Women in Frontline Combat?
- Thread starter Zenode
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You can be a guy and also be a feminist.Mackheath said:
They're not all just angry lesbians who hate men, yehknow.Seeing as feminism is SUPPOSED to be about gender equality, then I'd have thought true feminists would say there should be no issue here, take people on based on merit not gender.
Even if it turns out that the misogynists are right and women are weaklings, they should still be able to go through the fitness training and testing and those that fail can be weeded out at the end because they're weak, not because they're women.
Totally off topic: I love Katie, she made me laugh so much when I saw the cartoon.lisadagz said:You can be a guy and also be a feminist.
Seeing as feminism is SUPPOSED to be about gender equality, then I'd have thought true feminists would say there should be no issue here, take people on based on merit not gender.
Even if it turns out that the misogynists are right and women are weaklings, they should still be able to go through the fitness training and testing and those that fail can be weeded out at the end because they're weak, not because they're women.
I'm in the Forces, and I won't lie, there are a lot of useless women, however, there are also those who are better then their male counterparts. The army is a a lot more about intelligence then strength. Before anyone enters any combat situation rigorous training and testing insures that no matter the gender, they are fully capable.
As to the female getting hurt thing, I don't see that being a problem, you are trained to provide first aid on yourself, you will receive no help from any other soldier until the firefight has been won, unless there are medic assets. You would have a larger connection to your fire team partner then a different section member who happens to be female. Yet even if your partner goes down, you continue.
As to the female getting hurt thing, I don't see that being a problem, you are trained to provide first aid on yourself, you will receive no help from any other soldier until the firefight has been won, unless there are medic assets. You would have a larger connection to your fire team partner then a different section member who happens to be female. Yet even if your partner goes down, you continue.
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...
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...
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, I'm anti-military.
Edit: Ooh, just found this. Pretty cool and demotivational. I am so fucking original.
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.Grospoliner said:
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.
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.