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 media is semi behind the idea at the moment, but i wonder what will happen when the first female combatant to get killed is announced or one is captured an tortured?
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?
A: Women have a higher pain tolerance and threshold against chemical damage and disease.
B: Women have a generally shorter profile which means they are less likely to be hit by enemy fire and shrapnel.
C: Women are generally far more likely to keep their edge and cool in combat situations.
D: Women are typically psychologically more sound than their counterparts.
E: I can guarantee you that if female enlistment in the army were to shoot up to the same numbers as male enlistment, you'd get a whole lot less warcrimes being committed.
F: The modern battlefield is about organization, control, effective leadership, multitasking and political discourse (PR) ... I have yet to see a man be better at any of those than their counterparts.
The General in charge of Abu Gharib at the time of the Iraqi prisoner torture scandals was a woman. It was General Janis Karpinski.
Sadism is not a trait thats gender specific. Queen Mary (bloody mary) and Queen Victoria (the famine queen) did horrible things to Ireland during their reigns. Queen isabella of Spain persecuted moors, jews and gypsies. When in power women have been just as nasty as men.
Yes, but I'd argue that to be in power you had to be nasty. That and violent psychopathy is documented as being far less common in females than males. It's not about singling out exceptions (we coud be doing that all week ...), it's about looking at the biology and making inferences based on commonly accepted fact and research.
We're not talking about singular individuals, we're talking about large groups of people. And women are less likely to be psychopaths.
As long as there is a clause in their contract stating they will NOT sue men for groping them whilst giving CPR on the battlefield, I don't see why not...
Seriously though, I can't answer this. Nobody who has not served can. Camaraderie and morale are incredibly potent things in high stress situations, and there is nothing more high stress than the threat of imminent death. Hate it and deny it all you will, both men and women act differently when with the opposite gender.
I have no doubt that women can face the physical and mental challenges involved. I would be far more concerned with the effect it would have on the effectiveness of my country's armed forces to have mixed-sex units of soldiers than any made up concerns over individual proficiency.
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 media is semi behind the idea at the moment, but i wonder what will happen when the first female combatant to get killed is announced or one is captured an tortured?
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?
If a woman can't hack it during combat, she will be weeded out during training just like any man who can't hack it. The people serving on the frontlines are there because they have proven themselves to be qualified to do so.
Also, don't make ignorant judgements about how male soldiers will react to female soldiers. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you have never been in live combat. Therefore, you have no idea what it is like to lose someone as close as a comrade in arms. The bonds people form from going through those situations are so strong and so intimate, that it is just impossible to understand it unless you have lived through it. When someone that close to you goes down, it's going to hit you hard, regardless of their gender.
I have to say if someone is shooting you no man is going to stop and look at a woman and i agree woman should be in frontline combat with the same responsabilities,gear,training,etc as a man
EDIT:I call bullshit on anyone saying that a man/Woman is more capable of staying calm in certain situations,because that has nothing to do with gender it as to do with a person's personality
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.
Zenode said:
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?
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 media is semi behind the idea at the moment, but i wonder what will happen when the first female combatant to get killed is announced or one is captured an tortured?
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?
A: Women have a higher pain tolerance and threshold against chemical damage and disease.
B: Women have a generally shorter profile which means they are less likely to be hit by enemy fire and shrapnel.
C: Women are generally far more likely to keep their edge and cool in combat situations.
D: Women are typically psychologically more sound than their counterparts.
E: I can guarantee you that if female enlistment in the army were to shoot up to the same numbers as male enlistment, you'd get a whole lot less warcrimes being committed.
F: The modern battlefield is about organization, control, effective leadership, multitasking and political discourse (PR) ... I have yet to see a man be better at any of those than their counterparts.
The General in charge of Abu Gharib at the time of the Iraqi prisoner torture scandals was a woman. It was General Janis Karpinski.
Sadism is not a trait thats gender specific. Queen Mary (bloody mary) and Queen Victoria (the famine queen) did horrible things to Ireland during their reigns. Queen isabella of Spain persecuted moors, jews and gypsies. When in power women have been just as nasty as men.
Yes, but I'd argue that to be in power you had to be nasty. That and violent psychopathy is documented as being far less common in females than males. It's not about singling out exceptions, it's about looking at the biology and making inferences based on commonly accepted fact and research.
We're not talking about singular individuals, we're talking about large groups of people. And women are less likely to be psychopaths.
My point was more towards the fact that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just because its a woman in the scenario as opposed to a man, doesn't mean that individual is any less susceptible to commiting a war crime or becoming a dictator than a man is. Some of those queens i listed inherited their titles. They didn't seize them.
Pte. Lynndie England was the woman famously photogrpaphed in the Abu Gharib torture photo's and she was by no means an exceptional person. She was someone who was in a circumstance of power over other people and she succumbed to temptation and abused it. Thats the danger of war crimes from an ordinary soldiers perspective, not exceptional psychosis
PaulH said:
It's not about singling out exceptions, it's about looking at the biology and making inferences based on commonly accepted fact and research.
We're not talking about singular individuals, we're talking about large groups of people. And women are less likely to be psychopaths.
No offence, but you are breaking your own rule here. Violent psychopaths are not the norm so its unfair to typify violent psycohsis as a generic male trait, when its an exception in itself.
Well, the Israeli army allows women in frontline positions, and say what you will about Israel, but they do know how to run a decent military. Allowing women in the frontlines seemed to have worked out pretty well for us, so I'm all for it.
Even though someone has already provided the accurate information, people are still propagating their ignorance... women do NOT have a higher pain threshold...
if women want to fight in frontline combat then they should be a allowed to, they shouldn't be denied because of their gender, and I'm sick of men being the expendable gender.
What about kingdom under fire where half the human's opposition is made out of scandily dressed dark-elf females? (the only thing i didnt like about it wa s thefact they were almost naked in a medieval battle.. cmon, put some armor on if your going to fight my claymore/fullplate supersoldiers.
Many reasons might explain/justify females on the frontline. Maybe that society have many more women than man in their military. Maybe genetics give them a higher female to male ratio at birth. Maybe the military dont care what is your gender, as long as you can fight efficiently.
I dont really care if the opposition is male or female. As long as it makes sense in the setting and the females arent portrayed as boobs with a weapon (wish is way too often imho)
No offence, but you are breaking your own rule here. Violent psychopaths are not the norm so its unfair to typify violent psycohsis as a generic male trait, when its an exception in itself.
Okay, how? The military is a large group of people. Therefore examining the traits present in large groups of people applies. I see nothing wrong when I say that that men are more likely than women to be violent psychopaths.
As I said, if you want to start running a list of examples and expect me to counter with another example it would take weeks and we'd get nowhere.
Far more effective to say "A male is many times more likely to have violent psychopathy than a female ... and a violent psychopath with a rifle and military training in a warzone isn't a good thing to have."
i believe that they should if they want too. And besides personally i think if a combatant, male or female is capable to fight on even when their primal-urges is telling them to stop, then i believe they are real soldiers.
because in the end war does not distinguish between "good"/"evil", male, female, rich, poor, black, white or asian. you fight and serve for your country and beliefs at the risks that you are fully aware of.
so yes woman should, and i think it will turn out better that way.
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 media is semi behind the idea at the moment, but i wonder what will happen when the first female combatant to get killed is announced or one is captured an tortured?
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?
A: Women have a higher pain tolerance and higher threshold against chemical damage and disease.
B: Women have a generally shorter profile which means they are less likely to be hit by enemy fire and shrapnel.
C: Women are generally far more likely to keep their edge and cool in combat situations.
D: Females are typically psychologically more sound than their male counterparts.
E: I can guarantee you that if female enlistment in the army were to shoot up to the same numbers as male enlistment, you'd get a whole lot less warcrimes being committed.
F: The modern battlefield is about organization, control, effective leadership, multitasking and political discourse (PR) ... I have yet to see a male be better at any of those than their female counterparts.
G: Men typically lack a woman's dexterity ... and due to having (typically) smaller hands means far greater ability for fine or complex hand manipulation activities or mechanical operations.
Might have agreed with you if the modern battlefield was about running with around with an Estoc longblade and having to punch through a person's heavy armour or bludgeon them to death through their armour using a halberd or axe .... but no.
Fine motor skills and psychologically sound combatants win the day ... and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find these talents in most males over female soldiers.
A. No, they don't. We had a thread about this earlier, and proof that women have a higher pain tolerance was nearly non-existent, while many studies were provided that stated the opposite was true. So, let's just assume they're even (Which is a stretch).
B. Quick action results in more misses then size profile. It could also be argued that women, because they are smaller, would be hurt far worse by enemy action then a male, who is larger.
C. No, they are not. Remember Jessica Lynch? Coward. This one is generally up to an individual, though I can attest to personally that I saw more women freak out during rocket attacks then men in Iraq.
D. Men and women are even across the board for being treated and diagnosed with mental illnesses. Women are diagnosed with PTSD TWICE as often as males, which is too great a difference to attribute to rape alone.
E. The idea that women are morally superior to males is ridiculous, especially in the military.
F. Again, so ridiculous that I can't help but cry. Individual based performance cannot be attributed to sex. To do so spits in the face of men and women a like.
G. Not sure what this has to do with combat.
Here's some things an infantry man have to do in today's environment.
Carry, in excess of, 120 pounds of equipment (In addition to armor and weaponry).
Be capable of dragging a 200 pound person at least 50 feet without stopping, or slowing below a fast walking speed.
Go months without showering (God help the people who have to smell a female's period, no offense).
Ignore any and all sexual harassment (That does not involve threats or actual physical touch).
Very, very nasty things.
Honestly, I think it's not worth the effort. But, if it happens, its the infantry that have to deal with it, not me. As long as they can pass MALE standards, let them go for it.
Though, I'm pretty sure tankers would revolt in droves if they tried to shove a female in their can.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
