Thread: Should Women Go To The Frontline?

Originally Posted by pj

I have a very simple problem with women on the front line - and on the front line ONLY. That problem is MEN.

We are hard-wired to protect women. It's not a choice - that's just the way it is and the way we are. Having women in a combat situation completely changes the chemistry of the group. It's really that simple.

It has nothing to do with ability or smarts or strength or anything else. I'm fine with women in ANY other military role.

I would also be fine with a troop consisting solely of women going to the front lines. Just don't mix the genders.

Chemistry. You can't change it, no matter how hard you may try.[/b]

Exactly.

Well if it ever happens...God be with the men who are having to pull the womens weight. Women on the front lines, whether with men or just a troop made up of only women WILL be a weak link. It is very physically demanding and a lot of the women I've seen in the service aren't and will never be up to par for something like that.We are and always will be the weaker sex. Even in basic training less is required physically of women than that of men. I just do not think it would work.Like I said above, yes women did sign the same contract, but did so knowing that there were rules againts women on the front lines. If it comes down to this women should just not be in the military period!

Honestly if your going to the front line your an idiot anyway. I think any sane person would avoid it all togather. If a woman really believes its cool to go out and die on the front lines like the men, they should go for it. I don't know why we are trying to protect anyone if they willing decide for themself to do something stupid.

Its kind of a moot point anyway. Since your just going to end up in iraq and get shot while on the non-offical frontline.

Originally Posted by Alric

Honestly if your going to the front line your an idiot anyway. I think any sane person would avoid it all togather. If a woman really believes its cool to go out and die on the front lines like the men, they should go for it. I don't know why we are trying to protect anyone if they willing decide for themself to do something stupid.

Its kind of a moot point anyway. Since your just going to end up in iraq and get shot while on the non-offical frontline.[/b]

I agree that it's a crazy thing to have to do, but since we do have military they have to do it seeing as how they signed up for it. Someone has got to do it(even thought I don't agree with this particular war). They should still keep the woman out of it all together because she's gonna slow them down either way. It's not a question of whether she wants to do it or not, it's a question of them having competent and capable people on the front lines. They can't risk putting someone out there who couldn't handle the task at hand or is gonna slow them down in anyway. I don't think the women could meet the physical demands and it would cause problems for everyone.

i see that the replys are getting the same...
so women should go to war because...
1. physical strain
2. sexual harrassment/abuse

and i would like to add that the life of a soldier is not a tea party or whatever. i know most girls at my school wouldnt wanna hang out in the football locker room and listen to the jokes and shit, and imagine that tenfold in the battlefield. i just dont know any girls that appreciate and can deal with that languige and vulgar crude stuff.
as for the robots.... at some point it would still get down to the only things left are the humans... thats not going to help a whole lot. and maybe we forgot about a little something called the atomic bomb? an atomic war seems more likely then a war of robots the way this world is headed... to me anyways.

I hate to say it but I fairly sure we have people who are both mentally and physically unfit in the army, and they are likely up there on the frontlines. And before anyone says our army only takes the best, believe me, thats not true. If you want to join the armed forces, they will find some where to stick you.

I think the idea that women should not go to the frontline is just a left over tradition kind of thing from when you needed to be at peak form to fight wars, and men are ultimately (generally ) stronger than women. Now, however, it matters very little, as skills matter more than strength. I agree with pj's point though, keep genders separate

I agree that if you are trained and willing to fight for your country that gender shouldn't matter. Men may be more apt to protect their female comrades by nature, but I think our army is more well trained than that. I mean, is there already a problem with female and male forces being integrated? If it's not broken don't fix it. I know I'd make general before any of you guys.

Originally Posted by Alric

I hate to say it but I fairly sure we have people who are both mentally and physically unfit in the army, and they are likely up there on the frontlines. And before anyone says our army only takes the best, believe me, thats not true. If you want to join the armed forces, they will find some where to stick you.[/b]

I agree with you. There are even some men that shouldn't even be there.The army is hurtin for just abt. anyone right now. They are even trying to recruit us from the air force.
In some instances the military just seems like a big joke.After you get in it's like no one maintains their fitness and all that most of them are concerned with is partying. At least from my experience.
Another thing, I've been thru combat skills training in the air force and it was extremely hard for me ,being a small girl and with a body of a fifteen year old, to keep up with all these grown ass men. If it had've been a real combat situation instead of simulated I would've been dead within the first few minutes I'm sure. The body armor(yes, we still wear armor) is really heavy for me and my arms can't support an m-16 by themselves for too long and actually shoot straight. We had to dart around behind buildings and trees and I was to keep up with a guy who was at least a foot taller than me. I fell flat on my face as soon as we began to run and my body armor fell up around my face. There was no way that I would've ever been able to have kept up with him. All I'm saying is that some of us women can't and never would be able to do it. I'm glad I don't have to because I would probably get myself and maybe others killed. It's no place for girls like myself.Now if another woman can physically meet the EXACT requirements of a the men that were going then fine, I guess.I'm in the air force,but I'm in the admin part of it. I work in an office environment everyday.Not all of us are pilots you know. We have everything from vetenarians and post offices to infantry type stuff. This is the same in the other services as well. I passed basic training. I even exceeded the physical requirements because I wanted to prove to myself I could "keep up with the boys." Combat ,however, is a whole different ball game. I admit I'm a weakling.

Yea thats exactly it, you passed the requirement even though you felt you were unable to do it for real. Theres probably a lot of guys who just pass like that as well, even though they are unable to do a good job. Really it doesn't sound like you were unable to do it because your a woman but because your small. I mean, I am sure a lot of guys are like that too. Probably a lot of overweight people as well.

Rambo ....you are not expendable

If you don't pass BT your not going anywhere except home.
I wonder if people try to fail? I Never thought of that.

Originally Posted by Howietzer

Rambo ....you are not expendable

If you don't pass BT your not going anywhere except home.
I wonder if people try to fail? I Never thought of that. [/b]

Oh yeah people tried all kinds of things to get out of Basic training. The only thing that it got them was a few more weeks there. They will recycle you back a whole bunch of times before they ever decide to let you out. As for overweight people after basic, there are quite a few.
So anyways yeah, I could meet the requirements in basic, but for the most part it was running, sit ups, and push ups. Then of course you are sleep deprived and starving and being yelled at, brainwashed, and having to clean all the time. The only training for actual combat type situations was during warrior week. We weren't even required to wear all the armor that you would have to wear in reality so it wasn't as hard anyway. I've heard that they extended it to 2 weeks now, but as far as having to wear the gear and whatever else I wouldn't think so. So even basic training doesn't compare.Now if you wanna talk about some crazy shit then get yourself into correctional custody for at least a day. Now that is hell! Been there, done that (but for really stupid reasons in tech school), and planning on staying away for the rest of my career!

Women who actually want to go to the front lines are not the women I want to sleep with, so send them ALL there. What else would I need them for?

But really, I agree with this...

Originally Posted by pj

I have a very simple problem with women on the front line - and on the front line ONLY. That problem is MEN.

We are hard-wired to protect women. It's not a choice - that's just the way it is and the way we are. Having women in a combat situation completely changes the chemistry of the group. It's really that simple.

It has nothing to do with ability or smarts or strength or anything else. I'm fine with women in ANY other military role.

I would also be fine with a troop consisting solely of women going to the front lines. Just don't mix the genders.

Chemistry. You can't change it, no matter how hard you may try.[/b]

Let them go to the front lines, but keep them the Hell away from the men on their side. When men who haven't seen women in weeks or months think they might be about to die, the presence of women will cause the men to kill EACH OTHER. You don't want that kind of confusion in such a serious situation.

Women don't ever get to see what men are like when there are no women around. The difference is gigantic. I'll put it this way... I'm glad we have women, but if there were no women, there would be no wars. Bar fights happen all the time, but there are no hunting camp fights. The men know what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Neruo

C) "Guns don't kill, blablabla". Yes, but they do make it a hell of a lot more easy. More people die in America in fights and suicide attempts and everything because a 5-year-old could get his hands on a gun. Try killing, what was it, 20?, people with a pencil and a toothbrush, or even a knife. No, some shitload of guns, that made the difference between someone killing a few people and killing 20. Guns are bad. Just because they are fun doesn't mean you should be allowed to have them, there are other things just as fun, but those Don't have the ability to splatter any person you would like his brain over the floor.[/b]

What, so you'd rather have people running around with swords and shit? I don't know about you, but I'd rather be shot by a gun than have my arms chopped off by a fucking katana. Or my chest caved in by a monkey wrench, for that matter.

It's really easy to say "guns are bad". Face it, guns are here. They exist. They are not innately good or evil. Stop crying about how no one should be allowed to have them. We have the right to bear arms. Imagine if guns were outlawed. That would stop us from owning one, but it wouldn't do jack shit to people who operate outside the law. Namely, the bad guys.

Here's a simple formula for you.

(bad guys + guns)(good guys - guns) = dead good guys

edit: and yeah, women should have the freedom to choose whether they fight in the front lines or not.

I could never shoot a woman