Should women fight in war? (on the frontlines) page 23

832 posts

Flag Post

Call me what ever you want but a woman’s place is in kitchen, just like a man’s place is at his work place.
Women should not be allowed to fight in war because there are some risks which only they have to face.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Call me what ever you want but a woman’s place is in kitchen, just like a man’s place is at his work place.
Women should not be allowed to fight in war because there are some risks which only they have to face.

Tell me, what is the modern woman going to do ALL DAY in her kitchen?

AND, just what are these female-only risks they have to take?
This inquiring mind must know.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Call me what ever you want but a woman’s place is in kitchen, just like a man’s place is at his work place.
Women should not be allowed to fight in war because there are some risks which only they have to face.

Tell me, what is the modern woman going to do ALL DAY in her kitchen?

AND, just what are these female-only risks they have to take?
This inquiring mind must know.


No, modern working woman does not spend all her time in kitchen (read in her home)
But from point of view of a child who’s both parents work, Kids get neglected ALOT.
What female only risks they will have to take?
RAPE?
 
Flag Post

Women are genetically weaker than men. It’s just a fact. Why would you endanger the lives of women who are fighting in the frontlines? Not to mention you’re endangering the lives of men as well. It’s justifiable to do this. If the decision was purely based on sexism than it would be wrong but it’s not.

 
Flag Post

There would NOT be an equal ratio of men and women in the frontlines. There’d be more men, because generally they are stronger. But why should a woman NOT take over the position of a man who is weaker than her? SOME women are stronger than SOME men, so why should they not be allowed to fight?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:

Women are genetically weaker than men. It’s just a fact. Why would you endanger the lives of women who are fighting in the frontlines? Not to mention you’re endangering the lives of men as well. It’s justifiable to do this. If the decision was purely based on sexism than it would be wrong but it’s not.

You are aware of the fact that physical strength is becoming less and less important on modern battlefields?


Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Call me what ever you want but a woman’s place is in kitchen, just like a man’s place is at his work place.
Women should not be allowed to fight in war because there are some risks which only they have to face.

Tell me, what is the modern woman going to do ALL DAY in her kitchen?

AND, just what are these female-only risks they have to take?
This inquiring mind must know.


No, modern working woman does not spend all her time in kitchen (read in her home)
But from point of view of a child who’s both parents work, Kids get neglected ALOT.
What female only risks they will have to take?
RAPE?

Rape is not a female only risk.
And men can stay at home too. It’s working very well in countries that offer equal opportunities to parents after a child is born. Countries like Norway. Many men stay at home there. Why should women always be the ones who have to sacrifice their careers for a family? When in reality neither one has to.

 
Flag Post
You are aware of the fact that physical strength is becoming less and less important on modern battlefields?

Not at a rate at which men and women are almost completely equal. It still requires strength and women are genetically weaker than men. Ask yourself, is this a reasonable justification for not wanting to endanger the lives of women and possibly men? It is.

Rape is not a female only risk.
And men can stay at home too. It’s working very well in countries that offer equal opportunities to parents after a child is born. Countries like Norway. Many men stay at home there. Why should women always be the ones who have to sacrifice their careers for a family? When in reality neither one has to.

It is a predominantly female risk… When is the last time you heard a man getting raped? Not saying it doesn’t happen but it’s pretty rare.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darear:
You are aware of the fact that physical strength is becoming less and less important on modern battlefields?

Not at a rate at which men and women are almost completely equal. It still requires strength and women are genetically weaker than men. Ask yourself, is this a reasonable justification for not wanting to endanger the lives of women and possibly men? It is.

You don’t want to endanger the lives of men and women? Well, why do you even have an army then? As far as I know the US Army is not a drafted one (please correct me if I’m wrong). Most people in there are volunteers. If they want to do that job, let them. The danger is always high. If grown ups who are aware of that consciously decide to face that risk, why stop them on the basis of generalisations? If you really want to decide based on physical capabilities, test the volunteers. Whoever doesn’t fulfil the basic requirements isn’t allowed in, no matter whether it’s a man or a woman.

Originally posted by Darear:
Rape is not a female only risk.

It is a predominantly female risk… When is the last time you heard a man getting raped? Not saying it doesn’t happen but it’s pretty rare.

Very often male rape is not reported out of shame (I’ll try to find numbers on that, but not today. Too late.).
And even with all that being said, is rape that severe a problem in the army that women should not be allowed to fight? Because if that is true I would simply arrest every male soldier who returns home for having a significantly high chance to being a rapist. Apparently they can’t have a women close to them without having to tear her panties off. Okay, maybe not arrest, but keep them under constant surveillance.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Darear:
You are aware of the fact that physical strength is becoming less and less important on modern battlefields?

Not at a rate at which men and women are almost completely equal. It still requires strength and women are genetically weaker than men. Ask yourself, is this a reasonable justification for not wanting to endanger the lives of women and possibly men? It is.

You don’t want to endanger the lives of men and women? Well, why do you even have an army then? As far as I know the US Army is not a drafted one (please correct me if I’m wrong). Most people in there are volunteers. If they want to do that job, let them. The danger is always high. If grown ups who are aware of that consciously decide to face that risk, why stop them on the basis of generalisations? If you really want to decide based on physical capabilities, test the volunteers. Whoever doesn’t fulfil the basic requirements isn’t allowed in, no matter whether it’s a man or a woman.

That’s a different argument all together. I oppose any unnecessary wars. But every country does need a standing army, albeit not as big as America but still. We do have draft in America but it’s in law only, for all practical purposes, there is no forced draft any more. You just have to sign up for selective service.

The danger is high however do you want to increase the chance of danger by allowing women to fight on the frontlines?

 
Flag Post

The danger is high however do you want to increase the chance of danger by allowing weak men instead of strong women to fight on the frontlines?
See? You are sooooo irresponsible.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

The danger is high however do you want to increase the chance of danger by allowing weak men instead of strong women to fight on the frontlines?
See? You are sooooo irresponsible.

On average a pretty weak man can manhandle a pretty strong woman.
Also Psychologically women are weak,
they can’t take as much stress as men.
I know this by experience

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

On average a pretty weak man can manhandle a pretty strong woman.

Yeah, no.

Though wait, just how weak is “pretty weak?”

Also Psychologically women are weak,

Yeah, no.

they can’t take as much stress as men.

Except for pregnancy, plus the fact that both are generally told by society to “grin and bear it” a lot of the time, only men just tend to not show less emotion.

I know this by experience

Care to share said experience?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

On average a pretty weak man can manhandle a pretty strong woman.

Yeah, no.

Though wait, just how weak is “pretty weak?”

Also Psychologically women are weak,

Yeah, no.

they can’t take as much stress as men.

Except for pregnancy, plus the fact that both are generally told by society to “grin and bear it” a lot of the time, only men just tend to not show less emotion.

I know this by experience

Care to share said experience?

Pretty weak means less than average.
Talk to them when they are going through their periods.
I agree except the pregnancy.
and woman relatively easily crack under pressure
In every day life, I have witnessed
it many times.
Men can take much more abuse than women before giving up.
Also their relative sizes are different.
More over no matter how much combat advances, when infantries skirmish, it comes down to the strength and stamina etc of the person fighting.
Sure, war is not anymore fought with swords and spears, but still it is not fought with robots either.
In my Opinion women as doctors, engineers pilots etc are OK but not as a common infantry man who have to take the most load.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Pretty weak means less than average.

Damn….I’m soooo glad we cleared that up and put a meaningful significance on it…..lol

Talk to them when they are going through their periods.

So…ya’re saying all women are alike….esp. in this regard?
I tell ya what…when YOU have a period,,,THEN come and talk to me about the “significance” of all of it,,,esp. in regards to topic of this thread.

I agree except the pregnancy.

Again….when YOU have a pregnancy & delivery, let me know how well ya did. THEN, we’ll talk about this topic.

and woman relatively easily crack under pressure
In every day life, I have witnessed
it many times.

And, just how many times would this be?….esp. in a war setting where ONLY women who merited being there are the ones WE are talking about. How are we to know about the merit of the women YOU know “in every day life”.?

Men can take much more abuse than women before giving up.

Ya know this….HOW?
Ya’ve got some definitive research to offer?

Also their relative sizes are different.

No shit? So, maybe we don’t let the “wee little ones” go into battle if they can’t lift the rifle…eh? Beside, it has been MY experience that: It isn’t the size of the dog in the fight that really matters….it’s the size of the fight in the dog that gets the job done. The women I hang w/ are downright scary….if they need be.

More over no matter how much combat advances, when infantries skirmish, it comes down to the strength and stamina etc of the person fighting.

Ya’re STILL trying to discount ALL women, dood. Ya seriously need to get out more and met more AND DIFFERENT women.

Sure, war is not anymore fought with swords and spears, but still it is not fought with robots either.

And just what is a drone?….a smart missile?…a modern tank?

In my Opinion women as doctors, engineers pilots etc are OK but not as a common infantry man who have to take the most load.

Well…..“opinions” are like assholes…..everybody has one…..and some of ’em just plain “stink”.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

And just what is a drone?….a smart missile?…a modern tank?

Quite. In fact there are some armored waldo vehicles in testing; vehicles such as the MAARS or the Black Knight.

There is another one being tested in Texas right now. A-something. I cannot remember the name for love nor money, and without the name, google is completely useless. Same principle as the Black Knight, a heck of a lot more sophisticated.

Semi-autonomous vehicles that are on the front lines, controlled like any other drone, by a human operator elsewhere. There is no reason whatsoever why a woman cannot operate this kind of vehicle, giving her a presence on the front lines, and the ability to kick serious ass. Well, no reason except current policy. This kind of antiquated policy is the real problem. It needs to change with the times.

 
Flag Post

I don’t know of the one ya’re talkin’bout, vika…
BUT, as ya point out, modern warfare using extremely high-tech weapons CERTAINLY CAN PUT women “on the front lines” w/o the need for them to be “super-men”.

Some of this machinery is this one fav of mine:

MRSI
Illustration of different trajectories used in MRSI: For any muzzle velocity there is a steeper (> 45°, solid line) and a lower (<45°, dashed line) trajectory. On these different trajectories, the shells have different flight times.
This is a modern version of the earlier “time on target” concept in which fire from different weapons was timed to arrive on target at the same time. It is possible for modern computer-controlled artillery to fire more than one volley at a target and have all the shells arrive simultaneously, which is called MRSI (Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact). This is because there is more than one trajectory for the rounds to fly to any given target: typically one is below 45 degrees from horizontal and the other is above it, and by varying the amount of propellant with each shell, it is possible to create multiple trajectories. Because the higher trajectories cause the shells to arc higher into the air, they take longer to reach the target and so if the shells are fired on these trajectories for the first volleys (starting with the shell with the most propellant and working down) and then after the correct pause more volleys are fired on the lower trajectories, the shells will all arrive at the same time. This is useful because many more shells can land on the target with no warning. With traditional volleys along the same trajectory, anybody at the target point will have a certain amount of time (however long it takes to reload and re-fire the guns) to run away or take cover between volleys. In addition, if guns in more than one location are firing on one target, with careful timing it can be arranged for all their shells to land at the same time for the same reason.

There certainly is no need for any “face-2-face” time w/ the enemy. It’s all done from a mile+ away. A high-arc shot can lob its way over a house and blast the shit out of guys who think they are safe becuse they are behind a house.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Pretty weak means less than average.

Damn….I’m soooo glad we cleared that up and put a meaningful significance on it…..lol


Talk to them when they are going through their periods.

So…ya’re saying all women are alike….esp. in this regard?
I tell ya what…when YOU have a period,,,THEN come and talk to me about the “significance” of all of it,,,esp. in regards to topic of this thread.


I agree except the pregnancy.

Again….when YOU have a pregnancy & delivery, let me know how well ya did. THEN, we’ll talk about this topic.


and woman relatively easily crack under pressure
In every day life, I have witnessed
it many times.

And, just how many times would this be?….esp. in a war setting where ONLY women who merited being there are the ones WE are talking about. How are we to know about the merit of the women YOU know “in every day life”.?


Men can take much more abuse than women before giving up.

Ya know this….HOW?
Ya’ve got some definitive research to offer?


Also their relative sizes are different.

No shit? So, maybe we don’t let the “wee little ones” go into battle if they can’t lift the rifle…eh? Beside, it has been MY experience that: It isn’t the size of the dog in the fight that really matters….it’s the size of the fight in the dog that gets the job done. The women I hang w/ are downright scary….if they need be.


More over no matter how much combat advances, when infantries skirmish, it comes down to the strength and stamina etc of the person fighting.

Ya’re STILL trying to discount ALL women, dood. Ya seriously need to get out more and met more AND DIFFERENT women.


Sure, war is not anymore fought with swords and spears, but still it is not fought with robots either.

And just what is a drone?….a smart missile?…a modern tank?


In my Opinion women as doctors, engineers pilots etc are OK but not as a common infantry man who have to take the most load.

Well…..“opinions” are like assholes…..everybody has one…..and some of ’em just plain “stink”.

OK, go outside and challenge an average woman to a fight.
Then Challenge an average man, we’ll see who wins and which fight goes on for longer.
Dogs and human are different
That is why they have weight classes in Boxing and MMA etc.
Yes I discount all the women because most of them are incapable of fighting
Drone is controlled from thousands of mile, so is a missle as for a tank, what will you do if it gets inoperable?
You are right opinions are like assholes every body has one and some of them really stink.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Drone is controlled from thousands of mile, so is a missle as for a tank, what will you do if it gets inoperable?

Doesn’t have to be. With Black Knight for example, one of the control options is a laptop-like device, so it can be controlled for example by an operator a half-mile away, sitting in a humvee. That takes care of the radio dead spots.

It still has the main control unit elsewhere, likely back in the states, which can deactivate access permissions to the mobile control unit if it gets captured. Standard heavy encryption on the radio-links of course.

If it becomes inoperable through other means, such as an IED blows the treds off one side, well that’s a risk you take with any armored vehicle. They cannot be controlled from within the tank, so if someone does manage to get inside, at worst they can disable it, not take it over.

Your own upper body strength doesn’t matter if the body you are controlling on the frontlines is not your own.

Ultimately of course, the goal is to embody the operator inside the drone so it feels like the operator’s own body. Much greater situational awareness, whilst still keeping the element of lifesaving intact – if the waldo gets blown up, no lives are lost.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
OK, go outside and challenge an average woman to a fight.
Then Challenge an average man, we’ll see who wins and which fight goes on for longer.
Dogs and human are different
That is why they have weight classes in Boxing and MMA etc.
Yes I discount all the women because most of them are incapable of fighting
Drone is controlled from thousands of mile, so is a missle as for a tank, what will you do if it gets inoperable?
You are right opinions are like assholes every body has one and some of them really stink.

YOU surely are “limited” in your perspectives and options…..even after being “spoon-fed” a lot of them. LOL

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
OK, go outside and challenge an average woman to a fight.

Yeah, you’re going to have to start talking numbers.

Then Challenge an average man, we’ll see who wins and which fight goes on for longer.

You do know that people fight differently, right? (i.e different fighting styles, or lack there-of.)

Dogs and human are different

Where did he talk about dogs?

That is why they have weight classes in Boxing and MMA etc.

There are exceptions, though. (Wait, what’s your point anyway?)

Yes I discount all the women because most of them are incapable of fighting

That’s not sexist of you at all. (And just a stupid thing to do regarless of gender.)

You are right opinions are like assholes every body has one and some of them really stink.

No-one likes a copycat.

 
Flag Post

Allow me to jump into this convo, if you all would be so kind.

I feel that they should definitely have the right to, in any situation. If any person wanted to go and fight for his/her/(it’s?) country, I say let them. I see no real harm in it, why keep them from helping us or having the oppurtunity to do so? I mean, let’s be generally reasonable, and accept the genetic differences in the given situation. While some feel men are genetically superior, (and i’m sure a few people may feel the opposite), it is indeniable that the differences will not majorly affect someone in a war-based circumstance. With the acception of a few appendages and limbs which might need more protection, similar to male soldiers, there is no real changes needed other then what is already in place. If they want to fight in the frontlines, and of course if there is the necessary things (standardized equipment, weaponry, etc.) then let them. If you could point out a reason otherwise, enlighten me.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
OK, go outside and challenge an average woman to a fight.

Yeah, you’re going to have to start talking numbers.

Then Challenge an average man, we’ll see who wins and which fight goes on for longer.

You do know that people fight differently, right? (i.e different fighting styles, or lack there-of.)

Dogs and human are different

Where did he talk about dogs?

That is why they have weight classes in Boxing and MMA etc.

There are exceptions, though. (Wait, what’s your point anyway?)

Yes I discount all the women because most of them are incapable of fighting

That’s not sexist of you at all. (And just a stupid thing to do regarless of gender.)

You are right opinions are like assholes every body has one and some of them really stink.

No-one likes a copycat.

I have to talk numbers?? What is that supposed to mean?
Almost every style of fighting have weight classes.
With out them its meaning less one sided fight.
I used to wrestle (and still do sometimes)
and pulling any kind of move on a heavier opponent is alot more harder than pulling it on a lighter ot equal opponent.
He said "<blockqoute> it has been MY experience that: It isn’t the size of the dog in the fight that really matters….it’s the size of the fight in the dog that gets the job done
Yes you are right, I am not being sexist, I believe at time of need every citizen should contribute but women on front lines is a nono.

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Drone is controlled from thousands of mile, so is a missle as for a tank, what will you do if it gets inoperable?

Doesn’t have to be. With Black Knight for example, one of the control options is a laptop-like device, so it can be controlled for example by an operator a half-mile away, sitting in a humvee. That takes care of the radio dead spots.

It still has the main control unit elsewhere, likely back in the states, which can deactivate access permissions to the mobile control unit if it gets captured. Standard heavy encryption on the radio-links of course.

If it becomes inoperable through other means, such as an IED blows the treds off one side, well that’s a risk you take with any armored vehicle. They cannot be controlled from within the tank, so if someone does manage to get inside, at worst they can disable it, not take it over.

Your own upper body strength doesn’t matter if the body you are controlling on the frontlines is not your own.

Ultimately of course, the goal is to embody the operator inside the drone so it feels like the operator’s own body. Much greater situational awareness, whilst still keeping the element of lifesaving intact – if the waldo gets blown up, no lives are lost.

Drone can be controlled many different ways but my point was that women should not be allowed on front lines.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

I have to talk numbers?? What is that supposed to mean?

It basically means that you have to start saying what amount of weight a person could lift (or their own weight).

Almost every style of fighting have weight classes.

That wasn’t my point, I was talking about how skilled a person is, or what they are skilled at.

With out them its meaning less one sided fight.

Not always.

I used to wrestle (and still do sometimes)

Except that wresling is much different from a lot of other fighting styles, especially asian and self-defense ordiented ones.

and pulling any kind of move on a heavier opponent is alot more harder than pulling it on a lighter ot equal opponent.

Tripping someone doesn’t always rely on weight.

He said "<blockquote> it has been MY experience that: It isn’t the size of the dog in the fight that really matters….it’s the size of the fight in the dog that gets the job done

Okay, that explains it. But anyway, he was using an anology.

Yes you are right, I am not being sexist, I believe at time of need every citizen should contribute but women on front lines is a nono.

And why exactly not? (Might I reccomend giving reputable sources too?)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

I have to talk numbers?? What is that supposed to mean?

It basically means that you have to start saying what amount of weight a person could lift (or their own weight).

Almost every style of fighting have weight classes.

That wasn’t my point, I was talking about how skilled a person is, or what they are skilled at.

With out them its meaning less one sided fight.

Not always.

I used to wrestle (and still do sometimes)

Except that wresling is much different from a lot of other fighting styles, especially asian and self-defense ordiented ones.

and pulling any kind of move on a heavier opponent is alot more harder than pulling it on a lighter ot equal opponent.

Tripping someone doesn’t always rely on weight.

He said "<blockquote> it has been MY experience that: It isn’t the size of the dog in the fight that really matters….it’s the size of the fight in the dog that gets the job done

Okay, that explains it. But anyway, he was using an anology.

Yes you are right, I am not being sexist, I believe at time of need every citizen should contribute but women on front lines is a nono.

And why exactly not? (Might I reccomend giving reputable sources too?)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19899317
I gave you reasons for every thing but you keep bringing up childish arguments
Like many self defense styles don’t need you to carry weight.
Dude! its war we are talking about, where man have to kill to survive and no weakness can be tolerated.
The petty little things like I can’t lift this or do that prove fatal

Use your common sense (if you have)

 
Flag Post

Punisher, what you are being asked for, is documentation (preferably scientific studies) to back up your claims that the difference in upper body strength and lower body torque between the genders is always going to be sufficient to prevent a female from serving as a front-line soldier equally as well as any male who can be accepted to do so.

In other words the burden is on you to prove that no female is capable of meeting the same standards of fitness and strength as the least male who scrapes through the army’s tests.