Should women fight in war? (on the frontlines) page 16

831 posts

Flag Post

Women don’t just go into the field after a gun battle with terrorists. Aircraft lift the wounded and take them to an FOB with an operating room, or where there are doctors and nurses standing by.

As for soldiers who know each other enlisting, this is probably a one in a million.

But like I said serving is a privilege. Women should have equal training.

 
Flag Post

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.

No, that would be sexist. Especially the bolded bit. Makes about as much as if I said Jews shouldn’t be allowed to fight because everybody will pick on them for being jews. Also they like to steal things (cause of the moneylender stereotype), so soldiers would have to be on guard all the time.

 
Flag Post

For me, I’m eeeeeexxxtremely concerned about the typical “disparity-of-desire” between men & women,,,,ya know, their “libidos”. I don’t care if the women greatly outnumber the men…..it still comes down to: supply & demand. A large source of “supply” doesn’t necessarily mean it will be “available”. Ergo, a small AVAILABLE supply coupled w/ a huge demand makes for a very happy entrepreneur.

Outside of “nurturing relationships”,,,,MY EXPERIENCE in life has shown me that the female libido is far more “controlled” than that of the male. I think there is a thread (or several) here addressing this,,,,and they seem to concur w/ my assessment. Even w/in those "nurturing relationships…the ol’ ""not tonight, honey…I’ve got a headache"" tends to appear as proof of this “control”.

Personnel on board a Navy ship demonstrate this (male only) when the younger “salts” go on shore leave and “leave” all their pay…spent on “debauchery”,,,,lol. Now, they’re totally broke—until next payday (likely at sea). So, they go to guys who have higher pay grades AND more sense about “budgeting” to borrow money to tide them over….money needed for “small essentials”.

These usury loans are highly frowned on by Navy “brass”. BUT, they are a fact of life in the military. The loan rate is typically: borrow 4 or 5 dollars and pay back 7….IN A VERY SHORT TIME (2 weeks).

I imagine “military prostitution” would also be “frowned upon”. BUT, that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t still happen. AND, that it would be quite common (probably…lol) knowing the state of mind of most young men as I do.

SO, if women are going to be on the front lines….I highly suggest that, in addition to a gun, they be “equipped” w/ a chastity belt. However, a “broke” but happy male soldier might just be a much better one. 0¿~

 
Flag Post

As someone who lives in a country in which prostitution is legal since our empress figured out that legalizing and taxing it is more profitable than putting all prostitutes on a raft and sending it down a river into the direction of the black sea, I can tell you that prostitution usually does not become that widespread. (There’s usually at least one “etablishement” of that in bigger towns but it’s pretty rare to see street-prostitution in most parts of the country.)

Usually women who are in financial troubles take to prostitution, which shouldn’t be required in the army where every private gets paid about the same. (After all, there are also not many opportunities to spend your money in for example iraq since going to town there is more likely to get you abducted/killed than any entertainment.

Finally, stopping practices that are “frowned upon” is also the responsibility of the people who make the rules, and if they stil won’t stop doing it you have to increase the penalty. After all we already suceeded in teaching soldiers that the once quite common practice of raping the female population of a conquered country is illegal too.

 
Flag Post

Men psychologically will attempt to protect women regardless and it could affect combat situations.
Also, as to physical limitations, i think people mean that women are more lean muscle (such as calves, imagine being built like a runner) while men are stronger in the arms chest and other labor(not the child bearing kind) intensive muscles. as such, in a hand to hand no holds barred melee a man would have an advantage.

 
Flag Post

Periods? Really?

 
Flag Post

call me sexist or whatever but they should not be allowed ill explain
it is a proven fact that when women face extreme stress/danger they will break down and make irrational choices thus being a danger to everyone else.
also their periods are a serious matter it will affect their emotions and they will be prone to irrational choices
there are exceptions of women who handle stress better than men
there should be a test which would be very grueling but if they pass they will be allowed iin to they military
almost everybody on this forum has no idea what theyre talking about and are afraid to say the truth caues they might be called sexist grow a pair really

 
Flag Post

Source?

Men can break down as well, can’t they?

Periods can be avoided with some measures, and really, shouldn’t be a problem.

And, if women are subjected to tougher tests, males should be, too.

 
Flag Post

If we didn’t let them fight on the frontlines people would see it as “discrimination”.

PS: The war in the middle east isn’t a war, it is more of an occupation. We pretty much won the war months after we started.

 
Flag Post

Personally I think that women should have a choice of whether they want to fight in the war and not let other people decide for them, although some people may say that they shouldn’t, but this is just my opinion.

PLZ Reply to my post

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by unknowng00se:


it is a proven fact that when women face extreme stress/danger they will break down and make irrational choices thus being a danger to everyone else.

Proven fact, huh? Source needed.

But this is coming from someone who states “i think fat people should stop being lazy” on their profile, so take it with a grain of salt.

 
Flag Post
there should be a test which would be very grueling but if they pass they will be allowed iin to they military

i’m not gonna debate you on your steriotyping generalisation, but clearly there are also men that would “break down” more easily than others, so it would be a good idea to do such screening tests for both genders. oh, guess what, they already do!

 
Flag Post

For the sole purpose of determination as to whether women can apply for such a position, all we need to answer is really: “Are males and females biologically identical in terms of physical potential?”. If yes, providing some motivation, then women should be able to fight in the front lines. If “No”, then women shouldn’t be allowed to work in the front lines unless men are in shortage as to quantity. I’m almost certain the answer is in the affirmative here though- female pro wrestlers: no different from other women during early development are naturally stronger than most laymen.

However, even assuming all women can fight in the front lines, there’s also the qualm about what effects such as enrollment would imply- the matter of morality kicks into play especially here. If we don’t consider whether women should be employed- which already means that women can participate (or else the request would be invalid)- then we aren’t taking human conscience into formulation and therefore treating humans as humans would treat stray dogs and cats in a sense. Most women would much prefer to work in “safe” environments rather than be obliged to fight in the army- even if only owing to culture and/or tradition.

I think that most women could be trained for the task, but most wouldn’t want to. Regarding them as humans means free choice when free choice should be considered as being applicable- such as this case.

In conclusion, women should have the option to fight (in the front lines), but they shouldn’t be forced to join.

 
Flag Post

Yes, like feminists say : ‘all genders are equal’ , both races must fight on the frontlines in war.

Enough said.

 
Flag Post

it all ain’t that simple. you can’t just ask “should they fight wars?”. it’s an ill-defined question.

should they be conscripted into military service if needed along with men? if they want to be treated as equals: yes. if they want to not be treated as equals then lets not treat them as equals.

should they be allowed into military service if they want to? no country that i know of disallows that.

should they be allowed into every military position available to men irregardless? i believe only Denmark does that. it’s just completely impractical in special forces and on board of submarines. so no.

question dealt with.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

it all ain’t that simple. you can’t just ask “should they fight wars?”. it’s an ill-defined question.

should they be conscripted into military service if needed along with men? if they want to be treated as equals: yes. if they want to not be treated as equals then lets not treat them as equals.

should they be allowed into military service if they want to? no country that i know of disallows that.

should they be allowed into every military position available to men irregardless? i believe only Denmark does that. it’s just completely impractical in special forces and on board of submarines. so no.

question dealt with.

While the rest of your post is fine, I have to yell at you and say NO BAD DON’T DO THAT YOU IDIOT.

Irregardless is not a word, despite what you might think. The word you are looking for would most likely be regardless, or anyways.

 
Flag Post

ok, lol. of course, i meant irredisregardless.

 
Flag Post

No.

 
Flag Post

Yes, there is no question about that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by scoopolard:

No.

Okay. Thanks for that, I guess.


@Title; Well, it’s kinda hard to give a simple answer without getting a little… Misunderstood.

First off, though, I would like to say that no-one should have to fight in a war in the first place, though both men and women should also have the ability to enter the military, should they choose to enlist. (Though as for how well they’d fit in there in the first place… That’s for the higher-ups to find out.)

 
Flag Post

I believe they should be able to do it. If they want to, why should we stop them?

 
Flag Post

No.

 
Flag Post

Yes,there are less men on the planet anyway.It sounds mean but that is the truth.It dosen’t matter if its a women or a man-

CAN YOU HOLD A GUN?

CAN YOU RUN FAST?

Congrats your part of the army.

Of course its not as simple as that but We are’t terrorists,we let women have rights so why do we care if ANYBODY fights in the front lines?Equal and fair.But Im not the one to decide Im just giving my opinion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

Yes,there are less men on the planet anyway.

What?

It sounds mean but that is the truth.

Then could you give a source?

CAN YOU HOLD A GUN?

You probably will after training.

CAN YOU RUN FAST?

Define “fast.”

Congrats your part of the army.

You’re* (Yes, I’ve resorted to doing that.)

but We are’t terrorists,

How is that even remotely related to this?