Women in Frontline Combat?

[Zenode]

Recently Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard recently announced that Women 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, YES MOST NOT ALL cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires physical skill that MOST women just dont have especially if they came up against another male in a CQC scenario the physically larger male will have an advantage straight up.

[HEADING=3]But on the other hand if they can keep up, why not?[/HEADING]

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?

 

[Icaruss]

If she wants to and can hang sure why not.Though its not like theres a Bunch of women chopping at the bit ready to be grunts. I don't see the Infrantry ever being more then 5 percent female at best.

 

[Xixikal]

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?

 

[Zenode]

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?

Correct me if im wrong, but isnt Nightingale Syndrome something to do with nurses becoming infatuated with patients in their care and not the military?

 

[ryai458]

I think its a bad idea, and thats all I'm saying.

 

[Xixikal]

Correct me if im wrong, but isnt Nightingale Syndrome something to do with nurses becoming infatuated with patients in their care and not the military?

Technically: It is a condition in the medical profession when a provider becomes involved with a patient, and doing so results in termination of the caregiver. So it can be applied to this situation.
It can apply to what you've said as well - as in Florence Nightingale (to whom I assume you're referring)

 

[Lilani]

I think to simply ban all women from frontline duty is dealing with what should be an individual issue in a generalized way. It's like banning Hispanics from working within 100 miles of the border just because a few of them are illegal immigrants. It solves nothing and says volumes about how America solves problems: why make an effort to deal with it when you can just ignore it?

 

[Xixikal]

I forgot to add earlier:

It's also completely unfair that men risk their lives while women are holed up, safe and sound. It's as much about rights for women as it is as rights for men.

 

[Valate_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Valate_v1legacy]

America

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

 

[Lilani]

America

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

Good point, though I felt through the topic name and the wording of the OP it was implied that this topic addresses women in combat in general, not just in Australia where this story originates.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

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.

 

[WolfThomas]

I'm accepting of women in the infantry on one essential condition. They don't make it easier for them. They have to do the same grueling training and carry the same amount of gear, no easy rides. The minute you lower standards for certain members of an infantry regiment, you risk the lives of everyone in it.

I can't really see there being that many women in the infantry, simply because take for example in the Australian army there's roughly a 50% attrition in training and men are in general stronger than women. I don't mean this in a sexist manner, it's statistics, it doesn't mean there aren't women out there that are capable, it's just that they are a smaller number. That combined with the fact not a lot of women seem to want to it either, means probably small numbers.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

What are your thoughts on women in frontline combat situations?

Women should be allowed in front line combat.

Our strength no longer matters - we have guns now.

And it has been proven that, given the same training, women are better shots than men. Sorry guys, we are just dexier than you. Like elves with bows.

 

[Woodsey]

Of course women should be allowed to serve.

And please, have you actually seen guys in the military? They're not all muscle-bound fucking Terminators. As long as the women pass the same required fitness tests then go nuts. If it means there are less women in the military then so be it, but actually banning them because they are generally not as strong (strong =/= fit/conditioned) is ludicrous.

I think the idea that men will suddenly become illogical apes at the sight of a woman in trouble (any more so then seeing a friend they've served with for years in trouble) is also a little bit of cock slap to the face of the guys who have been trained to deal with such situations.

 

[BonsaiK]

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 pysichal skill that most women just have.

The linka above says that it would be "symbolic" if the men and women fought together, but i dont 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?

I think it's fine.

I think your attitudes to it are somewhat paternalistic. Who says that a woman being injured will affect the guys more than a man being injured, what are you basing that on? Nothing, you're just assuming it because that's the way you think you'd feel.

Your view also displays ignorance about the way the west's current battles are typically fought. IEDs don't care who they blow up. A close range gun battle where you get good clear line of sight to the enemy like in the movies is a relative rarity. If you watch war footage on YouTube (from either side) what you'll really notice a lot of the time is how little the enemy are clearly seen.

Also, what women lack in strength they certainly make up for in flexibility, which surely has to be an asset in combat situations. Besides, they're talking about keeping the physical benchmarks the same across gender so women physically incapable of being up to the task would be excluded anyway.

 

[TheIronRuler]

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 pysichal skill that most women just have.

The linka above says that it would be "symbolic" if the men and women fought together, but i dont 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?

They used the same argument here when they tried to stop women from getting into combat units and fighting in the front.
They failed... miserably. The fact remains - your argument is weak because there shouldn't be a difference in response if your brother in arms is injured or if your "sister in arms" is injured. You both spend months together, in training camps and guard duties, it shouldn't matter their sex - they are still your friend, and you will probably burst with anger and shoot at the enemy without thinking when they are badly injured or dead.
Though women need to have the same standard in physical fitness as MEN! That is very important nut it is unfortunately not implemented here. Bloody feminists... My kid brother could join into an elite combat unit with these standards for women.
Funny thing is that there was a legal case two decades ealier in which a woman demanded to get into training to become a pilot. It was controversial, but she won the case against the army!. She never became a pilot... but there were others after her that succeeded.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I think it should be only women in frontline combat. Keep the men home to work on the weaponry, cars and things they're good at; while women roll around in the mud fighting the enemy.

Or do I?