Should women fight in war? (on the frontlines) page 15

831 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by DarkBaron:

Actually lots of women are underweight because of hollywood. I think they should fight in the frontlines. Equality is equality, and if we take gunfire, so should you. Hell, maybe the war would have been over if women were in the frontlines. The enemies would either ogle or get so annoyed by the women, they’d surrender.

Or throw their women in too. Just might happen. I don’t see why it’s hard for people to understand, the opponent will mimic the other if they are getting an advantage because of it. It’s happened over and over again.

 
Flag Post

Well, you weren’t with me today. I went to the Renaissance Festival. I looked around and could have sworn it was the Pondarosa. I thought of this thread and how all of these women needed to be in the military, working out and preparing for the front lines.

 
Flag Post

I believe it is everyones choice whether or not to join the military. I do not believe women are inherently better or worse than men. Both sexes have potential for evil or good. Both sexes are equally capable of fighting and dying for their nation.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

You know, when I was young we respected women as the fairer sex and put them in a higher plane. We treated them well, but somehow that seems to have gone by the wayside.

You know, I believe I do understand (and abhor) where Jhco is coming from here. What I believe he is referring to, is the old practice of placing women upon a pedestal, and making sure no harm came to us. Sheltering from the big, bad, dangerous outside world, only allowing careers that were safe, and fit for a female’s ‘delicate’ mind – nothing too strenuous or taxing. Nothing that could put the body at risk, or get it too dirty.

I for one am glad that practice has in the mainstream at least, fallen by the wayside, and whilst I do admire the strength of women put through that ringer and not going mad, I am glad that such application of inner strength is in the main, not necessary. There are plenty of other things to apply it to; plenty of other things to fight for.

Yes, an adult woman’s upper body strength is less than a man’s. That is beyond contestation. I do have a chart on paper showcasing that, not sure if I can find anything similar online. Apparently no, I can’t, which is annoying; I will have to dig it out and scan it.

Anyhow, an adult woman’s upper body strength is about 60% of a man’s. Men tend to have more muscle mass, and testosterone in large quantities strengthens muscle. In addition, the pectoral muscles are aligned differently in the genders, delivering different force vectors when used.

On the flip side, whilst a woman’s lower body has only about 80% of the muscle mass of a man, the female hip provides significant additional torque, and pound for pound, we can kick far stronger, dealing more damage than a man can.

There is also nothing to stop a girl from working out. It will take longer and a lot more effort, but you can exceed an average fit male soldier’s muscle strength in all areas if you keep at it. Does require more determination, but that again – determination – is a trait usually associated with the female of the species. A tendency to be more cerebral and less brawn-orientated is also not a stereotype, but pretty much accurate.

Women tend to be social creatures, and as such, are continually thinking, and picking phrasing, juggling many thoughts at once. Some men do this as well, of course, but the average grunt doesn’t. When this skill is applied to combat situations, and she’s been trained how to apply it, you have someone who is able to think fast and think smart whilst under pressure. That is never a bad thing to have, on the front lines or anywhere.

So, yes as a recap, whilst the strength issue does exist, there are ways of eliminating the gap in all but the most buff opponents, and there are other advantages a woman has, that even the playing field with male soldiers. Her lower body muscle strength, and an agile mind.

 
Flag Post

Wow! I don’t agree with you often, but you nailed it here. Good job Vika.

 
Flag Post

No. It would look bad with dead female soldiers on our front lines. Not to mention all of the raping other soldiers would do. Or if women were captured and shown on a video tape being executed…

 
Flag Post

And dead male soldiers aren’t looking bad at all, either?

Males totally can’t be raped, right?

Again; why is this suddenly oh so much worse when females are involved, to the point of them not being allowed to do it, even if they wish?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

And dead male soldiers aren’t looking bad at all, either?

Males totally can’t be raped, right?

Again; why is this suddenly oh so much worse when females are involved, to the point of them not being allowed to do it, even if they wish?

Because of rape. Because of the look of a bunch of dead girls on the front line. People have a softer heart for women.

 
Flag Post

Again, males can’t be raped? Males can’t look bad when they’re dead at the front line?

I don’t see why females who want to serve and know all the risks shouldn’t be allowed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

Again, males can’t be raped? Males can’t look bad when they’re dead at the front line?

I don’t see why females who want to serve and know all the risks shouldn’t be allowed.

Indeed. There are numerous accounts of men being raped in the military. Men are also less likely to be taken seriously about the claim, more often ridiculed for “allowing” the rape to happen and less likely to come forward and seek help.

Vika has an excellent answer by the by.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

Again, males can’t be raped? Males can’t look bad when they’re dead at the front line?

I don’t see why females who want to serve and know all the risks shouldn’t be allowed.

Again, people have more of a softer for women.

 
Flag Post

So? Why should that deny women the possibility of serving if they want to?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

So? Why should that deny women the possibility of serving if they want to?

Women can serve. They helped with supplies in 2003 invasion of Iraq, they’ve served as doctors, pilots, MP (Although, in military police, rape is just at its highest) they’ve served.

 
Flag Post

The point is kofe, why should there be arbitrary limits on what positions we can hold, just because of the apparent squeamishness of a third party? Why are there these limits on the amount of self-determination we are allowed?

Is it just because it might make a third party nauseous if we are allowed to do that? Is that seriously the argument that is being presented here?

 
Flag Post

I don’t know if it’s been said before, but there are women combat pilots and ship captains in the US military.

Oh, and the chauvinist arguments being presented (rape, feminine sensitivity, etc) don’t actually hold up. I mean, they would, if not for the fairly obvious fact that other first world countries (ie. Canada, the scandinavian countries) allow women to serve in every equal respect to men. Even on submarines. And in most cases those laws went into effect about 20 years ago.

In other words, the chauvinist argument can only work if you ignore how other countries handle this issue, since this perspective projects universalist ‘facts’ about women that are neither facts nor universal. Either that, or pretend that the US has such a special culture (of close-minded relics, one presumes) that its policies just can’t be compared to those of other countries. I guess if it works for abortion and gun control…?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I don’t know if it’s been said before, but there are women combat pilots and ship captains in the US military.

Oh, and the chauvinist arguments being presented (rape, feminine sensitivity, etc) don’t actually hold up. I mean, they would, if not for the fairly obvious fact that other first world countries (ie. Canada, the scandinavian countries) allow women to serve in every equal respect to men. Even on submarines. And in most cases those laws went into effect about 20 years ago.

In other words, the counter-argument can only work if you ignore how other countries handle this issue, since the counter-argument projects universalist ‘facts’ about women that are neither facts nor universal, or pretend that the US has such a special culture (of close-minded relics, one presumes) that its policies just can’t be compared to those of other countries.

There is actually a lot of rape in the military.

 
Flag Post

Yeah…that doesn’t actually refute my argument.

 
Flag Post

Slow, sexual abuse of any type is like any other crime in one respect. Rather than punishing the victim, or imposing limits on the freedom of the innocent to protect those who would commit the crime given the opportunity, we follow a practice of punishing those who commit the crimes, and punishing them hard.

All things considered, I believe this current policy of punishing the criminals rather than punishing the victims, works rather well.

 
Flag Post

This has probably already been said before, but the ONLY requirements for being put on the frontlines should be if an individual is willing and able. Any other factor is inconsequential, imo.

 
Flag Post

I really don’t no. Women do have physical limitations. But at the same time saying yes to that could get us a crap load of new recruits on the battlefield………

 
Flag Post

I wrote a position paper on this matter a while back. I’m not going to bother posting the whole thing, because no one would read it, but my main arguments were:

1. Women have higher rates of injury compared to men, mostly due to skeletal structure

2. Women have less lung capacity and cardiovascular endurance

3. Women have less muscle density and less strength per unit mass, as well as less ability to gain strength due to differences in sex hormones

4. Different standards between genders for PT scores, as well as different housing and grooming standards would all create rifts between male and female fighters.

5. If held to equal standards as men, women would drop out of training at a much higher rate. Drops from training cost the DoD significant amounts of money.

I stayed away from the moral arguments like “women shouldn’t be violent,” etc. I think that the physical differences alone are reason enough to keep them out. There’s always the argument “well I know a woman that could run faster than anyone in my unit, blah blah,” There could always be an outlier in terms of female PT ability, but those are so rare that it’s not worth letting them all try to go through training. Also imagine an infantry company with one female. She would be pretty isolated.

Remember, service is a privilege, not a right.

 
Flag Post

Personally, I see no reason to deny women to server at the front lines. As various posters before me said, women are usually physically weaker than men but they only need to reach a certain standard of stamina and strenght which shouldn’t be too hard with the right amount of training.

Personal Tale Time: I’m a male Austrian citizen, and about 2 years ago, I was ordered to show up at the nearest barracks so that it can be determined if I’m fit enough to be conscripted for 6 months of national service in our armed forces. I think I got the lowest strenght score available (intentionally, I avoided any kind of muscular training so I could be declared unfit) and I’m asthmatic, but if it wasn’t for that doctor at the 2nd day who asked me if I actually wanted to be conscripted (which I obviously answered with no) I would now be sleeping in a bunk bed in some barracks praying not to be blown to smithereens by a howitzer-malfunction or something similiar, instead of sitting here writing this post).
Now while I believe that the standards of the US army are far higher than those of Austrian armed forces conscripts, there are other states like Israel for example which also conscribes women, and have female soldiers serving in their infantry which are quite probably doing a good job.

Furthermore, as a personal observation, I always had the feeling that being a soldier is more about shooting enemy soldiers while avoiding to be shot by them, and less hand-to-hand combat and climbing over 2 meter/6 ft high walls.

But I do think that before a female soldier signs up for a position at the front lines, she should be informed that, in the event of capture by the enemy, she is more likely to be raped. Simply because most soldiers are male. (And would consider raping a captured male soldier as homosexual, which especially in deeply islamic soldiers, would probably cause them to be shot by their own comrades.) And female female soldiers should understand this additional risk they would be exposed to at the front lines.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

I personally think yes, every man AND woman has the right to fight for the country, no matter what problems it can cause. But I do see why it could be a bad idea.

Theres the problem of men and women forming relationships with each other, and distracting them from their work. This could lead either one to fight to the death should the other get into a spot of bother, but then this increases recklessness and could cause other casualties.

Now I’m not being sexist here, but women may not cope as well with death as men do in the frontlines. I haven’t heard of any psychological research to test this sort of anxiety, so this has a big question mark over itself.

There are women who get close to the fighting, but they are usually doctors that arrive when the area is clear, and can be easily held if they are under fire again.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by mcnick_mercedes:

I personally think yes, every man AND woman has the right to fight for the country, no matter what problems it can cause. But I do see why it could be a bad idea.

Theres the problem of men and women forming relationships with each other, and distracting them from their work. This could lead either one to fight to the death should the other get into a spot of bother, but then this increases recklessness and could cause other casualties.

Now I’m not being sexist here, but women may not cope as well with death as men do in the frontlines. I haven’t heard of any psychological research to test this sort of anxiety, so this has a big question mark over itself.

There are women who get close to the fighting, but they are usually doctors that arrive when the area is clear, and can be easily held if they are under fire again.

Concerning your first point about relationships: I think recklessness could just as well arise if a good friend of a soldier is under fire, they maybe enlisted together or became friends in the field either way it doesn’t need a romantic relationship for someone to become reckless if a good friend is in danger. So the only way to prevent recklessness is to make sure that soldiers know that following procedures has a better way of helping someone than charging off blindly.

Concerning your second point about women coping with death: If I remember right women in general are emotionally stronger than men, because they tend to talk more about things that are bothering them and are more likely to seek professional help. So while there may still be some soldiers who don’t handle all that death around them well, women may have an easier time coping with it then men do.