Women in Frontline Combat?

[Shirokurou]

No...
I know it's all about equality. BUT PEOPLE AREN'T EQUAL.
And the only reason I see for a woman to be added into frontline warfare is cause she's way better than a man at it.
Otherwise let's be sexist about it and protect our females...

 

[Boba Frag]

Absolutely allow it. The physical differences after full military training probably put the women at an advantege over the men, all things considered. On top of that, anyone who is willing to go to the frontlines shouldn't be denied. That's fanaticism, which is very difficult to deny.

Ehh.....

Watch Generation Kill. That's all I'm saying.

I think you're talking about a tiny percentage of women who would be physically suitable as frontline infantry.

 

[Lawnmooer]

Well as I understand it there are perfectly valid reasons that have been given to why women are not allowed on the front lines (I'd probably remember what they where if I paid attention to the 5 presentations the army have given to me for recruiting and 3 the marines have)

Though the fact that one of the toughest training courses for any military service has only been completed by a handfull of women (It was something around 1-6 women ever completing it, again I didn't pay attention due to not wanting to be in the military... Also paying less attention due to not being a woman either...) kind of suggests that while women certainly think they are as capable as men, they either don't realise how many men are physically superior or just never experienced the things that men go through in their toughest training courses.

The main point probably is the "Men will react differently if a woman gets injured compared to if a man gets injured" thing where women will cause men to put themselves on the line to save them, men will prioritise saving them over another man or just the media will have a field day if someone or some people die while trying to save a woman. Even with how insensitive I am to most things a women who is injured or needs help gets to me (Though that could be due to alot of girls that I meet use the "Your a guy, you have to do this" excuse to make me do things)

It seems like a good idea to put the women who pass the tests and go through the training to the same standard as men (None of this "Womens press ups" bullcrap) until you realise that the few women who do pass those will have an impact on the entire team they are on.

If women want to be on the front lines, become a field medic, join the RaF or something (I can't remember what but there are a few jobs that women can get where they work on the frontlines with the army and the marines... I think it was stuff like helicopter pilots and medics and stuff like that)

 

[hurfdurp]

You know... I'd rather prefer if everyone was banned from serving in wars...
Or more accurately, there wasn't a need for them.

I'm just sayin.

Neat. That's what I was thinking.

 

[godofallu]

Of course females could fight on the front line. We just don't let them because of traditional gender roles.

If the war is unjust than anyone who volunteers should be allowed to get shot. If the war is just then we will need as many people as possible in order to ensure a win.

 

[OctoH]

I've served with quite a few women. They were not permanent members of our unit, but they did their jobs very well. Granted, they were not generally not infantry like us (with the exception of one support gunner, two pilots, and one sniper) and filled support roles. And then there were the intelligence spooks who, dare I say, were some of the toughest people I have ever seen.

But to properly respond to the question posed: on the frontline, soldiers are soldiers. The speculations of the effects on morale might apply to civilians, but in the field it is our task to keep mission-critical personnel alive. "Mission-critical" has no gender requirements.

You do make a decent case for the morale of civilians though.

 

[Caligulove]

I think just about every nation's military, if they allow women to serve, are still not allowed to be in ground units deployed with the intent of direct combat. I know that's how it is in the US military. The difference is that in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan primarily- no one is really kept safe from combat scenarios by not being in said direct-combat teams.

Different forms of engagement and different tactics that now see all forms of Female soldiers, marines and airmen doing things like rooting out IEDs, searching houses and buildings, flying and taking part in medevac rescues and working with explosive-sniffing dogs. Because of this, women are absolutely in combat roles in these current conflicts.

It would be stupid not to utilize personnel capable of doing a job. That and most people in the military that I know are still able to do their jobs well instead of just chasing their comrades tails the entire time.

 

[blalien]

Let women serve in the front lines, as long as they can pass the same physical fitness tests as men. Also, make them well aware of the risks of being captured by Islamic extremists who don't think women are real people.

 

[SenorNemo]

If I recall rightly, women have served front line roles alongside men in the IDF for quite a while now with no loss in combat effectiveness.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

Whatever. You don't need a lot of muscle to put a bullet in someone. Just a bit of training and dissociation. Discipline. Whatever.
Yeah, I'm anti-military.

Edit: Ooh, just found this. Pretty cool and demotivational. I am so fucking original.

 

[gazumped]

Totally off topic: I love Katie, she made me laugh so much when I saw the cartoon.

Ahahaha, yes, I've only seen the film once but I just can't think of an avatar I'd rather have, really.

 

[BlackStar42]

Actually women a perfectly able to perform in front-line combat roles.

They can command: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica

snip

Just to nitpick here, but Boudica wasn't a great commander. She had an army of between 100,000 and 250,000 soldiers and lost against a Roman army of 10,000 men. Not what I'd call a great success.

 

[Enrathi]

Australia has an army?
.

Ouch.
Hell yeah we do. We may not have a lot of them, but Australia has some of the best trained troops in the world.

Do you round up the wildlife and airdrop it on your enemies?

 

[EradiusLore]

if she can pass the same physical + mental training that a man can then she obviously should be there because she is just as strong and resiliant as the men with her. sure women are still the less physicaly strong of humans which means that there would only be a small % to men.

 

[Direwolf750]

I say that you sir, are sexist. Most of us are. It is hard not to be when there are norms placed by society that are imprinted upon our young minds like a stamp of approval. However, I find it vaguely insulting that women often vie for equality with men, yet they aren't allowed to be forced to fight. That is stupid and annoying. Yes they should be allowed to, same as men are.

 

[Kuhkren]

I hear all this men are stronger in the thread. Women can carry a rifle and have endurance similar to men after training. This isn't the day and age of wearing full plate and swinging broadswords. Sorry, but if strength is going to be used as an excuse then better define it and post some research saying it has inhibited women's performance in the military. A military to look at would be women in the IDF.

 

[nonl33t m4st3r]

There are some logistical problems that need to be overcome. For example, current Army regulations state that females must have access to bathing facilities every three days. You really can't provide that if you're a front-line unit. Since you're the first in, you're living off what you can carry, and it ain't much.

Even if you're stationed in a forward operating base, any combat unit are operating out of patrol bases for a month at a time (for the uninitiated, it's a spot that's way out of the way of major routes of travel, major terrain features, and close to some sort of water sources usually, occupied for no more than 24 hours) because the enemy needs to be found and killed, or the population needs a sense of security way out in the boondocks.

Personally, if they can work out stuff like that, and if the female in question can pass the male version of a pt test (currently, the female max score is failing or barely passing the male minimum score, and the new pt test they're coming up with is supposedly unisex, but I doubt it'll turn out that way) then why not ?

 

[Boris Goodenough]

I hear all this men are stronger in the thread. Women can carry a rifle and have endurance similar to men after training. This isn't the day and age of wearing full plate and swinging broadswords. Sorry, but if strength is going to be used as an excuse then better define it and post some research saying it has inhibited women's performance in the military. A military to look at would be women in the IDF.

They don't have female front line soldiers, also they don't get hand to hand combat training anywhere near as good as what the males get.

Getting guard duty in towns is not the same as front line combat.

 

[Chaza]

If they can manage to handle the strains of war then they should be allowed to.

 

[Mechsoap]

Well the only problem I can think of is perhaps the housing, to avoid rape and sexual harassment and such. Though women fighting in the front-line is perfectly fine.

LOOK AT NCR, THEY HAVE WOMEN IN FRONTLINE!