Women in Frontline Combat?

[TheEldestScroll]

i've always been one to believe that women and men have different but equal parts in life. men fight and defend their family and home, and women provide food and care for the family so they don't die, and bear the children in their bodies for 9 months. if anything a women's job is harder, and i don't see why a strong honest woman would want to fight in war.

imo women that fight are selfish. they fight to prove the women can do things they weren't meant to do (as if that doesn't make enough sense) all while leaving their legacy behind to fend for themselves.

think about it. if women fought, where would our civilization be today? its only in this cushy time period where we have the luxury of ignorance that women have started to want to fight. see a pattern?

its like the feminists want a woman's job to be harder than it already is. and i'm sure its hard. hell, i wouldn't want a woman's job. so maybe that makes me soft.

or is that it? maybe women are just so sick of their grueling motherly duties that their relief is to go to war and die. sheesh, that must really say something of the admirableness of some of the strongest women in history. like Abigail Adams.

 

[thePyro_13]

Their's no good reason for them to not be on the front line. I can confidently say that my psyche will freak out after seeing someone get shot/die regardless of if they are male or female.

They physical difference between males and females isn't really that big of a difference, especially when talking about people who actually train.

I always though they were lucky for not being allowed to be on the front. I know I wouldn't want to go anywhere near the front line. But I'm typically non-violent and squeamish.

 

[Kortney]

snip

I don't know much about Jessica Lynch, but from what I heard she was knocked out, had her weapon jam and was taken prisoner - then later rescued by special forces. Doesn't sound like she could have done much - but like I said I don't know the story.

Jessica Lynch had her weapon jam. Instead of clearing the weapon (Which takes all of 5 seconds), she threw down her fire arm and gave up. This was early on in the engagement, when most of her convo was still alive.

To make matters worse, she has, on an occasion or two, said she see's nothing wrong with her actions. She apparently see's no problem with letting her fellow soldier's die fighting while she cowered in the sand.

Oh, which brings up a second female: the driver that took a wrong turn and screwed the convo over was a women. Fun fun.

Like I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, even though I do find this women to be a sorry, sorry excuse for a veteran.

Yeah well then she sounds like a bit of a coward - but my point stands. Part of the reason she wasn't trained as well is because woman aren't seen to be equal. If they raised the standards I'm sure she wouldn't have ended up there like that.

The driver taking a wrong turn has very little to do with her being a female. I'm sure plenty of drivers of convoys have taken wrong turns in Iraq.

 

[Hader]

snip

I don't know much about Jessica Lynch, but from what I heard she was knocked out, had her weapon jam and was taken prisoner - then later rescued by special forces. Doesn't sound like she could have done much - but like I said I don't know the story.

Jessica Lynch had her weapon jam. Instead of clearing the weapon (Which takes all of 5 seconds), she threw down her fire arm and gave up. This was early on in the engagement, when most of her convo was still alive.

To make matters worse, she has, on an occasion or two, said she see's nothing wrong with her actions. She apparently see's no problem with letting her fellow soldier's die fighting while she cowered in the sand.

Oh, which brings up a second female: the driver that took a wrong turn and screwed the convo over was a women. Fun fun.

Like I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, even though I do find this women to be a sorry, sorry excuse for a veteran.

A few examples of the bad is hardly enough to justify the general concept at hand here. If we wanted to we could pull many more examples of men who did piss poor in combat as well. While I see what you are getting at here, bringing up few, smaller examples just doesn't affect the larger point at hand here.

 

[DefunctTheory]

snip

I don't know much about Jessica Lynch, but from what I heard she was knocked out, had her weapon jam and was taken prisoner - then later rescued by special forces. Doesn't sound like she could have done much - but like I said I don't know the story.

Jessica Lynch had her weapon jam. Instead of clearing the weapon (Which takes all of 5 seconds), she threw down her fire arm and gave up. This was early on in the engagement, when most of her convo was still alive.

To make matters worse, she has, on an occasion or two, said she see's nothing wrong with her actions. She apparently see's no problem with letting her fellow soldier's die fighting while she cowered in the sand.

Oh, which brings up a second female: the driver that took a wrong turn and screwed the convo over was a women. Fun fun.

Like I said, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, even though I do find this women to be a sorry, sorry excuse for a veteran.

A few examples of the bad is hardly enough to justify the general concept at hand here. If we wanted to we could pull many more examples of men who did piss poor in combat as well. While I see what you are getting at here, bringing up few, smaller examples just doesn't affect the larger point at hand here.

You don't know what a devil's advocate is, do you?

 

[Hader]

You don't know what a devil's advocate is, do you?

I said I know what you were saying and why, but that it does little to aide the argument anyways.

 

[Mehtevas]

Some of the best Marines I've served with were women. My RT during my last tour in Iraq was phenomenal, and just happened to have breasts. I think the lioness program is pretty cool. My units corpsman knows more about MOUT than any reservist I've met (she has over ten years of police experience, most of it in very bad parts of LA). Also a woman.

 

[Kumomaru]

You don't know what a devil's advocate is, do you?

I said I know what you were saying and why, but that it does little to aide the argument anyways.

Just in case he's right...

'Playing Devil's Advocate' means you argue the opposing point whether or not you actually believe it, often to see the reasoning another person has for a similar belief. IE, I believe women should serve on the front line, but bring up the fact that women have less strength in their muscles (according to genetics, anyway. Genetics is full of crap. Most women could kick my ass, and the rest don't need to. And ALL the women i know can kick my ass. Thank god most of them are nice enough not to...)

A response to this might be that physical strength doesn't really matter in an era of guns, or that men have less pain tolerance, etc etc.



I have a question though: Why does anybody WANT to serve on the front line? Military, i understand. Fighting and serving, etc etc, but the actual front line is being advocated as a woman's right by women? I'm sorry but it really seems like the MEN should be arguing that one.

... er, no offense intended =/ it just seems odd. Frontlines are the most dangerous part of a war, and while I understand that some soldiers need to go, I find it strange that people sign up for the job. =/

 

[The Gnome King]

Recently Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard recently announced that Women 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, YES MOST NOT ALL cases women are not as physically adept as males, war is brutal and that requires physical skill that MOST women just dont have especially if they came up against another male in a CQC scenario the physically larger male will have an advantage straight up.

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?

1) Yes women should be allowed in frontline combat BUT - and this is a BIG BUT -

2) They should be held to the SAME physical standards as men; not reduced standards (like in some firefighting departments, etc.) because they are women.

If the person wanting to fight on the frontlines has to meet X, Y, and Z make it the same for all humans - I want to know that the person who is fighting for me or wants to rescue me from a burning building can lift 250lbs; not 250lbs if they're a man or 180lbs if they're a woman.

This is one area where I am completely against affirmative action; even though I see affirmative action as just fine in other areas of society.

Front line combat or physically-demanding jobs, though - just hold everyone to the same standards.

 

[jackpipsam]

they have the right to fight for there own freedom and to protect there loved ones as any man.

 

[Hader]

Just in case he's right...

'Playing Devil's Advocate' means you argue the opposing point whether or not you actually believe it, often to see the reasoning another person has for a similar belief. IE, I believe women should serve on the front line, but bring up the fact that women have less strength in their muscles (according to genetics, anyway. Genetics is full of crap. Most women could kick my ass, and the rest don't need to. And ALL the women i know can kick my ass. Thank god most of them are nice enough not to...)

A response to this might be that physical strength doesn't really matter in an era of guns, or that men have less pain tolerance, etc etc.

I know what it means, apologies to everyone for being one of few words to get my points across and not making myself clear. But I did say I understood his point, and playing devil's advocate.

Strength is not a factor in today's battlefield. It mattered slightly more in classical and medieval times where a stronger sword arm could benefit one. But pulling a trigger is a different story. Mental toughness will always go a longer way than brute strength these days.

 

[The_Eskimo]

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?

umm....no hes not...what does "in most cases" mean to you?

 

[The Gnome King]

Just in case he's right...

'Playing Devil's Advocate' means you argue the opposing point whether or not you actually believe it, often to see the reasoning another person has for a similar belief. IE, I believe women should serve on the front line, but bring up the fact that women have less strength in their muscles (according to genetics, anyway. Genetics is full of crap. Most women could kick my ass, and the rest don't need to. And ALL the women i know can kick my ass. Thank god most of them are nice enough not to...)

A response to this might be that physical strength doesn't really matter in an era of guns, or that men have less pain tolerance, etc etc.

I know what it means, apologies to everyone for being one of few words to get my points across and not making myself clear. But I did say I understood his point, and playing devil's advocate.

Strength is not a factor in today's battlefield. It mattered slightly more in classical and medieval times where a stronger sword arm could benefit one. But pulling a trigger is a different story. Mental toughness will always go a longer way than brute strength these days.

If it can be argued that strength isn't a factor on today's battlefield - and I for one am not willing to concede that - BUT if we did argue that, shouldn't we lower the physical aptitude tests for all potential frontline combatants; men included - and not just women?

IE., let's lower the bar for everyone as opposed to setting two different bars?

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

You realise the decision came with the proviso that they can do the same things that a male counterpart can. They're not just going to let any woman in.

 

[Canid117]

Not once did I see the word "Realistic" in that article.

 

[Hader]

If it can be argued that strength isn't a factor on today's battlefield - and I for one am not willing to concede that - BUT if we did argue that, shouldn't we lower the physical aptitude tests for all potential frontline combatants; men included - and not just women?

IE., let's lower the bar for everyone as opposed to setting two different bars?

I agree that two different standards should never be set. But most standards that do have to be met, ones that involve physical fitness, are just that. Fitness. Not necessarily strength. It definitely takes a certain level of fitness and a degree of good bodily health to be a soldier, regardless of gender. Standards reflect the need for that, not just strength.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Spoiler

When i was in the millitary, we had 7 girls in our company at boot camp. These girls were all in good shape, and seemed to be strong-minded individuals with the will to do anything. And then when we had our first march through the woods, 5 of the girls gave up 4 hours in and the rest of us had to split their packs between us, while they carried no weight whatsoever except for their rifle and basic combat gear. That march suddenly became 10 times worse for the remaining guys and girls.

However, the two girls that didnt give up their packs turned out to be two of the hardest working and impressive soldiers our lieutenant had seen, and years later became officers themselves. So yeah, im agreeing with a lot of people here saying that women should absolutely be let into the frontlines, but they have to be able to perform on the same level as the guys.

Just saying, that also counts towards other things than physical strength, such as getting undressed in front of the opposite gender.

The majority of our bootcamp was during winter, and during one of our marches we had to cross a big river. I.E swim. Now, obviously, you have to take your clothes off before you start swimming, but one of the girls simply refused to take her clothes off in front of the others. Apparently, her bra had a malfunction, and she didnt want to flash her breasts at everyone. Leaving everyone standing on the other side of the river, freezing cold, while she walked upstream to a shallower point.

It took her 10 minutes. 10 f***ing minutes.

Anecdotally, when I was in basic, my company was about 25% female. The only people I ever saw drop out of a ruck march were the ones who passed out from heat exhaustion or a sprained ankle, and I can't recall anyone having to give their gear to another person, male or female. This story really surprises me.

Also, sports bras can't malfunction. If she was wearing a normal bra on a ruck march, she is retarded.

 

[Wolf-AUS]

Just in case he's right...

'Playing Devil's Advocate' means you argue the opposing point whether or not you actually believe it, often to see the reasoning another person has for a similar belief. IE, I believe women should serve on the front line, but bring up the fact that women have less strength in their muscles (according to genetics, anyway. Genetics is full of crap. Most women could kick my ass, and the rest don't need to. And ALL the women i know can kick my ass. Thank god most of them are nice enough not to...)

A response to this might be that physical strength doesn't really matter in an era of guns, or that men have less pain tolerance, etc etc.

I know what it means, apologies to everyone for being one of few words to get my points across and not making myself clear. But I did say I understood his point, and playing devil's advocate.

Strength is not a factor in today's battlefield. It mattered slightly more in classical and medieval times where a stronger sword arm could benefit one. But pulling a trigger is a different story. Mental toughness will always go a longer way than brute strength these days.

If it can be argued that strength isn't a factor on today's battlefield - and I for one am not willing to concede that - BUT if we did argue that, shouldn't we lower the physical aptitude tests for all potential frontline combatants; men included - and not just women?

IE., let's lower the bar for everyone as opposed to setting two different bars?

I sincerely hope you're joking about lowering the bar. Currently the bar for women to enter the ADF is 8 pushups, 45 situps (feet held) and 6.1 in the beep test. If you want to lower the bar to this, I have dire worries for the state of the ADF. If anything, we should raise the bar to the men (which is also piss weak), make the men's standard the rule, if women want to serve as a rifleman, I want to see them do 60 pushups, 100 situps and run 2.4km in under 10 minutes, which is our basic fitness in infantry.

 

[Dense_Electric]

It shouldn't be about letting women in the infantry per se, but about simply eliminating gender as a requirement. Do we not already have a system in place for weeding out who is mentally and physically competent and who isn't? Yeah, we do, it's called BASIC TRAINING. Just make the standards the same for everyone - whoever can do it can do it, and whoever can't can't.

 

[Tiger Sora]

Take a page from the Soviets in WW2, if you can fire a rifle your fit to serve the motherland.
And I forget where this is from but the question was posed can a woman pull a 250 pound man from a burning tank. Well I'm pretty sure no one can because it's on fire!And if he can't get out himself I'm pretty sure he's gona be on fire too.