Should Women be allowed to see frontline service?

[Storm]

Great! You didn't know that women are weaker (in general) than men and have different hormonal profile?
Feminist bull****.

This from the guy who said we aren't courageous.

 

[DallasApple]

Women are fearless in fact they can rip out your carotid artery with there teeth sir.They dont need a fist.

But I will agree..they will have a harder time getting to your neck.But dont call them non courageous.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Have you ever seen a female boxing? Now emagine hand-to-hand combat where women are fighting against men. It would look funny. Well, no! It would be terrible. Women are weaker than men. Could weaker soldiers win on a battle field? No. Women are not fearless and courageous (in general) because of differences in hormonal physiology. It's also not a good reason to be on edge of an attack.

Women are "not fearless" and "not "courageous".(in general)?

Have you told this to your mother? ..If not start with her ..otherwise you are the one with no courage and who is not "fearless"

Love

Dallas

 

[Boiled Brain]

This from the guy who said we aren't courageous.

I don't mean couarge when one passes on red etc. I mean courage on a battlefield where are blood, pain, killings and brutality.

 

[Storm]

I don't mean couarge when one passes on red etc. I mean courage on a battlefield where are blood, pain, killings and brutality.

I don't give a rat's ***.

 

[DallasApple]

I don't mean couarge when one passes on red etc. I mean courage on a battlefield where are blood, pain, killings and brutality.

Oh Im sorry..

I must have misunderstood you.

Love

Dallas

 

[Aquitaine]

Now this is more like it!

*Gets the popcorn*

 

[DallasApple]

Now this is more like it!

*Gets the popcorn*

mmm...

I want some parmesean salt sprinkles on mine please..

And I mean RIGHT now..

Love

Dallas

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't mean couarge when one passes on red etc. I mean courage on a battlefield where are blood, pain, killings and brutality.

If you don't know any courageous women, then you don't know many women.

 

[Arkholt]

Boiled Brain hasn't met my wife. She's much stronger than me, and could beat down any guy I know with no trouble. Fearless? Courageous? Oh, yes indeed!

 

[tumbleweed41]

At the moment, we have an all volunteer military. Every person who enters military service is aware that they may face front-line combat. Training is equal for both sexes, so anyone who passes the training is eligible for combat.

As for women being "less courageous" or "fearless", it sounds more like a defense of ones "manhood" than a fact based argument against having a woman save your butt.

 

[Oberon]

Training is equal for both sexes, so anyone who passes the training is eligible for combat.

This isn't true. Extensive combat training is given only to infantry units, and women are barred from such units.

 

[Boiled Brain]

If you don't know any courageous women, then you don't know many women.

It may be.

 

[Willamena]

Should Women be allowed to see frontline service?

Yes.

Do you think since we place such importance on Equality nowadays, that both Men and Women should be allowed to see frontline service?

I don't see it being about equality, but about making a living serving one's country.

. . . do you believe that restricting Women from frontline service is a breach of their equal rights, and that they should be allowed to see frontline service?

No, it is not a "breach of equal rights." Equality is not about doing the same things, it is about attitudes. The Melting Pot. Everyone treating everyone as they would treat themselves (provided they would treat themselves well).

 

[tumbleweed41]

This isn't true. Extensive combat training is given only to infantry units, and women are barred from such units.

Of course, to clarify...

Training is equal for positions that employ both sexes.

And women are not completely bared from the units, many women in support positions are members of the units, but not in combat positions. This is however no guarantee that they will not see combat, anyone in a war zone is liable to see some type of combat.

 

[Oberon]

Of course, to clarify...

Training is equal for positions that employ both sexes.

And women are not completely bared from the units, many women in support positions are members of the units, but not in combat positions. This is however no guarantee that they will not see combat, anyone in a war zone is liable to see some type of combat.

I agree with all of the above.

 

[Duck]

This I have to take exception with. I would guarentee that SOF groups are more physically fit than the vikings in so many ways, as are (i'm sure) many infantry guys. I know a little bit about ancient warefare, and I make chain mail as a hobby. I doubt the loads carried by modern infantry grunts are less than the armor of the old warriors. Moreover, there is a lot more running around with these full combat loads. Old battles tended to take place in one location, and they just went at it four a while. Modern battles, you could be in the combat fields for hours, or days, or weeks, all depending on the operation.

Truthfully, I hadn't really taken into account the gear loadouts (d'oh) carried by modern infantry, I had only really thought in terms of the pew-pew of rifles vs hiyah! of swords. The training of modern infantry and military is of course much better than any training (if any?) from the sword-and-board days.

As I said in my original post, my primary hang up with frontline service is one of perceived inequality, I just have trouble believing that the minimum requirements result in the same level of fitness or capability when the requirements are radically different (i.e. 12 vs 29). Beyond that, no problems with frontline service by women.

 

[Falvlun]

:facepalms self: For some reason, reading the thread title, I immediately assumed "frontline" was something sexual, and had no idea what it could be, hence me entering the thread.

As for the actual thread, not having read it yet, here is my virgin two cents:
I believe woman should certainly be allowed to serve in combat situations. I don't think there is something inherently wrong or different about woman that should preclude them from doing so.

However,
I do believe the physical requirements would have to be very stringent. I understand that there is a difference in male vs female physicality, so there should be a separate set of requirements, however, the difference needs to be relatively small. (I say this because I have a friend who went through police academy and the sit-up requirement for men was astronomically high, and the female requirement was astronomically low; that did not sit right.)

The females should be strong enough to carry their own fair share of equipment, and also be able to drag a fallen comrade to safety. Those are my two biggies. If she can do that, then you go girl!

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I think women should be allowed to volunteer for combat units. But I do think their training should be separate. That movie GI Jane was very unrealistic, although fun to watch. They should have put a group of women through the training to see who could finish. The whole Hollywood vision of men and women showering together and not being sexual aroused is a myth that will never happen.

Now here is a question for you. If women are allowed to volunteer for combat units should they also be required to join combat units if there is a need. Men don't always get a choice what MOS they get so why should women only have to serve in combat if they volunteer for it? If you are going to be fair and equal then they women should have to face the same risks the men do. But if you say women will have to serve in combat it looks like you are punishing them for wanting the same opportunities as the men. These are the kinds of questions that keep Generals and Admirals up at night.

 

[Amill]

Man or woman, if one can be trusted to perform the physical and mental duties required of a frontline soldier, then I see no reason to not allow that person to be there. I love women, and don't want women to go into war, but if they want to and choose to, I don't think we should deny them the opportunity, as long as they are held to the same standards required of men at the positions they would like to hold. They should have to meet the same physical requirements that men do in order to be on the front line. When people's lives are at stake, forget trying to give people equal opportunities. It's about having the best possible soldiers.