Should women be able to fight on the frontlines?

[MercurySteam]

If we were anything like the COG, then we'd have plenty of women on the front line:

Spoiler: The Women of Gears of War

Anya Stroud:

Samantha Byrne:

Alex Brand:

Bernadette Mataki:

God, I want Gears 3 now.

 

[Kolby Jack]

It isn't so much about women being able to handle it or not, it's about unit cohesion and the psychological effects of war. Multiple studies have shown that a woman or women inserted into the ranks of a unit, no matter how well-trained, change the dynamic dramatically, and that a woman dying in front of a man is much more psychologically traumatizing than a man dying in front of a man, even if they were friends.

 

[Dogstile]

Oh look, its this thread again.Before I get quoted a gazillion times on "some women can handle it". Yeah, some, not all. The army tends to not want to waste time finding out. Its rare.

The army tends to not waste it's time find - what? What the fuck is basic training then?

EDIT: But yes, I stand by what I've said. Strength, muscle mass, lung capacity, speed, whatever, are individual traits. "On average" or "typically" doesn't apply when you're talking about an individual person. If someone can do it, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to. If they can't, don't let them. It's as simple as that.

Now do you see how I did not once mention gender in that whole thing there?

Ok, fine, lets look at it from a different angle.

Right now camps only have to deal with men.

Bring females into the equation. Instantly they have to have a womens area for sleeping, showering, etc.

And with my original point, basic training still costs the army money. But I realise women still do basic training to get into their support roles.

However, there is training AFTER basic training ya'know.

I agree if someone can do it, they should be able to, but logistically, not physically, its too much trouble. K? k.

 

[Nerdstar]

let them try out if they can cut the mustard and survive basic as well as keep up with the male soldiers the giveim a gun and send them to the front, if they cant turn them aways or give them non combat duties like everyone else

 

[artanis_neravar]

I just learned today that women can't fight on the frontlines in wartime, they can only be supporting roles like MPs and whatnot. So I think women should have a choice if they fight on the frontlines or not if they sign up, because I'm guessing some women want to fight on the frontlines but make it their choice. So just wanted to see what other people thought on the matter is.

I think this is logical actually, have the generally stronger sex out getting killed, keep the main ingredient to reproducing out. It makes sense to do it, now, is that necessarily right, who knows. I do know that men tend to rape each other less than they would a woman though.

Also, I am not trying to be sexist, it's just logical, have the "tougher" of the sexes go out and defend us. I fully support women in the military, but in times of crisis or worldwar, yeah, this makes sens.

Although, yes, if it is a womans choice to go out, then sure, let 'em. I think those women should be allowed to sign up for the draft then too.

I'm pretty sure both sexes are "the main ingredient to reproducing"

 

[Ryokai]

Oh look, its this thread again.Before I get quoted a gazillion times on "some women can handle it". Yeah, some, not all. The army tends to not want to waste time finding out. Its rare.

The army tends to not waste it's time find - what? What the fuck is basic training then?

EDIT: But yes, I stand by what I've said. Strength, muscle mass, lung capacity, speed, whatever, are individual traits. "On average" or "typically" doesn't apply when you're talking about an individual person. If someone can do it, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to. If they can't, don't let them. It's as simple as that.

Now do you see how I did not once mention gender in that whole thing there?

But the fact remains--the average woman is inferior in those respects to the average man (YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN)--and there simply are not enough women who are capable of the level of physical fitness required to justify the myriad of problems it would bring--sleeping quarters, bathrooms, inevitable sexual harassment, problems with unit cohesion, dangers of rape if captured, etc.

While there will always be women who CAN make the grade, the fact remains that as of now, there are not enough to justify it.

 

[Dense_Electric]

Oh look, its this thread again.Before I get quoted a gazillion times on "some women can handle it". Yeah, some, not all. The army tends to not want to waste time finding out. Its rare.

The army tends to not waste it's time find - what? What the fuck is basic training then?

EDIT: But yes, I stand by what I've said. Strength, muscle mass, lung capacity, speed, whatever, are individual traits. "On average" or "typically" doesn't apply when you're talking about an individual person. If someone can do it, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to. If they can't, don't let them. It's as simple as that.

Now do you see how I did not once mention gender in that whole thing there?

Ok, fine, lets look at it from a different angle.

Right now camps only have to deal with men.

Bring females into the equation. Instantly they have to have a womens area for sleeping, showering, etc.

And with my original point, basic training still costs the army money. But I realise women still do basic training to get into their support roles.

However, there is training AFTER basic training ya'know.

I agree if someone can do it, they should be able to, but logistically, not physically, its too much trouble. K? k.

Your argument was that they don't waste time weeding out who is physically fit and who isn't, which is exactly what basic training does. Doesn't matter if it's all male, all female, or mixed, literally the only thing that would have to be changed is to equalize standards for infantry.

However, if you want to talk about logistics - no, there would not have to be all sorts of separate amenities. If we're going to break down these ridiculous social notions about gender roles, surely we can break down the ridiculous taboo surrounding sexuality. Oh, someone saw some different crotch-luggage in the shower, ah, oh no, it's the end of the world, how will we ever function? You know, it's like, yeah, humans have different reproductive anatomy, whoopdy-fucking-do. It exists, and the light bouncing off of it and into your eyes can't possibly hurt you.

Oh look, its this thread again.Before I get quoted a gazillion times on "some women can handle it". Yeah, some, not all. The army tends to not want to waste time finding out. Its rare.

The army tends to not waste it's time find - what? What the fuck is basic training then?

EDIT: But yes, I stand by what I've said. Strength, muscle mass, lung capacity, speed, whatever, are individual traits. "On average" or "typically" doesn't apply when you're talking about an individual person. If someone can do it, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to. If they can't, don't let them. It's as simple as that.

Now do you see how I did not once mention gender in that whole thing there?

But the fact remains--the average woman is inferior in those respects to the average man (YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN)--and there simply are not enough women who are capable of the level of physical fitness required to justify the myriad of problems it would bring--sleeping quarters, bathrooms, inevitable sexual harassment, problems with unit cohesion, dangers of rape if captured, etc.

While there will always be women who CAN make the grade, the fact remains that as of now, there are not enough to justify it.

Once again, there does not have to be all sorts of separate facilities. See above.

 

[Kolby Jack]

I just learned today that women can't fight on the frontlines in wartime, they can only be supporting roles like MPs and whatnot. So I think women should have a choice if they fight on the frontlines or not if they sign up, because I'm guessing some women want to fight on the frontlines but make it their choice. So just wanted to see what other people thought on the matter is.

I think this is logical actually, have the generally stronger sex out getting killed, keep the main ingredient to reproducing out. It makes sense to do it, now, is that necessarily right, who knows. I do know that men tend to rape each other less than they would a woman though.

Also, I am not trying to be sexist, it's just logical, have the "tougher" of the sexes go out and defend us. I fully support women in the military, but in times of crisis or worldwar, yeah, this makes sens.

Although, yes, if it is a womans choice to go out, then sure, let 'em. I think those women should be allowed to sign up for the draft then too.

I'm pretty sure both sexes are "the main ingredient to reproducing"

So in the end of society, one male with 1000 females would be equally as preferable to 1 female with 1000 males?

 

[Dense_Electric]

So in the end of society, one male with 1000 females would be equally as preferable to 1 female with 1000 males?

I'm sorry, is this the end of society? We have hundreds of millions of people, I don't think you need to worry about a few women getting killed hurting our species chances of survival.

 

[Womplord]

I don't think the differences between male and female strength are understood well here. Nearly all of even the weakest men who have been trained could beat the strongest women. Bringing women into the front line is nothing more than politically correct stupidity. Women simply can't keep up.

 

[Dense_Electric]

I don't think the differences between male and female strength are understood well here. Nearly all of even the weakest men who have been trained could beat the strongest women. Bringing women into the front line is nothing more than politically correct stupidity. Women simply can't keep up.

I hate to just be ripping notes from MovieBob here, but you're a prime example of the people he was talking about - using the words "politically correct" as your shield so you can continue making sweeping generalizations about billions of individuals.

 

[artanis_neravar]

I just learned today that women can't fight on the frontlines in wartime, they can only be supporting roles like MPs and whatnot. So I think women should have a choice if they fight on the frontlines or not if they sign up, because I'm guessing some women want to fight on the frontlines but make it their choice. So just wanted to see what other people thought on the matter is.

I think this is logical actually, have the generally stronger sex out getting killed, keep the main ingredient to reproducing out. It makes sense to do it, now, is that necessarily right, who knows. I do know that men tend to rape each other less than they would a woman though.

Also, I am not trying to be sexist, it's just logical, have the "tougher" of the sexes go out and defend us. I fully support women in the military, but in times of crisis or worldwar, yeah, this makes sens.

Although, yes, if it is a womans choice to go out, then sure, let 'em. I think those women should be allowed to sign up for the draft then too.

I'm pretty sure both sexes are "the main ingredient to reproducing"

So in the end of society, one male with 1000 females would be equally as preferable to 1 female with 1000 males?

One male one thousand females, doesn't mean one is more important than the other, with out at least one of each you can't reproduce. Also by your logic the male is more important for reproduction, because the male can impregnate any number of woman, while the woman can only get pregnant once every 40 weeks

 

[Ryokai]

Once again, there does not have to be all sorts of separate facilities. See above.

That's ridiculous. You put male and female teenagers/young adults together without boundaries, you're not going to have an army--you're going to have an orgy. Aside from all kinds of societal/religious friction (yeah, just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it go away), you cannot seriously expect to have boys and girls sleep, crap, shower together and have it work as efficiently as a normal unit would. This is real life, not Starship Troopers.

Sexual harassment still remains a core issue, and there still is the risk of rape when captured--a risk far greater than a man would face.

 

[Najos]

But if they're on the frontlines who will do the cooking?

All joking aside, I'm not completely decided on this. Everyone that is saying, "Oh, they'd have to be in the same camps, blah, blah, blah, showers, blah." Well, I hate to break this to you, but camps in Iraq and Afghanistan already have women in them. MPs, supply, etc. Oh, and when I was there no one had fucking showers outside of a canteen of warm water and some baby wipes. And the, "Women aren't built like men" argument is awful too. Last time I checked, not all men are cut out for the military and they get weeded out. Do the same for women and the problem is solved.

My only real issue is cohesion. It is very difficult to operate under the circumstances that exist already, I couldn't imagine throwing a girl into the mix...especially a hot one. Guys are dumb, guys are dumber when they're getting shot at for six months and most likely not getting laid or even getting drunk. A shitload of problems would arise, but eventually, over time the problems would be solved and people would get used to it. So maybe it is worth it, I'm not sure. I know I wouldn't put a woman on my team if I could do it over again, but only because the guys on my team wouldn't know how to handle it and I might have died because they were too busy having a dick measuring contest or something.

 

[Kolby Jack]

So in the end of society, one male with 1000 females would be equally as preferable to 1 female with 1000 males?

I'm sorry, is this the end of society? We have hundreds of millions of people, I don't think you need to worry about a few women getting killed hurting our species chances of survival.

Just making a point, is all.

I don't think the differences between male and female strength are understood well here. Nearly all of even the weakest men who have been trained could beat the strongest women. Bringing women into the front line is nothing more than politically correct stupidity. Women simply can't keep up.

That is not even close to true. I'm in the US Navy, but I don't much value physical fitness so I usually pass by the bare minimum on my physical tests, and there are several women I know who are much more fit than I am.

 

[Dogstile]

Oh look, its this thread again.Before I get quoted a gazillion times on "some women can handle it". Yeah, some, not all. The army tends to not want to waste time finding out. Its rare.

The army tends to not waste it's time find - what? What the fuck is basic training then?

EDIT: But yes, I stand by what I've said. Strength, muscle mass, lung capacity, speed, whatever, are individual traits. "On average" or "typically" doesn't apply when you're talking about an individual person. If someone can do it, there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to. If they can't, don't let them. It's as simple as that.

Now do you see how I did not once mention gender in that whole thing there?

Ok, fine, lets look at it from a different angle.

Right now camps only have to deal with men.

Bring females into the equation. Instantly they have to have a womens area for sleeping, showering, etc.

And with my original point, basic training still costs the army money. But I realise women still do basic training to get into their support roles.

However, there is training AFTER basic training ya'know.

I agree if someone can do it, they should be able to, but logistically, not physically, its too much trouble. K? k.

Your argument was that they don't waste time weeding out who is physically fit and who isn't, which is exactly what basic training does. Doesn't matter if it's all male, all female, or mixed, literally the only thing that would have to be changed is to equalize standards for infantry.

However, if you want to talk about logistics - no, there would not have to be all sorts of separate amenities. If we're going to break down these ridiculous social notions about gender roles, surely we can break down the ridiculous taboo surrounding sexuality. Oh, someone saw some different crotch-luggage in the shower, ah, oh no, it's the end of the world, how will we ever function? You know, it's like, yeah, humans have different reproductive anatomy, whoopdy-fucking-do. It exists, and the light bouncing off of it and into your eyes can't possibly hurt you.

Hey, thats what you say.

You however, are not the hordes of media who will give the military a stupidly hard time over how they're "forcing" women to bathe with men. How they're "tempting rape" by having them sleep in the same quarters.

Christ, its a PR nightmare. If gender roles weren't judged anymore, then fine, you'd be right. But they're not, so women aren't allowed on the front lines. End of.

Stop living in a fantasy world, people in the real world are stupid. That includes me and you, everyone is going to freak out in some big way and generally, armies do not need that.

Edit:

You know what, I don't even know why i'm arguing. You're clearly set in your ways. Don't quote me anymore, I can't be bothered to continue what will become a shouting match

(Waits for inevitable last quote)

 

[AmrasCalmacil]

It depends, in my view.
Will the woman and the men around her be able to act professionally in all circumstances?
If a larger male gets wounded and the woman has to drag him to safety, will she be able to as well as a male soldier would be able to?

I hate to be sexist, as some people may call it, but I'm not sure if they could. And that goes for the men acting professionally around them as well.

Don't worry, though. I'm not sexist. Some of my best friends are female!

 

[Booze Zombie]

Yes, they should be able to... assuming the individual is suited to being a soldier.