Should Women Go To The Frontline?

[irishcream]

Just wondering what everyone's view point on this is, i had a really interesting conversation with a lady i work with this morning, she'd had a debate/argument with a friend of hers, (much older i might add) who basically said it was wrong for women to go to war and fight on the frontline along with the men, the more so if they had children. My thoughts on it are this. If a woman has the guts and bravery to go to war and fight for her country, good luck to her. If she has children, it shouldn't stop her going. It doesn't stop the men going, they sometimes have children left at home, but when they sign up for the army, they MUST go where they are called. As my friend said, it should be equal. how come women get a choice, and the men don't? (i know some of you are going to argue that and say they could have chose not to join the army...) Please keep all replies civil and decent. I'm expecting strong opinions, but i don't want any flaming!

[Oneironaut Zero]

If they, through training, have shown the capability to handle those types of conditions, I don't see why not.

[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.

[Howie]

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 pj I would like to add sexual tension 1. Many men go for long periods without seeing woman. 2.Men think of sex too often and could conflict with decision making 3.The ratio of men to women exaggerate number 1 & 2 An all woman battalions perhaps?

[Howie]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("King and God")</div> In nowadays warfare physical strenght is not as important as it was centuries ago when men fought wearing heavy armor and wielding swords. So, due to that, I think it is perfectly okay for women to go to war, despite that the male&#39;s physique is superior to the female&#39;s and still better suited for wars in these days. And as Irish said in the first post, it doesn&#39;t matter if she has kids. It doesn&#39;t matter when it comes to the man, so it should not matter when it comes to the woman either.[/b] How do you combat these isues? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("pj")</div> 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&#39;s not a choice - that&#39;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&#39;s really that simple. It has nothing to do with ability or smarts or strength or anything else. I&#39;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&#39;t mix the genders. Chemistry. You can&#39;t change it, no matter how hard you may try.[/b] Exactly pj I would like to add sexual tension 1. Many men go for long periods without seeing woman. 2.Men think of sex too often and could conflict with decision making 3.The ratio of men to women exaggerate number 1 & 2 An all woman battalions perhaps? [/b]

[Universal Mind]

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... 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.

[NeAvO]

I think women have as much right to go to the front line as men do. I mean women are equal to men so they should be allowed to do what men are allowed to. The only reason this debate is happening is because over the years it has been socially acceptable for men to do the fighting.

[sogart]

where I come from, all men HAVE to go to the army for 1 year but women don't have to do it. I think this is an inequality and unfair treatment against men, but most people I have talked to believe that women are just not (strong/good/hard whatever) enough to handle it. They also say that if women joined the army then all the men would have to go to the frontline and all the office jobs would be taken up by the women. I dont know what to think... anyways hope this is not off topic, but I thought to give you the perspective of another country where the army is obligatory for everyone (male).

[Indecent Exposure]

i dont think its advisable to mix the genders I'd say the best idea would be to have tropps cosnting purel;y of females going to the front line and the same for me Equal rights Just without the complications Imran

[Jess]

If they want to, they should definitely be allowed to go. I'm assuming they can shoot straight etc. as they're in the army in the first place.

[dreamzer]

I could never shoot a woman

[juroara]

in the past people might have argued the frontline requires the most physically fit, and males are simply stronger than women. but this argument is becoming less and less true thanks to technology. our boys these days are not like warriors of the past, samurais, or spartans. these days the battle field is just different and the ones who win are the ones with the better weapons, better strategy. infact, our weapons have advanced so much sometimes a frontline isnt even necessary. with such modern technology, I think the women can fit in the frontline - frontlines these days are no longer about physical muscle. The other question that should be asked is - WHO goes to the frontline. the most valued in the army, or the least valued? my cousins who went to the frontline were all first timers. it didnt seem as if the frontline consisted of veterans. I kinda dislike the frontline actually in how its used, so political. Well then again maybe my distate for how the frontline is used is just becuase I dont like Bush. Do women really want to be apart of that? Most of my cousins who joined the frontline had less than amazing grades in highschool and no plans for college. My cousins by contrast who had GOOD grades in highschool and career plans did not want to be apart of the frontline. Just who are we sending off to die??? Im old fashioned when it comes to children, I think it is more of the mothers duty than the fathers. Who carries the child for nine months? Who gives birth to it? Who breast feeds it? There are so many gals who think their lover will stand by their side and support their child, and several months later before or after the child is born the arse runs out on them. Happens all the time. Thats just the truth, males can run out on children faster than females. The scenario is much worse if its the other way around, if its the mother who dumps the new born on the father and runs out. Im not saying fathers lack the ability to take care of new borns *its not like were born knowing how to do this stuff anyways*, but its a shame becuase he doesnt have lactating breasts. Theres a baby in my family now whose mother decided not to breast feed him, and his poor immune system has sent him to the hospital already, and hes not even one year old. Now the thing with kids and war is not so much that their parent would be away from home so much that their parent might never come back. This is a lose lose situation. No child should have to lose either parent, but even then I still feel very small children might need their mom slightly more than their dad. I dont think a mom should go to war if she has very small children at home. btw, there are two kinds of feminism. One kind wants to give females all the same rights as males, all the same choices that they make. My problem with this feminism is it feels being female IS inferior, and a female is only equal if she does exactly as men. Im for the other kind of feminism, the kind that honors the female for what she is and sees her unique role as equal to that of men. In this kind of feminism, there is no shame in being a stay at home mom, unlike the other kind that treats stay at home moms as idiots for not going to work.

[Patrick]

An alarming number of frontline female soldiers in Iraq have reported sexual assualt or harassment. Many thousands, as a result, are being treated for post-traumatic stress. I do think that women are as capable as men in dealing with the heavy demands of warfare, but something seriously needs to be done about sexual abuse.

[Jess]

An advantage of women on the frontline is they can relate better the female and child civilians/soldiers in war zones. Winning the 'hearts and minds'? It's not just about fighting. People feel less threatened by them and perhaps more willing to negotiate? Unless the culture dictates otherwise of course. If males are that debilitated around women on the frontline then surely that is a weakness that could be easily exploited by an enemy by raising an entirely female army? If it were true.

[King and God]

In nowadays warfare physical strenght is not as important as it was centuries ago when men fought wearing heavy armor and wielding swords. So, due to that, I think it is perfectly okay for women to go to war, despite that the male's physique is superior to the female's and still better suited for wars in these days. And as Irish said in the first post, it doesn't matter if she has kids. It doesn't matter when it comes to the man, so it should not matter when it comes to the woman either.

[King and God]

Each combat group should consist of one gender only.

[Moonbeam]

Nobody should "go". If it "comes", then we should all fight or serve to the best of our ability.

[pj]

Nobody should "go". If it "comes", then we should all fight or serve to the best of our ability.[/b] GOOD answer.

[Indecent Exposure]

Nobody should "go". If it "comes", then we should all fight or serve to the best of our ability.[/b] I'd agree except the word all You have to consider COs and people who may have some form of affiliation with the invading country? Like ancestry? Imran

[Moonbeam]

You have to consider COs and people who may have some form of affiliation with the invading country? Imran[/b] Well, you'd have to choose sides, and since invaders by definition are in the wrong, that would be an easy choice.

[irishcream]

I miss the 'fast reply' button...anyway... Choosing sides? I seem to remember a yugoslavian film (forget what it was called) where there were two brothers, and they ended up fighting on opposite sides of the war. How DO you choose which side to fight? If everyone says you should be fighting on one side, but your beliefs lie with the other party? You could end up killing all your mates or something... to be honest, i think all wars are a total waste of time, and no one should have to go through it.

[Howie]

Well in the not to distant future I think we may see more of this ---> Than this --> ♂ ♀ Which does not make war more justifiable but at least young men and woman will not be dieing. Hopefully technology won't be used to justify and reason to give cause for war.

[QwinsepiaSquared]

Im not saying fathers lack the ability to take care of new borns *its not like were born knowing how to do this stuff anyways*, but its a shame becuase he doesnt have lactating breasts.[/b] HA that made me giggle. Well in the not to distant future I think we may see more of this --->:borgsmile: Than this --> ♂ ♀ Which does not make war more justifiable but at least young men and woman will not be dieing. Hopefully technology won't be used to justify and reason to give cause for war.[/b] I agree with Howie here. But would that lead to? Once a country loses all their "robots" I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to fall back to more traditional methods. In the end, it's still going to come down to man vs man, or woman.

[Gwendolyn]

I think the excuses of sexual tension between the two sexes and men trying to protect women could be overcome. Is it not true that most men have overcome the urge to try to have sex with as many women as possible, so as to have a greater chance of furthering their legacy? I mean, if that is possible, than I'm sure they could get over it. Or, just have women in seperate areas of the battlefield, unaccessable by the guys. Or just take turns sending only batallions of one sex. It could work.

[SKA]

Should ANYONE go to a frontline? Anyone that holds peace and life dear. Unless off course your Country is under immediate attack and you would have to fight to defend yourself NO war is a war in which I want to participate. And in that case why should women be treated any different than men? If they WANT to join the army, why shouldn't they? Anyone with a gun, skills and a good condition can fight. I don't see how women would be excluded. In Israël where they have draft and a need of a constant force of Soldiers to protect the country from terrorist bombers. There they have men and women in their army. If you are well able to fight as a good soldier on a frontline, why should your sex be of any importance?