mean the other services, then you have fighter pilots, attack aircraft, ELINT, those defending air fields from engineers to military police, more EOD and combat medics etc.

The person dragging that guy who can lift 300lbs of kit, clear of incoming fire may be a cute girlie who drags his bleeding arse to safety and patches him up or pulls his tank clear of being bogged down, broken down or hit by enemy fire.

Also you. Should see the fitness levels for some guys in infantry units…

[SaoirseS]

Excellent points. From a lot of comments I see here about fitness, standards, qualifications, etc., a lot of people are simply behind the times - over six years behind the times in some cases. As of January 2016, all positions in all branches of the US military were opened to women, as long as they qualify and meet specific standards. It's been going on for six years now, so it's really a moot point. But fear not, it's about equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. Realistically, the only appeal combat arms has for women is career progression, mainly for career officers. Opportunities to reach the senior ranks (be it enlisted or officer) are far greater in the three combat arms branches than they are in service and support specialties, as they rightly should be. Not too many women are beating the doors down to get into these Army branches for a couple of reasons, the main one being these specialties have no civilian equivalent. What civilian employer is looking for someone who writes on his or her resume that their Army duties were to "close with, engage, and destroy the enemy. Break things, kill people, hopefully the right people. Shoot anyone carrying a weapons who isn't dressed like me. Something like that." Or, "Lob explosive ordinance indirectly to destroy buildings, concentrations of people, or equipment." (No, combat arms are not good role models for police and first responders.) As far as the cry that the Army is lowering standards to accommodate women, the problem always has been with the standards themselves. The Army is still trying to figure out how to establish standards with the new ACFT, realizing it will never make everyone happy or come up with a perfect solution. The problem with eliminating gender-norming and establishing a one-size-fits-all fitness standard is age-norming would have to be eliminated as well, and that risks eliminating a lot of otherwise well-qualified senior NCO and officer leaders.

[libsaretards]

Yes and no. This is coming from my experience in the military as of 2015 so some of my knowledge may be outdated.

When it comes to PT and anything physical, no. They literally have an easier set of standards. The Marines have always kept their standards gender neutral in the run and sit-ups. Women were allowed to hang while men had to do actual pull-ups; However, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard have different physical standards for men and women. This is a disservice because if a man and woman are on the battlefield together, I need to know she can handle the same physical stress I can. I served with women who easily kicked my ass in physical fitness tests and they had my utmost respect, but most females in the military were not. Also women were more prone to injury in my unit.

When it comes to the actual job they signed up for, they are absolutely equal. Physical fitness is the ONLY area in the military where women have a lower standard. Everything else (including AIT/Tech School/A-school) the standard is the same. You either pass or fail. For example, when you become a Medic/Corpsman in the military, you have many tests you must pass to keep the job. If you fail too many tests the military either makes you pick another job or discharges you.

[SaoirseS]

@libsaretards. Yes, the military has changed - the Army for sure, even in the almost four years I've been in the ARNGUS. Your comments are spot on, except with the new ACFT (which replaced the old three-event APFT) the goal was one fight, one standard regardless of gender or age. It sounded good at the time, but implementing it has been an ongoing point of contention. Gender-norming in the old APFT I always thought was unrealistic (you know, strength differences between genders - biology), but age-norming and sliding the standards to the right to accommodate aging (also biology) actually made a lot of sense. The new ACFT is more realistic, and it's been a bear: those who could max the APFT have thus far failed the ACFT in such large numbers that the Army put a pause on conducting for-record PT tests. It's going to take some time, and they're still trying to figure it out. First they tried the pyramid striations (certain levels required for combat arms, lower required for admin and service & support). Part of the problem is the chasm between Army flesh-peddlers and department chiefs who are concerned with manning the forces and unit strength, and small unit leaders who are expected to train & sustain the levels of fitness the Army wants. Looks like we're going back to gender-norming and age-norming for the time being. Realistically, though, women aren't beating the door down to get into infantry, armor, and artillery. Those branches appeal more to career-focused officers who want a shot at the more senior ranks. As for me, I've been perfectly happy in a transportation corps MOS and sustainment positions. It takes a village.

[Aerissa_Jade]

Good question, since warfare these days is rarely hand to hand where physical strength is a big deal. It isn't like there is fist fights or sword fights these days.

Ukrainian women are known to be excellent snipers, even going back to WWII. Thus what defines a good soldier?

Women can be as good as men as drone pilots for example.

[SaoirseS]

Yep. It takes a village. The military is not about individual wannabe Rambos. Those who are or have served understand that, except those with dreams of heroism and a CMH.

[ChrisMaster69]

@SaoirseS I commented a little bit lol

Some of the comments here are laughable and show how out of touch these guys are with reality of the military. It’s changed since they watched John Wayne ‘s Green Berets

[OlderAndWiser]

Equally as good for what? Infantry duty? Keeping the barracks clean? Planning an offensive strategy?

[Alcoholic_Wannabe]

Stress relief LMAO

[BCA6010]

There's many jobs in which it doesn't matter, and a few others where the typical thought process of women outweighs the thinking process or brute strength of men (mostly in clerical positions or roles that require multi-tasking), but if you were to specify say infantry, combat medics or really anything else in which near instantaneous decision and commitment along with physical strength are major factors, then it's very objectively a solid "no." I would also say though that in most cases, I'd rather have the more motivated, equally skilled soldier over the less motivated one almost 100% of the time regardless of sex.

- Having been there and done that in an infantry unit that was one of the first to receive female combat arms officers.

[wheist9095]

I think more or less yeah, especially if you compare any soldier to a civilian with no military training. I'm sure there are a ton of guys who think they are really badass but have never spent the day in any sort of service who are going to be talking shit

[blissinanarchy1]

No. I'm all for equality, but a life or death situation will not make me cater to your pride. Women's physical standards are below men's in the military. So off the rip, they are less athletically capable to carry gear for long distances, carry wounded, etc. Accomodating women's physical limitations in comparison to men's is fine in civilian jobs. But in war, she should only be fighting if she can match the man's requirements. Women are just as capable, there are female SEALs now.

[ImNoOne111]

Sadly no. Men are stronger physically, its easier for us to pack some muscles, and to enter the soldier mindset. Thats why we almost have little to none infantrywoman. They can be usable as pilots, engineers tho but women werent made for this job, it was always biologically our job to fight

[bamesjond0069]

In general no seeing as women hardly can pass the standard combat tests and training and they need to keep lowering the bar. Individually though a single woman who can pass the most difficult tests could be better than a man who barely made it into basic duties. Were talking about like less than 1% though.

[SaoirseS]

You haven't seen the new ACFT. It's much more challenging and realistic than the old three-event check-the-block APFT that was used as a measure of fitness in the Army for over four decades. There are a lot of men (and more women) who could excel or outright max the old APFT but who can't pass the ACFT yet. It's going to take some time.

[bamesjond0069]

@SaoirseS its not really relevant. The average man is more physical capable than a top level woman. doesn't matter the test, or sport or capability. I personally injured myself and didn't exercise for like a whole year and was a couch potato. Then i was dating a female college athlete and we went to the gym together. And my third day back in the gym she got a bit competitive and so i squated more than her deadlifted more than her and ran faster and longer on the treadmill than her. She was also quite tall for a girl and muscular only a little smaller than myself. I mean this is typical though as far as the genders go.

[SaoirseS]

Yes, it's quite relevant. Ground forces need warfighters, not pack mules and longshoremen. Defaulting to the biological strength argument for elimination doesn't work anymore, regardless of what you, me, or anyone thinks. It's OBE now anyway and has been for over six years now.

[bamesjond0069]

@SaoirseS men are better in combat as well specifically.

[SaoirseS]

If you think so.

[bamesjond0069]

@SaoirseS well just take 10 men in combat roles and 10 women in combat roles and have them go head to head as a team. Which team would you bet your lifes savings on? Would you really go "gee golly lets flip a coin" or would you make a bet?

[SaoirseS]

My money would be on the team that trained together regardless of gender. If you’re talking about going medieval, that’s just bad planning lol.

[bamesjond0069]

@SaoirseS they both trained together or neither... everything is equal.

[SaoirseS]

The way modern warfare is conducted, that’s not even a realistic scenario. It’s not a MMA cage fight. Besides you’re missing the real point here.

[bamesjond0069]

@SaoirseS so who would you bet on? And if modern fighting has nothing to do with physical strength then why even have physical tests at all? Your logical flaw is showing.

[SaoirseS]

If you’re talking about a combat operation and movement to contact, it’s even money on either side. It depends on which side moves, shoots and communicates better. Trying to portray it as a hand-to-hand brawl is not even a realistic scenario. Physical strength measurement and standards are about stamina and endurance, not brawn. Again, you missed the main point. It’s all OBE now anyway and has been for several years.

[bamesjond0069]

@SaoirseS ok so lets just send out of shape people to the front lines. I agree most combat is done at range. But if men can move further distances. Get through obstacles faster ie mountains swamp etc. This means they will have better opportunity to choose their position in this scenario and get there first. Obvious advantage. And you're assuming its like a woods environment. If one team was holding a city building there very well could be close quarter combat which could offer a specific advantage to stronger people. Yes all advantages aren't a definite for every situation because many situations do not allow for it as an advantage. But its moronic to not know the better bet is on men because men have some advantages over women. Period.

[SaoirseS]

Again, it’s OBE now. Imaginary scenarios pitting a men’s squad against a women’s squad is utterly pointless. Those women now in the infantry, armor, and artillery are integrated. There is no “boys v girls” anymore. There is equality of opportunity but not of outcome. Regardless of gender they all train to standard. Anyone who has been in the military recently knows the days of pissing contests over brawn are over. It’s not up for discussion anymore. And anyone serving knows, the issue with women in combat has nothing to do with strength anyway.

[bamesjond0069]

@SaoirseS so then why are there strength and fitness standards if they are not important? And you already said it, there isn't equality of outcome... because most women are not capable of meeting the standards most men can meet.

[SaoirseS]

I didn't say they weren't important, and if you look at my first comment you clearly haven't seen the new ACFT (which is giving units and the Army fit right now). The intent behind changing the fitness testing and developing a standard for both genders and all ages was to create fitness standards and testing that replicated the most common stressful but realistic combat conditions - NOT the extremes. The problem was, and always has been, and probably always will be the standards themselves. There is little more the Army can do than come up with a single standard that tells it whether its soldiers are fit to fight. And by equality of opportunity not equality of outcome, I mean that with the 2016 elimination of excluding women from direct combat engagement roles means they get a shot at it - but the requirement to meet certain standards and qualifications does not go away, and if they don't meet them, then they need to seek use in another specialty. Same goes for men. The first go at the ACFT was a hot mess, 79% of women failed it, and I believe close to 40% of men failed it. Simply put, the force had not trained for the new events which tested things like explosive power, deadweight lifting, etc. But over time and with some training and commitment, the scores are climbing and the pass/excel rates are improving - but not enough the Army is ready for soldiers to take a for-record test (that tells me something). That aside, not all men and women are created equal when it comes to abilities, physical or otherwise.

[SaoirseS]

It was shocking to see how many entry level trainees in my Basic Training company were remarkably unfit, despite the appearance of strong healthy men and women. There were men who bragged about their weightlifting and upper body strength who collapsed five minutes into a two-mile run in South Central Missouri heat. But that's why units train, not only the physical requirements but marksmanship, small unit tactics, and other essential soldiering tasks. Soldiers aren't born, they're made, and it takes work. And as I mentioned, there's no need for you, me, anyone else to defend a foxhole or get into some pointless debate over who is best, who can piss the furthest, or who can carry more weight on a ruckmarch. The point is those days are over. Those who are qualified and meet requirements are already in the ranks, which probably won't grow that much because no woman I know are hearing the siren song of combat arms or have Walter Mitty dreams of performing feats of derring-do. But in today's Army, your squadmates on your left and right may well be women who are just there to do the job, not compete with men. And any soldier who is not there to get a job done, regardless of age or sex, and can’t function as part of a team, needs to seek other pursuits.

[MCheetah]

When it comes to physical and genius l front lines capabilities, no, I do not. However, I do believe they can still be useful to any military in their own way and not all soldiers need to be combat soldiers.

[ibodi]

Maybe, that is a shit job anyway.. Most of time live in shit relationship with boss without fighting.
Like machine when they come out
Poor people just goofs off through people's tax.

[Andres77]

Females are awesome soldiers if they're used in jobs where they can excel, and they do

Not everyone can do everything.
Not all men can do every job so it stands to reason that not all women can do every job either.

[SaoirseS]

Excellent point.

[Chiarac2003]

In certain instances yes an others no. Most men r way more powerful than most women. Tactical… I can imagine women can accell

[Goforit1010]

Mentally, yes, women are easily as equal to any guy as a soldier. Physically and emotionally? No, they're not.

[Sun_Kim-Ai]

I would not know, to be honest - if I led an army, I'd just throw them wave after wave against the enemy.

[2facedfa1ry]

No for obvious reasons... (if we're talking physical military work)
For intel/non physical stuff then i'd say they're the same

[Squaresquirrel]

No, they are not.
Unless they pass exactly the same exams as men or whatever it is called.

[exitseven]

No, they are not as physically strong. It is just biology. There may be exceptions but they are just exceptions.

[Laila12]

Not in traditional warfare but in modern warfare yes if not better

[ChiTown33]

Good answer! Men GENERALLY have a physical advantage. But in a world of drone warfare and whatnot. A woman can be a very effective soldier. She doesn't have to be on the Frontline and she can still make a decided difference in the battle.

[Pudsmucker]

Women make good soldiers. They have good leadership skills. They can shoot perform first aid.
Good luck

[laraWM]

Of course, why not? Everyone can be helpful as a soldier

[Deathraider]

Yeah. I mean if you gave a firearm to someone and they know how to use it, there isn’t much that physical attributes can do to make a difference in how deadly someone is.

[jshm2]

Nope. Hence why they are not front line and mostly admin, support or auxiliary

[SaoirseS]

The times they have changed.

[jshm2]

@SaoirseS Nope. They have not. Rapes, drops out, and suicides are high in female soldiers to the extent most are not given frontline roles.

[SaoirseS]

Are you in service?

[ArtemisSilver]

Depends on the role, infantry though, no dice. It's damn hard running around with 150 lbs on your back.

[Vendela]

In most cases, no. It's just science that men are physically stronger and bigger (in general)... and you kind of need a lot of strength in war.

[Alcoholic_Wannabe]

Nope.
Doesn't mean women shouldn't be soldiers, but at the same time we shouldn't expect them to be as good at it.

[jasco]

No honestly I don't. Get me wrong I imagine theirs a good handful who are for sure better than men, but not all of them.

[Anonymous]

Very few roles in the military are combat roles so yes...

[Smallboobsgotohell]

No a woman cannot lift 300 lbs their own backpack which is essential to become an infantry soldier.

[SaoirseS]

Lol this story gains at least 25 lbs with each telling of it.

[Smallboobsgotohell]

@SaoirseS when u need water or food or ammo or a a mask or special parts needed for ur job or a spade to make a trench will u ask a male soldier for it?

[SaoirseS]

No because in my MOS I’m the one bringing it to them.

[Smallboobsgotohell]

@SaoirseS hi! Iam a veteran nice to meet ya

[SaoirseS]

Cool, likewise. What branch?

[SaoirseS]

I’m in my final month with ARNGUS.

[Smallboobsgotohell]

@SaoirseS i can not tell i am not from the US

[Smallboobsgotohell]

And i am assuming in a real war situation in ww2 soldiers lift actual 300 lbs baggage not 100 or 50 lbs like in practice

[Smallboobsgotohell]

National guard? Lol u know the US army call them national girls coz i know my brother was in the US army

[SaoirseS]

A lot has changed since World War II. The standards and workloads are much more realistic.

[SaoirseS]

Yes Army National Guard. We’re still required to maintain readiness and are subject to being federalized and deployed just like regular Army troops.

[Smallboobsgotohell]

@SaoirseS i know national guard soldiers are deployed also places like Afghanistan too. When war breaks out. But for some reason solders in the US army still call them national girls or bitches I don't know why

[SaoirseS]

Oh I know exactly why. Playful service rivalry. But when it matters everyone puts the rivalry aside and gets it done.

[Smallboobsgotohell]

@SaoirseS good luck hope u discharged safely after 4 or 6 or 2 years of services u chose to commit and good luck again

[ManHater]

well yes, they have vagina's and can shoot too. What's best is you can have her bent over and screw her and she can still hold a gun.

[Iron_Man]

No they can’t fight hand-to-hand against another man they’ll be destroyed soldiers are athletes

[BLP11520]

I was in the Air Force so my take would be skewed. Should women storm the beach head like Normady? no.

[MrTaboo]

No, 80 lbs of gear on a 200lb man is very different than 80 lbs of gear on a 120 lb women.

[WhiteBoyChill]

The fact that they have lower PT standards for women should answer your question

[Anonymous]

Some are adequate, but equally as good as males soldiers? Not a chance.

[UniquelyBasic]

Sure some are but others are not even close.

[CloudMassacre]

What do you mean “good”?

[TheReturnOfTheK1ng]

😹😹😹😹

They are good as cannon fodder.

[notwoke]

no, too highly influenced by empathy

[OddBeMe]

Good in what? Soldiers do variety of things.

[KostasKouvalis]

Israeli, yes

[KrakenAttackin]

No, and most women will admit this.

[fireforeffect]

NO, I do not. Women are not as strong as men.

[Anonymous]

Hell no. They get us killed.

[Bubbles16]

Yes they are

[Guardian45]

They can be better.

[JesseJayNeak]

No, I don’t

[clemdenim]

Yess