Women in Frontline Combat?

[ZydrateDealer]

ANYONE, who wants to kill for a living should serve on the front line. Its bollocks that women fighting on the front line will distract men, when a male is injured they do everything they can to remove him from combat. Male soldiers don't get back up and carry on they lie on the floor trying not to think of the pain while another soldier drags them away; it'd be the same with female soldiers and as for the female psyche not being able to deal with all the horror gore and death, well my friends that's just wrong, they're human being which means that they're just as prone to violent acts and adopting a 'fuck it' attitude as men; what ever society may like to believe. Just think of all those times your father left a spider merrily swinging on a web in the corner of the room but your mother killed it to keep the place looking tidy.

 

[Dogstile]

Its rather simple. Men and women don't serve together on the front lines as combat affects them more physically and psychologically. Their presence also affects the men.

Its not sexism, its not equal rights, its about forming a working war machine. The army cannot currently figure out a way to put women on the front lines yet, as the cons outweigh the pros. Therefore, it is in their best interest to keep women where they are, working support roles.

If a woman wants to fight, she can hope she can get into a supply detail. I hear those get hit pretty often.

 

[Communist partisan]

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 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?

It's good, and females are proven better in combat than men both tactical and by endurance, only real advantage males have is strength, and everybody can train so it's not any real advantage.

 

[Findlebob]

If they can preform all the tests a soldier is expected to then go for it.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

As long as they're able to pass the same requirements as any other soldier, then yes. They should not get any easy rides if frontline infantry is an option, as the enemy will likely be merciless.

 

[Paularius]

I have no problem with it. Dont see a reason why a woman shouldnt be on the frontline.

 

[thelonewolf266]

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.

Its not like you need to have strength to beat some one to death.A gun is heavy you know not to mention all the equipment you have to carry with you and any heavy lifting you might have to do in the field for whatever reason.That said I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to if meet all the standards that male front-line personnel need t beat.

 

[Lord Krunk]

Should we? Why shouldn't we?

We've gotten women's rights this far - it would be a shame not to allow them to fight and die for our country. I'm not saying I want them to, but I think they should have the choice.

 

[ryanxm]

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?

he said in MOST cases females were not as well physically built as males

but anyway while i support the idea of them being on frontline combat if they want i also understand the argument that guys might make bad decisions if they saw a woman get hurt

 

[C2Ultima]

Why shouldn't women fight on the frontlines? If we're aiming for gender equality, then preventing women from fighting on the frontlines is a bit of a step backwards.

 

[ace_of_something]

Well, women can be police officers in varying degrees of excellence just like men. The male officers used to be stupid about this bigoted or try to 'protect' them. 30+ years later and rarely will anyone even give it a second thought that they're partner is female. Rarely will anyone question her abilities any more than they would her male counterparts.

Pretty sure they can be soldiers on the front lines too.

edit: just remembered our ERT team (formerly called SWAT) has three lieutenants one of them is a woman she was like I think a colonel or captain in the Army. There are if I'm not mistaken 7 women (Out of 24) on the 3 ERT teams.

 

[similar.squirrel]

I like the idea of a Muslim extremist being taken down by a woman.

 

[fates_puppet13]

if they cn pass the tests to get into the army then sure why not

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Israel learned the hard way not to put women on the front, it would be sad to see that experience go to waste.

They did it in Vietnam, and they won - just goes to show.

Who won? Everyone lost in the Vietnam war.

 

[bdcjacko]

Australia has an army?

Would women be in their own um squads and divisions? Or would the be coed? I didn't read the article because I'm lazy.

 

[Techmech]

I think it's bullshit. I am continually surprised at hour our socities are willing to throw up major sources of valuable fighters on the ground that it might affect the feelings of some theoretical soldier. Frankly thats insulting to women, homosexuals, and the men already serving, who if I am to believe the things said about them, have the emotional fragility of an eggshell as well as all having ADHD in the middle of firefights. (Because after all, someone trying to kill you does absolutely nothing to focus the mind right? *Sarcasm*)

If women want to fight, if they can meet the mental and physical standards required of front line troops, then hell yeah we should let them. (Provided the mental and phyiscal standard isn't "Has a penis and is only attracted to the opposite sex")

Men and Women work together just fine in nearly all fields, I've yet to hear a convincing argument that they wouldn't work together just fine in combat.

Furthermore, while I do firmly believe in Gender Equality , I don't believe in Gender Equivalency, men and women or not the same, I'm not suggesting that militaries enforce some sort of affirmative action policy, and in most normal circumstances, men would still far outnumber women in front-line combat (and probably military roles in general) for the same reason their are more female ballet dancers then male ones. Also women lack men's natural aptitude for spatial perception, so they'd need extra training with firearms to compensate. (It's a hunter-gatherer thing, you don't like it? Take it up with evolution.)

There would be some growing pains yes, but then the same thing happened with adding women to the workplace and we got over it. And I'm sure a great many people complained that men wouldn't be able to do their jobs in the presence of boobies, but you know what? They were wrong.

 

[gamefreakbsp]

Well soldiers have to pass physical tests as is, so the physical limitations are already being addressed for men as well. As for men making rash decisions when female soldiers would be involved....I think we can get past that. Either with training or good old fashioned willpower.

 

[Jatyu]

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.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

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.

Wow. Anyone who does that isn't actually a feminist, in my opinion. I also don't believe you. I'd be as equally encouraging of women who are willing to die for their country as men. If a woman feels that she can go defuse the bomb, at risk of blowing herself into tiny bits all over the landscape, then she should be trained and let to do it. If she dies, she knew what she was getting into, just like the man that could have been in her place.

I say that anyone who won't let women in combat should also not let women do other physically taxing things, and then they become a sexist jerk. Women can climb Mount Everest, swim the English Channel, all that...but they can't hold a gun and keep up with the men on the front lines?

Men who can't take the sight of a woman getting hurt are old-school and need to get over themselves. The next time America ever has a draft, if it does, they should draft women also. Not because I particularly _want_ to go out and get killed, but because it's fair. Women, with suitable physical training, are comparable to men until you get to ridiculous proportions, so long as they train hard enough.

Also, think about this: many extremely skilled Russian snipers were female. If you want to go with physical advantage, we have a higher pain tolerance and greater dexterity. We're smaller and thus can hide under things more easily, get through smaller spaces, and not be giant bullseyes.

Many countries have used women in the military, even in front combat -- Russia, I believe Israel requires service for both men and women, etc.

So do it. If she can keep up, she can fight. Jeez. It's not like having a vagina and a pair of boobs prevents you from doing any of this stuff.

 

[Baalthazaq]

"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?"

Yes. ALL. In caps. Is exactly what everyone means.
Unless of course frontline fighting squads are chosen from a specific grouping of physically fit rather than just all men. After all, the marines wouldn't turn away toddlers, the elderly, the disabled, the overweight, the underweight, and the brittle boned.....

Oh wait.... actually looking at it, all you're really saying is that the top 5% of physically fit men fall outside the range of virtually all women. Unless of course all they mean is that it's not worthwhile testing women to see if they're capable, when it will give a force of 45K people, an extra 2k recruits at best. (Taking Vietnam as an example, and scaling down for population difference).

So! Is it worthwhile? Well lets take one example of physical strength (a frontline fighter still needs about 100lbs of gear, as well as a need to be a good shot and whatnot).

Men's weightlifting record: 263.5 Clean and Jerk.
Women's: 186Kg Clean and Jerk.

A female olympian recordholding weightlifter, the best ever, is losing by about 170lbs.

Well... men are naturally bigger, so lets adjust for weight category.

You get out of the heavyweights, and start looking at smaller men.
Men still take the record even if you don't count any men over the top weight class for women, and keep going until you're 20 pounds lighter than the heaviest woman. Men would still be winning for strength.

It's only when you're looking at men almost 30 pounds lighter that they start to compare to the *best* woman. (You're looking at weightlifters weighing 135 pounds and under competing with a >165lb woman).

Similar stats can be looked at for:
Aggression. Speed. Stamina. Pain Threshold.

Women come out on top for:
Dexterity. Visual acuity. Multitasking. Flexibility.

This is why there are twice as many women in the airforce as any other branch of the military (almost 20% compared to figures of 7%(marines) to 14%(navy) elsewhere).

So. Frontline fighters, changing the military machine, separating accommodation, incidence of rape in the military, mistreatment of women by enemy forces, over-coddling of women by current forces, retraining required for sensitivity on the one hand, and lack of sensitivity on the other, all that jazz, for the benefit of, if done fairly (with equal requirements for both men and women), an extra (being generous) 5%?

My conclusion? No.

However: I say let them take all the same tests as the men, and if they pass them all, and enough pass them all that it is worth investing in any changes required to accommodate them, I take it all back.