Women in Frontline Combat?

[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.

 

[Something Amyss]

In most cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires pysichal skill that most women just have.

"Most women" aren't in the military to begin with.

You should probably rule less by stereotypes and more by the reality of which women tend to be involved in the military in the first place. Women who are physically adept and capable. "Most cases" do not apply.

Unless I'm completely off the mark and there are no physical requirements to get into the Aussie military.

 

[MrJoyless]

I'm pretty sure i read somewhere that men taking commands from women in power, aka bosses etc actually perform more efficiently than taking direction from male bosses....maybe make all the leaders chicks and we will get our wars done with faster...but their uniforms need to be tighter

linky : http://www.employerhelp.org/html/female_bosses.htm

 

[DTWolfwood]

"If a woman has the physical capability and intellectual capability to do a particular job then I do not believe it should be denied her on the basis of gender," she said.

Ditto. If she can, she should.

 

[feauxx]

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.

so basically what you are saying there is that men cannot stick to their job and will fuss over the female soldiers serving next to them. they will be afraid the women will get hurt and so the men can't do their own job properly because of that. and then you call that a 'hassle'.

but, when a war breaks out and shit get's real those women better be right there at the front line, fighting and dying equal to men. even though they were denied proper training before and wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[Baby Tea]

I'll just say my two cents:
If a person if physically and mentally able to perform their required duties on the front lines of war, then I don't care if they are men, women, gay, straight, trangendered, Islamic, atheist, or even paraplegic. If they can perform their duty and are properly trained, then who they are makes little difference to me.

But, then again, soldiers are just people, and bigotry and ignorance can and will get in the way of rational thought and proper action.

 

[Jonci]

In the US, soldiers are trained to make sure any soldier that's down or injured is taken care of. It shouldn't be an issue that men would lose morale from a woman taking a hit, because to them it matters that any of their fellow soldiers' lives are on the line. There's no reason that a woman that wants to be a soldier shouldn't join the front lines.