Should women be able to fight on the frontlines?

[artanis_neravar]

Cool, except soldiers do get scared on the front lines. Knew you'd do another post. But whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

Just had to get that last word in didn't you?
Everyone will be scared under fire, soldiers just know how to channel that fear into something useful.

I'm sat here watching a film. I'm no longer discussing the debate, i'm now asking people to stop filling up my inbox.

So i'll ask you as well, stop filling up my inbox with useless messages.

If you stop responding to my messages I would have nothing left to quote. Also if you aren't going to contribute anything to the discussion would you kindly refrain from posting.

OT: As to the claims that woman will be raped if captured there are so many more tortures that can be done to both males and females that are so much worse than just being raped.

Fine, this will be my last post (OMG). Enjoy, and next time you decide to quote me more than once to get my attention, at the very least try to actually have it form a discussion. Happy trolling

Again calling someone else a troll is trolling

OT: Only some of [the western countries] permit women to fill active combat roles, including New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland. If it works for them why not for us?

 

[spartan231490]

Absolutely not. I don't care what kind of training you give, guys will always risk their lives more than they are supposed to and more than they should to save a woman.

 

[SillyBear]

Yes, if the entry requirements and standards are exactly the same. That's all I'm concerned about.

 

[Ryokai]

Cool, except soldiers do get scared on the front lines. Knew you'd do another post. But whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

Just had to get that last word in didn't you?
Everyone will be scared under fire, soldiers just know how to channel that fear into something useful.

I'm sat here watching a film. I'm no longer discussing the debate, i'm now asking people to stop filling up my inbox.

So i'll ask you as well, stop filling up my inbox with useless messages.

If you stop responding to my messages I would have nothing left to quote. Also if you aren't going to contribute anything to the discussion would you kindly refrain from posting.

OT: As to the claims that woman will be raped if captured there are so many more tortures that can be done to both males and females that are so much worse than just being raped.

Fine, this will be my last post (OMG). Enjoy, and next time you decide to quote me more than once to get my attention, at the very least try to actually have it form a discussion. Happy trolling

Again calling someone else a troll is trolling

OT: Only some of [the western countries] permit women to fill active combat roles, including New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland. If it works for them why not for us?

I can only speak for Israel--but the amount of combat roles women can do is severely limited, with little to no front line things in the army, and very hard barriers to pass in the Air force.

Karakal, the most combative a women can get, is generally regarded as a joke by infantry, and exists to take over guarding duties of other infantry units when those units go out to war.

As for the others--how many of those European countries have even HEARD of war in the last few decades? You're comparing peacetime armies with fighting ones.

 

[FWL_MeRc]

As I have not served in the Military but have planned global conquest etc. And I consider myself a somewhat educated man.

I am of 2 views.

Let them fight and die with the men. Let them suffer the brutality of any war. Let them bask in the glory of victory yadda yadda yadda.

Now its time to get real alot of the points here are sadly valid.

I am going to use the example of a drawn out war vs two powers of about equal strength. (World war II).

Supplies, they have to be made shipped to front lines. Women took up factory work for the war effort, a goal far nobler than marching to war. However should women also be forced to serve in the war. Either you will have an increase in the number of forces but not enough to do supplys. Or you have a steady mix. (History shows a steady mix isn't likly)

Men behave different around women and etc on the battlefield. Love etc doesn't quite come into it its a biological behaviourial trait in the majority of Hetrosexual Men (No offense to Gay Service men, I just have not read any research about that topic and I doubt there is any).

Media as a whole, stories of violence to female service men would be an excellent tool to incite and enrage a platoon demoraleize them etc.

I am not going to go into great depth about this topic. But alot of the research shows its a bad move. The ammenities is a useless excuse. Looking to any recent outbreak of a war with a major power is useless as it does not showcase examples of prolonged war.

I find it more amuseing that it is considered sexist and wrong to look at factual information on behavoural traits between the different genders.

To help you all think about this. I will apologise for the violent imagery I am about to suggest but think about it.

You and your platoon of mixed gender get bombarded, some are split up one of the females and a couple of the men get seperated (how it doesn't matter) So while your platoon is hunkering down in fox holes cover the enemy force of same gender troops rallys their captives and their CO has an idea on how to rattle your cage and hopefully force your platoon out of cover and into the killzone.

The shelling etc stops and all that can be heard is a woman screaming.

What do you do?

Maybe I am cold hearted but it is a tactic I would use in a battle situation. And what I would do in said situation. I would attempt to get my troops together to save her. While I am not military minded. I am also sure that a hurried charge into a possibly fortified enemy position is a bad move.

My two cents.

 

[DefinitelyPsychotic]

I don't see a problem with it, except for two things:

One, relationships could become of it, and we all know that a battlefield is not a place to propose...

Two, what if a woman is clearing out a house in enemy territory, and there is a male soldier inside of the building? They are too close to shoot each other, so they proceed to fight in hand-to-hand combat. Who do you think would win? I understand that woman in the military will be physically fit, but would they be fit enough to take down a full grown man, possibly twice her body-weight?

Depends who has the better training, and how well armored the guy is, a swift shot to the crotch will give the woman the upper had she needs, also agility will generally win over brute strength (My opinion I could be wrong)

True! There are many factors that could come into play. If the male soldier pulled out a knife, then things would get way more serious...

 

[Ryokai]

I don't see a problem with it, except for two things:

One, relationships could become of it, and we all know that a battlefield is not a place to propose...

Two, what if a woman is clearing out a house in enemy territory, and there is a male soldier inside of the building? They are too close to shoot each other, so they proceed to fight in hand-to-hand combat. Who do you think would win? I understand that woman in the military will be physically fit, but would they be fit enough to take down a full grown man, possibly twice her body-weight?

Depends who has the better training, and how well armored the guy is, a swift shot to the crotch will give the woman the upper had she needs, also agility will generally win over brute strength (My opinion I could be wrong)

True! There are many factors that could come into play. If the male soldier pulled out a knife, then things would get way more serious...

Look, unarmed combat and agility don't play so much into infantry combat these days--while they do have their parts, even brute strength is less important in war--an infantryman's greatest skills are stamina and endurance over strength, and the ability to function as a group and as an individual under high stress situations and fulfill their objectives.

 

[artanis_neravar]

OT: Only some of [the western countries] permit women to fill active combat roles, including New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland. If it works for them why not for us?

I can only speak for Israel--but the amount of combat roles women can do is severely limited, with little to no front line things in the army, and very hard barriers to pass in the Air force.

Karakal, the most combative a women can get, is generally regarded as a joke by infantry, and exists to take over guarding duties of other infantry units when those units go out to war.

As for the others--how many of those European countries have even HEARD of war in the last few decades? You're comparing peacetime armies with fighting ones.

New Zealand, Denmark, and Norway all had troops in Iraq, but I do see your point

 

[Ryokai]

New Zealand, Denmark, and Norway all had troops in Iraq, but I do see your point

HA! Take that, internets. SOMEONE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT I HAVE A POINT!

 

[Baneat]

If anyone decides what they want is to put themselves in danger on my behalf,

like hell would I stop them.

 

[chunkeymonke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military#Female_allowance_to_serve_active_duty

Mostly, people on this thread are just talking out their ass. There's been a lot of "common sense" knowledge that's already been disproven - take a look at cases of flight combat and sniping, for instance - and even if that weren't the case, you guys are aware that they no longer wrestle on the battlefield very often, right? Right.

Since when are flight combat and sniping the front lines??

 

[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.

Homosexuality. Bam!

Also, it depends, if it isn't a draft and they actually signed up to join the army, then I doubt it will be orgy central, but making a women's quarters shouldn't even be a problem. Frankly, if a guy can't cooperate with a girl, don't have them in the same unit?

Another also, I would believe females would be more mature than that if they join the army of their own free will. If a women's quarters and facilities really is too much of a problem, why not different times to shower or something? Guys then girls or vice versa?

To be honest, if I knew I would have to get up at 5:00am and run miles, I wouldn't waste precious sleep with orgy's. Who knows? It might teach these people responsibility and maturity.

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

 

[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.

Homosexuality. Bam!

Also, it depends, if it isn't a draft and they actually signed up to join the army, then I doubt it will be orgy central, but making a women's quarters shouldn't even be a problem. Frankly, if a guy can't cooperate with a girl, don't have them in the same unit?

Another also, I would believe females would be more mature than that if they join the army of their own free will. If a women's quarters and facilities really is too much of a problem, why not different times to shower or something? Guys then girls or vice versa?

To be honest, if I knew I would have to get up at 5:00am and run miles, I wouldn't waste precious sleep with orgy's. Who knows? It might teach these people responsibility and maturity.

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.

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

In theory yes in practice no. I don't have a problem with woman fighting on the front line. but the fact is that male soldiers, as a whole don't want them there and thats somthing you just can't fuck with. these are the people who help protect our way of life, its the hardest job on the planet and you have to be able keep these guys happy and focused.

the only way girls could get on the front lines if they could prove across all fields that they not only can handle themselves but they're presence actually improves the odds. the catch is male soliders won't take the chance to let them prove it because its there lives if it doesn't go right.

If you can't convince your own soliders to work with woman than it doesn't matter how much debate it back home, the girls aren't gonna fight.

the only way i see girls getting to do real fighting is if things get so bad that there litteraly isn't enough men to keep the front lines going...and this won't be a war on forign soil. this will be a war that hinges on the short term survival of the united states.

 

[LitleWaffle]

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.

Well how can you justify that opinion/statement without really giving them a chance? It is you're personal experience for the guys and sexism for the women. Women are just as capable at kicking ass, they just need to get proper training(hint hint army training hint hint).

Pretty much any person can make it to a certain level of fitness, just takes time and dedication. An obese man can become fit, it just takes time. You can't truly blockade women since everybody has the capability, some just require more effort. Hopefully, we can turn things around to improve the general fitness of the people in the US so that it requires less effort(which is trying to happen).

 

[Bravo 21]

I believe that they can serve on the front lines in Canada's armed forces, and I support this fully

 

[BigCat91]

No absolutely not, unless that woman can meet the average troop in terms of abilities. (The exception to the rule) I hate to break it to the idealists (because i think they are great), but saying that we should put women on the frontlines is a terrible desicion. Women are physically smaller, and less athletic than men on average. And when you are at war you need your squad to have your back, which means they need to be the fastest and strongest available. Most women can not carry a 200 pound man half a mile in under 8 minutes or what have you. That's simple fact. Now if there is a woman who can meet military standards or surpass them, than yes they should because they are someone you can count on to be physically reliable.

Do I respect service women absolutely, just as much as our survicemen. But simple fact is this is war, and in war you need your best out there. And it is not very common to find a woman with a bigger build and have better athletiscism than a man.

 

[Nouw]

If they're both physically and mentally capable, fuck to the yes. They should have the choice to join an army if they want to and just because they're woman isn't enough of a reason to stop them.

 

[Najos]

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.

It has been my personal experience that this sort of thing is not actually a problem. Now, I haven't been in the military, but I've worked a physically complex, DISGUSTING, demanding job that in most places is very male-only. (Visitors would comment on how many women we had on the floor, we were about 50/50 whereas almost everywhere else I heard of, there's no women working the processing floor.) There weren't really issues between the men and the women. (And some of the women were hot.) The women tended to dominate the men, however--overbearingly so. On different shifts, different dynamics would emerge.

It really depends on the personalities of the people involved and their ages/experience levels. If you're talking about combat teams of people in their early 20's, yeah there will probably be problems. (But you'll likely get problems in groups of just guys in their 20's.) If you're talking about teams of people in their mid 30's and older, likely no real problems.

Speaking as a woman, however, I would not want to have anything to do with combat operations until and unless I could get some really good hormones that would turn ye olde time of the month OFF.

Yeah, only one person on my team was over 25. I guess after a while it would become normal, but the first year or so would be hell for both the women and the men.

The biggest problem with the army (can't speak for the other branches, but I think they do the same thing) is that there are different physical standards for men and women. I forget the exact numbers, but I remember a perfect score for a two mile run was somewhere around 13 minutes for men, for women it was in the 15 minute area. I think sit ups were the same and push ups were insanely different, something like 70 for a man and 40 for a woman. Granted, these are for the perfect scores, the passing standards are lower.

The point is, as long as the military treats men and women differently, its members will treat them differently. The only way around it is real equality, but that shrinks the numbers of service members or lowers the standards quite drastically for men. It is a complicated issue that deals with the culture of the US military, which is incredibly hard to change.