Poll: - Women In The Military -

[Lydius_Winters]

Add one more to your list, OP. Women can't piss standing up.

the foundation upon which all military stratagem is based

Just sayn'

You get stuck out in the field long enough...eventually...

Well men cant shit standing up, so i don't really know where the argument of "Women cant piss standing" is going, So what in the end every1 have to squat in the bushes, women a bit more than the men but in the end it's all the same.

 

[sephiroth1991]

Just more people with guns i say, dosn't affect a person no matter what gender they are.

 

[Duskwaith]

Looking at it front a biological stand point wouldnt her period not induce PMT and therefore make her a greater risk to herself and others in the field?

We had to debate this for a GCSE talking and listening mark.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

way i see it, if she can run climb crawl shoot and follow orders, she should be allowed to serve her country in battle.

hell you wanna fight for your country, you should be allowed period... well with a few exceptions of course... I wouldn't let elderly people or those with severe mental or psychological disabilities... or like... really bad physical problems... join a unit for any reason, simply because they'd endanger themselves and EVERYONE around them unintentionally...

just my opinion

 

[Audioave10]

In World War II, Russian women were great snipers.

 

[Red Bomb]

I think if they can get through the same training and fitness tests they should definatly be allowed. I wanted to be a jet piolet in the RAF but I am too short (5ft, just) and claustrophobic.
And as for the 'issues' of mixing of the sexes - they are adults and professionals. Like someone has said prevuously, they are NOT hormonal teenagers for crying out loud!

 

[Abbyrose07]

I have a brother who is a Marine, some of the things that he had to do in boot camp and training were just horrible. He said even a lot of the guys there ended up having to a move to a different platoon and even had to leave the Marine base to go back home because they just couldn't hack it. The Marine base he was at was just all men, they have a separate Marine base for women which is on Parris Island. I don't know how different the training is for women but if it's the same as it is for men and if women can get though it then I say hats off to them. I wouldn't probably last a day and go home crying lol.

 

[Nemu]

I'm biased on both sides, as my gf was in the army.

On one hand, I am glad she retired relatively unscathed (the injury that forced her to retire not withstanding).

On the other, I know FULL WELL that regardless of the fact that women cannot be "on the front lines" as it were, they STILL are in imminent danger in the field of combat. They are still shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan and under fire, even if they aren't in Infantry.

Personally, I think the whole "wiminz no can shewt" mentality is just archaic and fostered by the men who feel they need to shelter us members of the "gentler sex". Of course 99% of us won't be stronger than men, however we are fully capable of defending ourselves and those around us. We are capable to make rational, quick decisions[footnote]Insert your period comment here[/footnote], capable of performing under pressure[footnote]another opportunity for a crass comment[/footnote] and capable or giving and following orders[footnote]okay, ONE more opportunity, you callous betches[/footnote]--in fact, my GF is a retired Cpt, and intel officer, who commanded a company of 100+ soldiers.


So yes, women can and should be able to participate in combat missions. We are more than capable. Men need to relax their macho mindset and the US military needs to allow this.

[sub][sub][sub](In fact, other countries let women participate in and and land combat missions, not 100% sure about naval missions, however.)[/sub][/sub][/sub]

 

[magicmonkeybars]

As far as I'm concerned it needlessly complicates matters.
Adding even one more problem is one too many.
A better question is why the hell anyone would willingly join any army.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Do you mean stonger physically or mentally? Women are signifigantly weaker than men physically, the question is whether or not that weakness would impair their ability to function. Men simply have higher testosterone levels, which means men get more muscle mass/tone per hour of physical training. Whether or not this strength advantage matters is the question.

Mentally. It might just be because they are trying to overcome the steep objections against them, or because they are just wired differently... and if you ask me they are wired on the crazy side. In any case, from historical records, woman appear to be just as capable then a male counter part on a battlefield. Though some of the horror stories of what they did to POWs can make your penis go into hiding for fear of it's safety.

 

[WINDOWCLEAN2]

I am all for Women joining the Military but that kind of makes me a hypocrite as I'm joining the RAF Regiment (as a Para-Sniper) and the Regiment don't allow women...at all :/

 

[SnipErlite]

I think if they can get through the same training and fitness tests they should definatly be allowed. I wanted to be a jet piolet in the RAF but I am too short (5ft, just) and claustrophobic.

Totally - I believe there's easier fitness requirements for women to enter into military roles? While I appreciate that men have a far easier time gaining muscle the same on the battlefield is going to be expected for everyone.

I say let them in if they can match the same physical requirements.

Though some of the horror stories of what they did to POWs can make your penis go into hiding for fear of it's safety.

......I can imagine and do not want to know 0_O

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Because they won't. Also, Training them for the shit jobs is a waste.

But they can and, hell, they already do train the average woman to function just as well as their average male counter parts. It is only afterwards that the brass says 'you got no penis, so your going to a crap job.' Remove the penis criteria and how is training them any less worthy then training a male?

 

[Cody211282]

Honestly I don't know, one part of me thinks that sure why shouldn't they be able to they are citizens and have every right to as much as a guy, the other part goes, well most people we go to war with would rape them and it does have a different effect on a male to see a woman get killed then a man or get left behind(I don't know if it's true for everyone but it is for me, I know I would have a hard time following an order to stay put when some girls out there bleeding to death or something else)

 

[Cody211282]

A better question is why the hell anyone would willingly join any army.

Because it's fun?

 

[bob-2000]

Women should absolutely be able to fight, after all, it doesn't take broad shoulders to fire a gun.

Not to be THAT guy..

but it's no surprise that the average male is stronger than the average female, it's the same with soldiers.
woman can fire weapons just as well as men, that's true.
But that's not taking into account the average combat load out weighs anywhere from 70-100+ pounds of gear. Sure some woman can take it, but it takes a hell of a lot more conditioning and weight training for a woman to be able to do that.

Also, how would you expect the average woman to carry a 200 pound, 6ft tall wounded comrade under fire? Let's face it, that wouldn't happen. I'm not being sexist, it's just logical.

It's the reason why woman in America can be swat officers and police officers, they don't have to carry heavy loadouts and trek through harsh environments carrying their body weight (or more) there is no doubt woman can engage, and kill targets as female SWAT and Police officers have proved, but active combat duty is out of the question.

Though women are indeed less strong then men, with enough conditioning they could certainly endure such physical torment.

 

[z121231211]

I'm against direct combat roles, because if there is a draft, then everyone but children and old people will be fighting. Also, in the event we have to repopulate due to so many casualties, it's better to have more men killed.

 

[Squiggers]

Personally I'm of the belief that yes, they can join the Armed forces - but not infantry units.

However.

Thats not to say that they shouldn't be able to do the training. In current wars there is NO frontline - Hasn't been since the Vietnam War effectively - so they need the training to be able to fight effectively, even if its without the 70-100+ pounds of equipment at the very least, as they will come into contact with enemy forces in all likelyhood.

The last few female british female soldiers deaths were not in direct action I'd like to add. In the case of British forces, we'd have so many problems with women in direct combat roles due to the high causality rates we've had over the last few years. (0.8% of the forces in Afghanistan... 10% of the fatalities.). It'd screw over what little morale we had left if we had mixed/all female combat units for sure, and god forbid the public reaction we'd have.

Basically, I think that support/naval/aerial roles are fine, but line-infantry... no-no. Not a good idea in the slightest. At least for the UK military anyway.

On a side note, as far as I understood it, the USMC already had women able to serve in combat roles?

 

[Parugraph]

In my mind yes they should be able to join since my friend is in the Royal Calvelry and She and there is only 2 females in her Platoon because of the heavy training.'Tough I Agree most standard military gear is designed for men so they would have to do more training to lift it all but in short they should be able to join.