Should women be able to fight on the frontlines?

[KingmanHighborn]

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.

Here is the thing though the military doesn't just teach you to run, shoot, and take orders. In a real wartime situation, the training is designed to break and desensatize the soldier to where such 'morale' affecting loses are marginalized. The military can bend and break the mindset and wills of Frank, Jerry and Jane into soldier 1,2, and 3 without much issue to the point mind wise on the battlefield they are gender neutral enough. Add to that men have NATURAL larger muscle mass, that doesn't mean by the end of basic a women is still going to be a danty wallflower and the men are going to be Hulk Hogan. So again you can beat it into a person regardless of gender to get the neccessary strength, stamina, and utlitization skills they need to win the day. As far as handling stress and fatigue, I'd like to see that study, because a woman can handle a lot more stress then men, and handle it with a cool head.

 

[Ph33nix]

only if they can do exactly the same job as a man would and is not a detriment to the unit

 

[AtheistConservative]

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?

The problem goes beyond whether or not women can keep up in a combat. Even if you only have one woman in a unit, the unit must provide separate showers, sleeping areas, and toilets. It doesn't really make sense to build/provide this if you're going to have only a tiny fraction of the unit be female. Next problem is that it will be a tiny fraction, and feminists will complain that this is discriminatory and that the proportion of women should be raised. So the standards are reduced until the PC police are happy. Third problem is that if you qualify for infantry you can be assigned anything. Not just a nice, light M16/M4 but it can be your job to carry a mortar or other heavy weapon.
Fourth problem, relationships would develop. The idea that a group of young men and women who are going to be in close proximity for long periods of time, isolated by the surrounding culture would not produce relationships is absurd. Then comes the obvious problems of superiors always giving their sweetheart a pass from the jobs they don't want, i.e. cleaning the toilets. Then when breakups occur you have the opposite problem.

 

[Uncreation]

This thread has been doen before. Several times. just saying

Yeah, sure, if they want to, and can handle it, why not.

 

[jackknife402]

Yes. /thread

But seriously, we've got that whole equality thing right? Well then let's let them get shot at as well as ourselves. If they want to fight, let them fight. If they want to be homemakers, let them be homemakers. If they want to pee standing up, by god let them pee standing up(though it'll be messy.)

 

[Ashsaver]

Should we be able to fight? Yes
Should we fight war in the first place? No

 

[Iron Lightning]

I don't know very much about military unit dynamics but one solution occurs to me: segregation. If our army is composed largely of all male and all female units it would eliminate most of the problems associated with mixed groups. Problems such as segregated facilities, battlefield relationships, and disruption of squad dynamics due to male protective instincts. If enough women would fit the grade to make this a worthwhile practice, I cannot say.

also:

Now how in the hell am I supposed to type an infinity symbol?

 

[balanovich]

Isn't the idea that a male soldier-of-war would most likely be tortured or killed, while a female soldier-of-war would most likely be raped, or something?

Yes it absolutely is.

But we could give them suicide pills. Men should have those.

 

[Earthbound]

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.

This is an idea caused by the environment in which people are raised. This can be countered in the long term by changing societal norms and, in the short term, by desensitizing soldiers to situations like this.

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?

If a soldier in this situation runs out of cover to try to drag this person to safety, regardless of gender, the military has failed to train them properly. The sniper is bold enough to take multiple shots from the same position, so any competent soldier would eliminate the threat before dealing with the casualties.

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.

Back this up with a report or study. The burden of proof falls on the person who makes the claim.

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.

The thoughts and actions of sociopaths are in no way relevant to this situation.

 

[Saelune]

Those who are capable of frontline combat should be in frontline combat. Some women are capable of that, and not all men are capable of frontline.

 

[iDoom46]

I'm seeing a lot of talk about women's physical inferiority and the psychological implications of women on the battlefield.

I'll just say this; If it is so much more traumatizing for a man to watch a woman die (I'm not 100% buying that) then wouldn't that also make the enemy less likely to fire upon the woman?
All I'm saying is, if its so bad just to watch a woman die, wouldn't it be far more worse if you were the one who actually killed her?

As for unit cohesiveness, this is the 21st century, we've grown up with men and women having equal rights, we're all adults here, we can deal with these issues. I'm fairly sure that my squadmate's lack of a penis is really going to bother me in a combat situation. I doubt very much that those "funbags" will be too distracting.

Frankly, how I see it is, if a woman has proven her mettle and can handle the task, then sure, let her fight on the front lines if she so wishes.

 

[MissDK]

Isn't the idea that a male soldier-of-war would most likely be tortured or killed, while a female soldier-of-war would most likely be raped, or something?

Uhmm not sure I quite understood you. So is that meant as an argument FOR women not being at the frontline? I am a woman myself, and I must say that I'd rather get raped than killed and tortured? O__o'

 

[thethird0611]

Ive actually heard quite a few things on this topic by some male soldiers (Who have served). Some very real points to.

A first point, is they said just being around women in the battlefield made them think of "giving them the one up". Your out on the battlefield for months and thats what happens.

Another point brought up is the needs the women would need. Their time of the month products, certain hygiene products, etc.

So, two points that ive heard from soldiers, though I have read news about a unit here (U.S.A.) actually having women in it. So, yeah.

 

[KingmanHighborn]

I still say proper training and this whole women vs. men thing is fixed. Give the military a few weeks and some turned heads they'll turn that women into a man's equal in mental and physical neccessities. You won't have the 'distraction' as a few weeks of hard basic will knock it out of you. Again, the role of military training in real declared wars is to desensitize the soldier to the fact that killing is going to happen and you can train it into a soldier to have unit comradery to be gender neutral. As far as the arguement that women have to have seperate showers/sleeping areas/bathrooms/etc. I have news for ya. Real war scenario that won't happen. Also most soldiers have to use the wild to do thier bussiness. LAst I checked I didn't see a women's tree, and men's tree with a convient sign carved into it.

 

[Frotality]

uh...no. well, not entirely no...ill explain.

warfare should not now, nor ever be a means to facilitate social change. it isnt a matter of "choice": women sure as hell should not be allowed to 'choose' to be on the frontlines; they should be able to prove themselves capable of serving (and for their own female-only unit), but the simple fact of the matter is that most women would pale in comparison to what the average male soldier could achieve physically and only a few women could make the cut. what im saying is that who is on the frontlines should have everything to do with ability and nothing to do with who wants to play soldier, man or women. the military should not ever have to make any sort of adjustments to tactics, deployment, or whatever else needed to allow soldiers of both genders to coexist with relative peace based on "because its not fair". your there to serve; the military decides what to do with you, and if you dont like it, you deal with it or leave. you do what the military thinks your best at or what they need someone to do, and very rarely will a woman's most valuable talents be in line with the infantry standard of quality.

america and indeed humanity has its armed forces built around a history of "men fight for the women and children back home". it aint fair, but national defense isnt the kind of thing you want to screw with just because a few exceptional women are capable of being soldiers.

 

[Knusper]

If a woman can complete the training as well as the men, why not take her? I have asked this to soldiers before, but I didn't get very good answers.

Side Note: When I went to the space museum in Leicester last year, I learned that before the first moon landings when they were selecting the fittest men for the job, they also tested a team of women who beat all the men on nearly every course!

Thought you might want to know that.

 

[Crystalite]

hm, ok, speaking as a girl:

I really really hate war. I know that things are different in America, but here we do not like the military. (Germany by the way, ironic, isn´t it?)
That said, why would any woman want to fight on the front lines? Why would anyone?
I am very very suspicious of anyone who actually wants to go where the killing is, regardless of gender. People forced to fight on the frontlines have my pity, but people actually volunteering for that?

Especially just for beeing equal?
That means that these women are actually willing to kill, just to prove they are equal to men.
If beeing inferior to men means i´m not a killer, I´ll take that option, thank you.

 

[Wolf-AUS]

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.

If I was a women, I would NOT want be any part of the infantry knowing what it's like. I also don't know a women who could pass the infantry school and seeing some of the going through basic training, I expanded on this in the other topic, but sure let them try.

I know I wouldn't be going anywhere near the infantry as a female. Also, as part of standing orders, females must have access to a shower every x amount of days, I'm not sure how you'd swing that on a 5 day standing patrol or a multitude of other infantry related activities where the closest thing to sanitation you have access to is your baby wipes.

 

[VanityGirl]

hm, ok, speaking as a girl:

I really really hate war. I know that things are different in America, but here we do not like the military. (Germany by the way, ironic, isn´t it?)
That said, why would any woman want to fight on the front lines? Why would anyone?
I am very very suspicious of anyone who actually wants to go where the killing is, regardless of gender. People forced to fight on the frontlines have my pity, but people actually volunteering for that?

Especially just for beeing equal?
That means that these women are actually willing to kill, just to prove they are equal to men.
If beeing inferior to men means i´m not a killer, I´ll take that option, thank you.

That's a bit ridiculous. Please don't call people who've fought for their countries killers. It's very disrespectful.
And some people like to fight and die for their countries so they can protect their loved ones back home. I highly doubt people say "I wanna kill me some [insert race]!"
Sometimes they have to kill and I've never met a soldier who has liked to do it.