Should women be able to fight on the frontlines?

[masher]

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'

Hey, wasn't my idea. I guess they just figured one's more humiliating than the other. Maybe men thought it up without consulting a woman in the first place. Though, some might consider Rape a fate worse than death.

 

[MatParker116]

They do with regularity in our forces here's one on patrol in Iraq:

 

[rapidoud]

Scientifically a bad idea, as men react differently when a woman is in danger compared to a man.

Most countries that do have them in the armed forces don't deploy them into direct combat.

 

[Chemical Alia]

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.

It's hard for me to care more in either situation, and it makes no sense to me why any properly trained soldier should. But I'm not a guy. To me, this argument sounds a lot like denying women frontline service by catering to the perceived weakness of the other gender.

Looking back on my life, I also don't feel that men have ever acted in an over-protective way towards me by their nature, with the exception of maybe my dad. Over big or small things.

 

[Astoria]

I think as long as a woman proves that she is capable of serving on a front line then she should be able to. I don't see how many of the problems couldn't be easily solved. The whole sharing facilities never seems to bother people in their own homes and frankly if men are prone to rape they don't deserve to be soldiers in my eyes. The whole developing relationships thing is already happening, soldiers have strong ties between each other already. As for the women being weaker thing, as I said before, if they pass a test proving that they can keep up in combat then they should be allowed to.

 

[Nerfherder17]

Surely if they're are people dumb enough to want to go on the frontline they should be allowed?

 

[SuperNova221]

While my immediate thought was yes, equality and all that.

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...)

Going to agree with this.

I see it myself a lot in my male friends. No women around? They act like normal twats. Women around? Immediate, noticable change where they spend all of their time trying to impress the woman. Even if they aren't interested in her. You want your soldiers focussed on combat and the mission, not on some nearby love interest that they are constantly trying to impress.

 

[Zaik]

The day I meet a woman that doesn't crumple like a tin can under real pressure, I'd consider it.

 

[siahsargus]

Females are smaller
(harder to hit)
with less muscle mass
(harder to hit)
and don't react to combat the same way men do
(read: the best snipers are robots, female, or gay. Men apparently should be the only ones let on the front lines because they evolved to beat their wifes to death for golf trophies.)

 

[Lenin211]

The current excuse is that "Women are not emotionally capable of combat."

I disagree entirely

 

[Merkavar]

i cant see any problem with women on the front lines.

as long as the army etc comes down hard of rape, sexual abuse and harrassment and that the women pass the same physical and mental tests as the men do.

CAPTCHA how the hell do i do an omega