Women in Frontline Combat?

[Serenegoose]

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.

Don't be silly. Not only are men so fiercely protective of women that the mere sight of one in danger will summon every man around to protect her, but if you even dare house them in the same barracks, those men will immediately turn into rapists. That's how men work. It's biology, and as we all know, biology determines everything at all times, without exception. That's why, as we all also know, even the strongest woman is weaker than the weakest man. Honestly, I think the idea of letting women fight is ludicrous. What if, in the heat of battle, one slips, her skirt rides up oh-so-slightly, and what's this? An ankle, concealed beneath the crinoline and petticoats? Scandalous!

 

[Xixikal]

Hey, I'm all for womens equality; when WW3 breaks out I want them out on the frontline if I am conscripted. All this chivalrous bullshit is just setting the whole 'womans rights' thing back. If they want to sign up, let them.

Although I have to wonder about what some feminists would say to this...

Feminists. They whine on about equality and then when they get it, still they're unsatisfied.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-women but equality is a goal that humankind should strive towards. And that includes both men and women sacrificing themselves on the frontline. So feminists should probably shut up (no offense intended).

 

[awesomeClaw]

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.

Really? I would like to see that statistic.

Also, for me, it´s 50%-50%. On one hand, having only one gender has some pretty clear advantages. For one, there will be a lot less sexual tension (unless you´re a homosexual) which makes it easier for everyone involved. Sexual tension creates frustration. And being frustrated and angry in a place where you can get shoot if you make the wrong move is not good.

Also, women may have a lower pain tolerance then men because of GIRK 2: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proteins-may-be-key-to-pa

But on the other hand, you might have women that are really fit and just as strong as any guy. Why shouldn´t she be allowed to sign up? Ofcourse, they will be far and few between, but still.

I dunno. Do the pros outweigh the cons? I dunno.

 

[randomsix]

Women supposedly have a higher pain threshold than men do, and I've heard before that their better fine motor control gives them an additional disposition towards being good shots. Assuming that they can meet army standards, I don't see why they could not serve in frontline roles.

 

[ryo02]

... what they arent allready fighting on the front lines? .... SERIOUSLY! I thought we were all ready over this crap urgh.

 

[fletch_talon]

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

Best not to post at all then.
Forums are for discussion, and whilst your comment certainly invites discussion, its entirely the wrong kind.
In my experience, nothing invites anger into a thread, quite like an unsubstantiated statement of opinion on politics and/or religon.
If you're concerned that your opinion is too contraversial or will otherwise draw unwanted negative attention, then (as I've learnt from experience) you're better off not pressing that post button.

As for my opinion. As long as they have to meet the same standards as men on the front line, I don't see an issue. If they've set a standard that says you must be "this" fit/strong/smart to do a job, gender shouldn't be an issue.

 

[thecoreyhlltt]

wow, i didn't think women were still being denied the same rights as men in australia...
that's fucked up

 

[Xixikal]

Hey, I'm a guy. No need to say 'no offense.'

But still, I wonder if they would pursue equality so rigidly if it went as far as putting them in a Kevlar vest and saying 'here's a wirecutter; defuse that bomb over there. You know, the big kiloton thing that will send your pieces flying across Beirut if you fail? While you're at it, try finding a few anti-tank mines and patrol this stretch of land unsupported and with barely any ammo kthnxbai.'

If you want equality, you should get everything that comes with it, you can't just pick and choose what is acceptable and what isn't. All this 'women aren't as strong as men' is bullcrap; you have a gun, not a mace. With training you can easily be as strong as a male soldier.

There is no doubt you're right. Feminists will call for 'equality' until the first female soldier is killed. A women deserves to serve if she is able, just as a man deserve to not be the only one sacrificing his life.

 

[Jodah]

Has nothing to do with gender imo. If they can physically keep up, male or female, they should be allowed on the front. This means they have to earn it.

 

[Jordi]

Women supposedly have a higher pain threshold than men do, and I've heard before that their better fine motor control gives them an additional disposition towards being good shots. Assuming that they can meet army standards, I don't see why they could not serve in frontline roles.

I agree with the last statement, but men have higher pain thresholds than women, unless the woman is currently in labor. Also, I'm not too sure about women having better fine motor control. If that was the case, why are they still losing to men in sports like darts, archery and basically everything else, even if strength isn't an issue?

Anyway, I think women should be allowed on the frontline if they can pass the exact same tests as men. Don't give them easier tests because they are women, because that just opens up the chance of them becoming a liability. Of course this will probably mean there will not be as many women as there are men who pass the tests.

 

[Vault101]

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.

Its funny that I should just stumble upon this thread now, its on the news anyway...


whats the different between now and a world war? if fact it would be better, if what you say did happen could you imagine the fuss it would cause i the army was suddenly flooded with women when it was previously a no-womans land?

as for the whole rape int he military...well isnt it better to take steps to stop that then to just say "well it is what it" and do nothing?

anyway as it said on the news there were women serving in israel army, so why not here in aus? if women are willing and capable I say sure

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

If they are willing and capable of keeping up with the standards of the army/marines/whathaveyou; I see nothing wrong with women serving on the frontlines. As with any soldier, I hope they don't have to see action for real.

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

I don't think it's about males being more muscular than women (as somebody said here, not every soldier is Rambo or the Terminator).

I do remember reading that women are more fragile, in the sense that the way evolution shaped their Pelvis to better cope with getting the bigger heads of babies out than our ancestors would, which makes them bad at marching long distances?
I am by no ways an expert or a doctor, so I don't know this is true

 

[dementis]

If I remember correctly the only reason women cannot join the frontline military in the UK is because the equipment they need to carry will crush their ovaries, making them infertile and the army doesn't want to get sued.

 

[Eisenfaust]

i heard a (female) member of the army talking about how much stronger male marines were than female, given the same level of training... (ie: one of the male marines party tricks was to put the female into his pack and carry her around)

but it sort of got me to thinking... surely, these days, women die no more easily than men, they're no more or less susceptible to bullets... in fact they probably make for smaller, more limbre targets

i know front line personel have to carry a crap load of gear, and that may be the sticking point, but the old "protect the women" part of "protect the women and children" is sort of outdated... if they want to go over, if they know the risks, go for it

 

[Zhukov]

*shrug*

I don't have a problem with it.

If they can do the job and they want to sign up then hey, more power to 'em, go for it. You don't need a lot of upper body strength to pull a trigger or drive a tank. There's plenty of skinny guys in the army.

Besides, it's not like the army is suddenly going to be flooded with bloodthirsty women. Low pay relative to civilian employment, rampant sexism and the possibility of violent death isn't exactly the best offer ever. They can barely fill their recruitment quotas as it is.