Women in Frontline Combat?

[fooddood3]

I don't see why not, it's worked perfectly fine here in America.

 

[Haydyn]

The cons of women serving frontline is too much of a risk. This is likely the only issue that I think women should not do something that men do. I said should rather than could, because I do believe women can be physically and mentally equiped enough to serve on the frontlines. It's the high potential for rape, the risk of losing huge moral when injury strikes a female, hell I wouldn't want to be a woman serving. Picture this:

Out at the post, which happens to be in a hot ass desert, 95% of your fellow soldiers are male. Do you realize how much sexual harrasment those women are going to have? Then if they do get captured, what are you going to expect?

Women can, but shouldn't be in frontline combat. Maybe an all female force could work. But from our current situation, I smell disastor.

Plus, shaved heads on women? Are they trying to turn me gay?/joke

 

[Booze Zombie]

Sure, get women out there shooting people in the face. If they want to.
The whole strength thing is bullshit, by the way. If a woman does the training for a combat role, she will obtain the skill and form for a combat role.

 

[Frankster]

I don't see why not, it's worked perfectly fine here in America.

The whole Jessica Lynch debacle proves it's NOT perfectly fine in America of all places (if your comment was sarcastic, my bad).

Israeli army seems the best example of an army effectively integrating female soldiers into its ranks without fuss or special treatment.

 

[Innegativeion]

Women are weaker than males in the same way that (depending on your point of view) coke and/or pepsi is better that the other. IE: It's not that much.

The difference in development of upper body strength between the sexes is no where near the level it would have to be to justify selectively recruiting male front-liners over female front-liners. I'm fairly sure females are supposed to be more dextrous than males too, which surely would be an asset on a battlefield.

Honestly, I never understood *why* front-line soldiers are traditionally male.

 

[Antwerp Caveman]

Look at some of the strongest women in fiction.
Samus Aran
Xenia Onatopp

Nuff said.

 

[Kingsman]

America

Wrong country, friend. Australia is a bit different in terms of handling their military, to say the very least.

Australia has a military? (I keed, I keed...)

There's a very important reason that women have, as a general rule, not been allowed in the U.S. Army, and that's that if a fully-equipped male soldier is downed in the middle of a battlefield with only one fully-equipped female soldier, it entirely comes down to if she has the muscle and strength to pick that guy up- all 200+ pounds of him- and run to safe cover.

Almost every time, she has not. I won't say EVERY time, because I don't personally know, but enough times to make the notion unpopular.

This isn't to say that there's no place for women in armed combat, because I know a fantastic girl of a friend's family who's currently in the Air Force, but hey, just something to consider, Australia:

Which would you rather have dragging you off a battlefield, a man or a woman? Don't dodge the question with "Whoever's fitter or larger" or whatever crap, if that was all you knew, two possible draggers, one man, one woman, which would you choose?

 

[Treblaine]

Equality in all areas, ey? Let me ask you a question.

A women get´s pregnant. The woman wants to keep it. The man wants to abort it.

Which one has the right?

Err

Fertilisation =/= Gestation

the man had the choice on fertilisation, it is not a continuous thing it happens in an instant as a direct result of jizzing in her taco. He made that decision when he didn't take precautions, like pulling out in time.

Abortion is not "counter decision" to fertilisation.

But the gestation part is 100% up to her as it is 100% her uterus being used for it.

This isn't a moral dilemma for me. The foetus doesn't begin producing neurotransmitters till about 25th week so consciousness is impossible, they never had an emotion or thought or "soul". So it's the woman's pasture, it's mainly her decision if to carry it to term.

I will say though if they two parents are not together and the mother wants to claim alimony then she will also have to accept that the father will have 50% choice on the the decision of that child's life. That means the father MUST be allowed time with his child and if is is somehow unfit for that then that ALSO extend to alimony.

Either she includes the father in her child life or not, she can't just take his money and nothing else. Fathers are FAR FAR more than a weekly court mandated cheque.

I say alimony should be replaced with quality time as standard, as frankly the ability to "buy your way out" of paternal responsibility does nothing but empower the rich and victimise the poor.

 

[Xisin]

Personally I don't believe that females should serve on the frontline of combat. If a woman is in a combat scenario and gets injured it will more than likely affect the male soldiers psyche differently then if another male soldier was wounded and may cause them to make more rash decisions than they normally would.

This is true somewhat; also true that men thought women shouldn't work at some point in time. It's something that can be trained off.

The physically able thing is just plain stupid. Sorry no other way to put it. Every type of soldier has to reach a certain level of physical capability. As long as the person passes that, male or female, let them go fight to their hearts content.

To say since a lot of women can't do something, none should be allowed to, baffles my mind.

 

[Xisin]

As you already pointed out, they are generally not as strong as males. Men would take more risks to protect them thus putting their own lives on the line.
Plus they would need separate facilities not to mention the prevalence of rape of women in the military.
Basically its just a huge hassle and creates a lot of unnecessary risks just for the sake of appeasing a few chicks egos.

However, if another world war broke out, another draft introduced, then yeah, women had better have their asses on the front line. If my ass is forced into service then theirs had damn well better be too.

Sorry for the double, but your comment literally drove me a bit batty. So if I decided to join the military, by free choice, I should not be able to be on the front lines because it's a hassle. Despite being mentally and physically prepared. But if there's a war, I should be forced onto to the front lines against my will, even if I was a cheerful anti-violent housewife? This makes no sense to me.

 

[Drago-Morph]

I don't see why not, it's worked perfectly fine here in America.

American women aren't allowed to be combat troops, they can only participate in support roles that may or may not (most likely not) see combat if the circumstances are out of control.

 

[Ironic]

For this, I refer to Terry Schappert when I say that the military in not a place for political hanky panky. It's a death machine. It should only be changed if the changes make it deadlier and more resilient. Otherwise, fuck you and your politically correct bullshit.

Should women serve on the frontlines? Doubtful. Unless their physical fitness requirements are brought up to equal those of the men, fuck no. Even then, there is no personal space between soldiers on the frontlines, which means there will most likely be some sexual tension (regardless of most military women being very not-pretty). Sexual tension may reduce the military's deadliness.

I think this post sums up pretty much the entire issue. If you can be used as a weapon, you can be in the military. Less effective stuff gets replaced, just look at how big modern armies' budgets are, with a large amount on research.

 

[Jonabob87]

I say yes. As much as I dislike Gillard, I like her opinion on this.
There really is no reason women shouldn't be on the frontline.

Personally I don't believe that females should serve on the frontline of combat. If a woman is in a combat scenario and gets injured it will more than likely affect the male soldiers psyche differently then if another male soldier was wounded and may cause them to make more rash decisions than they normally would.. In most cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires pysichal skill that most women just have.

What you're referring to is called "Nightingale Syndrome", and if soldiers are properly trained it wouldn't be a risk.
Also, you're assuming that ALL females are physically weaker then ALL males. Which is not the case. If a woman is apt and able, why shouldn't she serve?

You have to generalise when you're talking about such large numbers and MOST women are physically weaker than most men. Women are also more prone to stress, although women can also become very protective over others (particularly men, funnily enough).

I've no problem with women in the military but I also feel that people fit certain roles.

 

[Drago-Morph]

well... If

1.they live up to the same standards
2.get deployd seperately from men (all fem. baces and units,for logistical porpeses)

Then i dont see why not.

Also please stop making the argument about we're using guns instead of swords and maces, physical effort is still required even in modern combat, being in the infantry i'sint about being rambo or the terminator. i mean you still have to march with about a hundred and so pounds all over you for tens of miles in the desert heat/jungle/snow, and guns produce recoil as well and you need ammo for the guns.and there is also a matter of CQC to worry about,and the list just goes on and on...you see thechnology dosent do EVERYTHING for us.

That's true, but a fit and trained woman can accomplish all that. As can a fit and trained man. If you're not fit or trained, you can't do that, regardless of gender.

The main argument against strength is that women won't be able to fight men on the battlefield, but that's pretty ridiculous, due to that silly "training" thing that soldiers go through. The one that let's even small men become strong enough to fight, and does the same for women. Plus, women are more dexterous and faster, so they can utilize that instead of strength.

And there is emotional training that can reduce sexual tension, but it's not really there in the army due to very few women. It could be implemented if women were let in.

 

[The Apothecarry]

While I agree that women should be allowed to serve at the front, I hardly believe that "realistic" is the proper word in that context. Maybe "equal" or "fair?" One cannot really say that the concept of women on the front is unrealistic.

If a woman enlists in the military to fight for and defend her beliefs, I'm not going to stop her.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Recently Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard recently announced that Women being in frontline combat should be allowed in frontline combat as it is "realistic".

Link to Story [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gillard-backs-women-in-combat-20110412-1dc1f.html]

Personally I don't believe that females should serve on the frontline of combat. If a woman is in a combat scenario and gets injured it will more than likely affect the male soldiers psyche differently then if another male soldier was wounded and may cause them to make more rash decisions than they normally would.. In most cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires physical skill that most women just have. But on the other hand if they can keep up, why not?

The media is semi behind the idea at the moment, but i wonder what will happen when the first female combatant to get killed is announced or one is captured an tortured?

The link above says that it would be "symbolic" if the men and women fought together, but i don't believe the enemy will think that way, I believe that they would try and target the women more than men KNOWING that it will damage morale more.

What are your thoughts on women in frontline combat situations?

A: Women have a higher pain tolerance and higher threshold against chemical damage and disease.
B: Women have a generally shorter profile which means they are less likely to be hit by enemy fire and shrapnel.
C: Women are generally far more likely to keep their edge and cool in combat situations.
D: Females are typically psychologically more sound than their male counterparts.

E: I can guarantee you that if female enlistment in the army were to shoot up to the same numbers as male enlistment, you'd get a whole lot less warcrimes being committed.

F: The modern battlefield is about organization, control, effective leadership, multitasking and political discourse (PR) ... I have yet to see a male be better at any of those than their female counterparts.

G: Men typically lack a woman's dexterity ... and due to having (typically) smaller hands means far greater ability for fine or complex hand manipulation activities or mechanical operations.

Might have agreed with you if the modern battlefield was about running with around with an Estoc longblade and having to punch through a person's heavy armour or bludgeon them to death through their armour using a halberd or axe .... but no.

Fine motor skills and psychologically sound combatants win the day ... and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find these talents in most males over female soldiers.

 

[chiefohara]

Women have already fought on the frontlines in war.

There were women on the frontlines in the defence of Stalingrad. There were woman fighting from Cuman na mban in the Easter rising in 1916 in ireland. Women fought against the facists in the Spanish revolution and Even in the old days Celtic women used to go screaming into battle alongside the men.

As for the strength debate... i think its endurance thats more important as opposed to raw phyiscal strength. You only need to be strong enough to lug your kit everywhere, you don't have to lift mountains. Also the most decorated US soldier in WW2 and a medal of honour recipient was Audie Murphy who was only 5 feet 5.5 inches (166.4 cm) and 110 pounds (50 kg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy
So don't think raw physical strength should be an overriding factor.

Also i've been trained by female NCO's and as far as i was concerned they were just as good as their male counterparts. (there were some bad ones, but hell there are plenty of crap male ones as well so it balances itself out in my opinion)

There is a higher drop out rate for women in the military here, but the ones who do stay on and pass the training are just as good as the men. If anything they might be slightly better because they felt they had more to prove.

But thats just my opinion, and im only a reservist. I've asked older soldiers from the permanent defence forces about this before and some of them are completely against women in the defence forces. Some said the standards went downhill because they fastracked some women into NCO or command roles before they were ready because it was good PR to have women seen to be advancing in the Defence forces.... essentially in a few cases they chose gender over quality. Also when i did recruit training (boot camp to the americans) the women got off easier... they shouldn't have ... but they did.

Also there is a different dynamic to a training platoon of women than there is of men. A mixed platoon works fine, but when its all women.... bitchyness creeps in, and it can do so in a very nasty way.... im sorry if thats is a very sexist comment... but its a fact, and i've seen it happen. A platoon needs to be cohesive, and whatever about male bullying, female bullying is vicious, and much harder for good NCO's to spot because its as much mental as it is physical if not more so.

Also reluctant Men can be shamed into shaping up by questioning their masculinity... the same shame tactic doesn't seem to work on reluctant women however. Dont know why, but its a lot easier to bully a guy who won't pull his weight into doing so, and its damn near impossible to do the same to a woman who won't pull hers.

however all pro's amd cons aside.

my opinion in a nutshell.

Women can fight, and if they want to serve on the frontlines... let them.

 

[Xaio30]

I like to see that we're all humans. If a human can do a certain job good, then let that human do that work. If someone is fit for the front lines with every prerequisite available, let that person do it.

Male of female should not matter in jobs. Only ability.