Should women be able to fight on the frontlines?

[LitleWaffle]

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.

Separate facilities isn't really a huge issue for this.

The fact is, is that it IS a big issue. It's a logistical nightmare. And seperate facilities are just one of the many issues it would bring--and you'd better be damn sure that the soldiers are going to be screwing every chance they get (it happens in the mixed Karakal unit and in artillery--and anywhere in the army where young men and women with raging hormones are together).

CAN it be done? Yes. Is it practical and worth it? No.

Well, since you never proved that separate facilities are actually an issue, I wait for your logic.

And for the screwing, block them off? Having separate facilities should help with that, and wouldn't there be a night watch or something? Could easily catch any of those desperate hormone addicts. If they don't have a night watch already, that's pretty stupid, considering people might try to ditch, or steal or something.

Explain how it isn't practical and worth it. Sort of just sounds like a sexism thing right there. Why would you bring up a point and not explain it whatsoever?

"It IS a big issue" Alright, why. "It's a logistical nightmare". Alright, why. "And separate facilities are just one of the many issues it would bring--"

You haven't explained anything. How could anybody accept an argument that doesn't provide any explanation?

I'll explain why it is practical and worth it.

Women are just as capable physically as men are. If you have never seen a powerful women, I pity your isolation. Women are just as capable athletes as men are in almost every aspect, and with a potential to be better at flexibility. The fact that women are women should not be a concern. So why not have potentially more soldiers to help with wars if they are willing to and just as capable?

I'll explain why separate housing really isn't an issue.

Build another quarter for Women around the same size as the men's, not really expensive, and allows for more capable soldiers. Showering isn't a problem, sleeping isn't a problem, orgies are less likely, and it allows more soldiers.

I'll explain how making units could go.

1. Find the difference between immature and mature males currently.
2. Put mature males with females
3. Put immature males with males
4. If lack of mature males, pair them with really mature females.

Not. That. Difficult. And I explained the reasoning behind my argument.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Women who make the cut? Sure. But there should be a cut to make.

 

[Grey_Focks]

As a soldier in the IDF, (Go Givati Brigades!), I've heard a lot about this from the Karakal girls (the only infantry unit that allows girls in). The fact is, the average girl has smaller lungs and much less muscle mass than a man--frankly, they can't keep up with men in combat, giving them a huge disadvantage.

Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule--however, not enough of them to justify the expense and hassle of a frontline female combat unit--which is why even the Karakal infantry is always kept back from the frontlines during war.

Yea, pretty much this. We had a few women sailors in the US navy, but then again, it's the navy, not frontline combat. I'm all for equality, but when it comes to battle, you just don't risk people's lives because "it's fair". One weak link in a squad can get that whole squad killed, and as unfair as it is, women are not genetically predisposed to fighting.

 

[chowderface]

Oh hey, this thread again. I guess when I weighed in on the last version, it didn't stick.

They've tried putting men and women in frontline squads together. The women got along just fine, but the MEN caused problems; they'd take unreasonable risks and compromise operations to protect the women. Basically, by keeping the women out of it, we get more troops back alive.

Plus, relegating women to "support roles" doesn't necessarily mean they won't see frontline action (troops often need support right there in the thick of it, usually medical), it just means that when men react the way they inevitably will anyway, it's just as much because they're a medic as that they're a woman.

 

[SFR]

Yes, because it seems to work all the time in science fiction movies.

EDIT: Why is it that every time I read what I just wrote I can't help but think it in a sarcastic inflection? That's not what I intended, FWI.

 

[FaithorFire]

If women want the full equality and rights to fight on the front lines, then I think we need to take the equality one step further. We should start drafting girls into military service out of high school or college, so that women drafted+volunteered = men volunteered.
Then we don't so much "allow women a choice" as we do force them into combat in the name of gender equality.

 

[Kolby Jack]

I suggest all the people who claim that "they should be equal" and "if they want to serve let em serve" etc etc etc go check out Moviebob's latest Big Picture video (about the black guy in Thor). He makes a great point about an ideal world that applies here quite nicely.

Yes, IN AN IDEAL WORLD it would make sense to allow (capable) women to serve on the front lines with the men because they'd be able to cooperate and performance would not be affected, but as Bob said: WE DO NOT LIVE IN AN IDEAL WORLD.

Gender bias is very real and permeates in every aspect of our lives along with the many of other biases we have, even if we don't know we have them. Add that to the fact that all branches of the US military have (sometimes MUCH) lower physical standards for women (in the Navy only sit-ups are close to equal) so just passing through boot camp doesn't qualify you for combat, and there's no practical reason for allowing front line service for women.

Basically: Yes, equality everywhere is a nice enough thought, but in this case it is not practical at all.

 

[FaithorFire]

Oh look, its this thread again.

As stated above, its because it has a psychological effect on the men fighting, plus women aren't built like we are. People who don't understand that should study the human body more. Men have bigger muscle mass, respond better to stress and fatigue and their are studies that prove all of this.

Sorry women, just sign up to the supply lines. Plenty of supply units see combat.

Edit:

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.

Rationality and reason have no place in the irrationally-progressive forums here dogstile. Keep logic out of escapistmagazine!!
I agree totally with you, just to be clear.

 

[KiraTaureLor]

It comes down to that women are genetically smaller than men. What this means is that women soldiers in front line combat have problems keeping up with men in a combat situation. there are also different problems that arise such as the male tendency to want to protect females and as such if a female soldier goes down it's more of a shock to the male troops morale. But I like what were doing now with the military in terms of the women soldiers and I see no reason to change it just so we can say were politically correct.

I agree with this comment.

 

[Vrud]

If the woman is strong enough. Most women aren't, but some are.

 

[gamer_parent]

it's because we are culturally hardwired to value a woman's life higher than that of a man. Ever heard of the phrase "women and children first"? Sure, we have, for the most part, eliminated the conscious sexism that leads to things like laws that stop women from voting. We know, intellectually, that women are capable of being as competent, as ferocious, and as combat effective as a man if conditioned to. But we're talking about thousands of years of cultural heritage here. It's hard to overcome that stigma that women are more vulnerable than men and are therefore in need of more protection, even if said women is fully capable of kicking your ass.

i.e. back in college, I did Kyokushin Karate, and one of the instructors was this woman who was a 4th degree blackbelt. Let me tell you, she's pretty damn scary in a fight. But even then, a lot of the new guys there had this instinctive urge to hold back when fighting her even after seeing her shatter concrete with her bare hands. Hopefully for the newbie, they only make that mistake once, because she makes you PAY for that.

 

[icame]

I'm honestly surprised they aren't. Even more surprised I there isn't some overblown feminist's raging about it. My opinion on the matter is that if they want to fight on the front lines, let em'. I don't see why not.

 

[gyroscopeboy]

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"

Not any more dude, there's enough sperm in cold storage that all the men could die out and women could repopulate earth by themselves.

 

[DanielDeFig]

1. What country? (Example: mandatory service for both men and women in Israel)

2.Once you're in the army it seems idiotic to restrain the ones that represent half the human population.

3. It should be possible for both men and women to join the army of their country, but neither gender should be picked out to be forced/not allowed to join.

 

[gamer_parent]

it's because we are culturally hardwired to value a woman's life higher than that of a man. Ever heard of the phrase "women and children first"? Sure, we have, for the most part, eliminated the conscious sexism that leads to things like laws that stop women from voting. We know, intellectually, that women are capable of being as competent, as ferocious, and as combat effective as a man if conditioned to. But we're talking about thousands of years of cultural heritage here. It's hard to overcome that stigma that women are more vulnerable than men and are therefore in need of more protection, even if said women is fully capable of kicking your ass.

i.e. back in college, I did Kyokushin Karate, and one of the instructors was this woman who was a 4th degree blackbelt. Let me tell you, she's pretty damn scary in a fight. But even then, a lot of the new guys there had this instinctive urge to hold back when fighting her even after seeing her shatter concrete with her bare hands. Hopefully for the newbie, they only make that mistake once, because she makes you PAY for that.

I don't understand the problem with "Women and children first"? The idea that chivalry in an age that lacks most forms of decency is a bad thing seems incomprehensible to me. I think we should ALL sacrifice our lives for our children. In reference to the women part, for me personally, I'd always sacrifice my life for my wife. Perhaps it is cultural, but I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

I believe I have a more unique idea on gender roles. And ironically it is based off of Biblical principles. the best way to describe it is by thinking of a house. The guy is the foundation or cornerstone of the house. Upon him, everything else is constructed. Without him, there is no foundation; and should he be a "horrible husband" than the family will be rocked horribly when turmoil hits. The wife is the framework of the house. She's the walls, the paint, the interior design. A foundation may be required to have a stable home, but a slab of concrete is hardly a home. It takes the sophistication of a wife to make it a place you'd want to live.

Now a few notes on that concept. A: it can be applied to homosexuals and the like too (aka, husband and wife are fill ins, not requirements). B: it doesn't ACTUALLY outline any specific roles. The point isn't that men have certain roles and women have other roles, it's that in a relationship they assume differing roles naturally. Neither of these roles are more important than the other, and are in fact equal. For without either of them, the family will not be stable.

I also heard another Biblical principle where one is the head of responsibility while the other is the head of authority. Guess which gender's supposed to be which!

either way, discriminate against women I do not. Men and women are equal, you can't deny that. But they're also different. If you try to deny they're differences... well... you probably aren't married.

Look, you're entitled to whatever views that you want to have about what are proper gender roles and what not, but that is precisely the reason why women are not allowed on frontline combat. That is simply the truth. I'm not even saying it's a good or bad thing. But that is exactly where this is all coming from.

The idea that women need to be protected is in itself stemmed from the notion that women are less capable of protecting herself, and thus needs the protection of someone else stronger. (i.e. a man) That might be all well and good when you're talking about how to treat your wife or your daughter, or someone who clearly fills a different role in your life. But if this is how you carry on in situations where a person of any gender might not just be your colleague, but also your equal in terms of the role you fill, that generates problems when it comes to how you treat them.

Again, to use the martial art example, I have met many martial artists who are women who are fully capable of doing a lot of damage to a guy. The worst mistake you can make in THAT situation is to underestimate her because of her frame or her gender.

Yes, men and women are hardwired differently, but that is not a reason for placing different social values on them. That is, differentiation does not mean stratification.

In your normal everyday life, most people you meet will not fill the same kind of role simply because of the context of the situation. Your boss is clearly your boss, your subordinate is clearly your subordinate, your friend is your friend, and so on. Because of the differences in contexts and circumstances, you have a default stratification that happens, whether you like it or not.

In a military unit, any kind of stratification beyond rank and ability is DEADLY to the cohesion of the unit. And until our society can overcome that stratification, women will never be able to serve on the front lines. It's honestly that simple.

The question is, do you WANT to not do that. I personally feel that it is only fair to do so in certain circumstances, but that is asking a lot from a lot of other people who were raised to think differently.

 

[alandavidson]

In theory, as long as they can equal men in all aspects of military life, then there's no reason why not.

However, problems arise when combining men and women in a war-zone I would think. Relationships would arise which would not be conducive for either soldier to do their jobs, or worse, rape would probably increase.

Then there's the whole issue of toilets and other facilities that cannot really be shared, as well as the idea that supposedly men act differently when women are at risk in war, doing stupid stuff (although i cant see why a man would risk himself for his mate any less than he would for a female soldier, but I'm not an expert...)

That

As a soldier in the IDF, (Go Givati Brigades!), I've heard a lot about this from the Karakal girls (the only infantry unit that allows girls in). The fact is, the average girl has smaller lungs and much less muscle mass than a man--frankly, they can't keep up with men in combat, giving them a huge disadvantage.

Obviously, there are exceptions to the rule--however, not enough of them to justify the expense and hassle of a frontline female combat unit--which is why even the Karakal infantry is always kept back from the frontlines during war.

And that.

 

[omgtempname]

4 pages and I've yet to see a post counter the argument on the first page that simply says, psychologically men will take unnecessary risks to save a women that they wouldn't do for another man. Someone brought up a great example which I'll rephrase into a question for MEN ONLY. Hell let's use a scenario straight out of movie that ironically involves a women kicking some ass.

Let's say were walking though a tiny town and a sniper wounds your fellow men in the knee. You all duck behind a building but the wounded man is still in the open. The sniper proceeds to torture him with non fatal shots to bait someone to go rescue him and then shoot the rescuer. The man is screaming. How tempted are you to give in and risk to save that man.

Now it's a women screaming instead. Did you just get your self shot?

Now this isn't to say that some men can view some women in equal enough fashion that they can desensitize themselves to women in pain on the same level as seeing a man in pain, but the reality is, most can't. Those in the military are already move protective in general than non military and even more less likely to desensitize themselves.

Even a man so tuff and manly that would not only would he not care if his best friend was shot, he would actually go out of his way to laugh and shoot him for the fun of it would still have a hard time watching a women stub her toe without jumping to her rescue.

Someone did bring up a good point that this psychological affect diminishes with age, but the reality is most of these guys are young.

In a total war, the benefits of women on a front line might be better than the negative effects, since a total war, everyone is more likely to be desensitized, but we haven't had a total war since WWII.