Should women fight in war? (on the frontlines) page 4

832 posts

Flag Post

As a female veteran of the U.S. Navy, get bent Phoenix_Red. May you someday run into the chick in my division from basic training who went Navy diver/bomb retrieval. She’s a former body builder. SHe’d chew you up for breakfast and spit out the seeds (all without messing up her hair somehow).

To the thread title, women fight on the frontlines everyday in Iraq right now. They may not have official job titles that ordinarily grant them such duties but I assure you it’s true. They are supply clerks, medics, doctors, and explosives experts who are fighting for their lives. Some of them are good friends of mine.

Women being more prone to injury: this is a give and take in that it depends on the type of injury we’re talking about. Women are more prone to stress fractures (common in basic training) and military doctors will tell you that specifically, this is higher in women of a certain bone structure. That said, women are easier to train to withstand prolonged physical torture as they generally have a higher threshold for pain over a period of time. They also suffer fewer bone breaks of a more “snapping” nature than their male counterparts (and you get used to the stress fractures, I’ve had one for 13 years).

Women in the military throughout history; supposedly once upon a time, the ancient Celts (or maybe it was the Franks) had entire battle groups that were solely women but were paid by invading forces (I believe the Romans) to disband these units because it was felt they had an unfair advantage in that they were more for total destruction than the typical “kill, rape, pillage” routine. I have no idea if that’s actually true but being a chick, I can believe it.

 
Flag Post

If half the population is not allowed to kill themselves and others for usually arbitrary or immoral reasons then what the hey. It’s like asking ‘Should women be able to catch prostate cancer?’.

 
Flag Post

Because thats how things really work Navarre. Grow up a bit, these generalities and outright lies get tiresome.

 
Flag Post

the ancient Celts (or maybe it was the Franks)

It was the Celts mainly.

Back to the thread title, yes they should be able to fight, as long as they can pass the same tests as men. Not because they have to match men, but because there is a minimum amount of ability a soldier needs to have. As for the worries of sexual harrassment or danger of that nature, rules are in place, and more can easily be put in. Don’t forget women are already in the army. And as for theBSG’s worry about crotch rot etc, the entire body is delicate. You stand in a swamp for too long you can get trenchfoot or malaria. There are ways of avoiding it other than stopping people going in the first place.

One place I’ve always thought women should be more encouraged to join is the support for the frontline. There can often be less of a physical demand (removing that obstacle) and multi-tasking is always useful. Employing them as mechanics and medics, or even further back as technicians or working in communications is something that should be used often.

And yes, I know this is about the frontline, I just thought I’d put that in. The frontline is far from the only area of importance in the military.

 
Flag Post

Having women fight is a good idea. The emeny might turn back with all the nagging. Women are the stronger sex because they nag us men to death, thats why women live longer than men do.

 
Flag Post

The frontline is far from the only area of importance in the military.

Especially when a front line doesn’t technically exist.

 
Flag Post

Because thats how things really work Navarre. Grow up a bit, these generalities and outright lies get tiresome.

What are you talking about? My point was that I’d rather they didn’t. Not because of any inequality or chauvinism, but because it means half the population won’t be soldiers which is a good thing.

I could feed a British town centre with that chip on your shoulder.

 
Flag Post

Well, women aren’t much for fighters anyway, so, I say no.

 
Flag Post

Well, women aren’t much for fighters anyway, so, I say no.

I think you may want to refer to millahnna’s post at the top of the page.

 
Flag Post

What about he/she’s?

 
Flag Post

You will find a larger audience in the Off-topic forum.

 
Flag Post

What?

Why would I go to off-topic if the thing I am discussing is serious.

 
Flag Post

I say you leave. Ypu are not serious your avatar is disgusting like yourself plus its clear that noone likes you pwned.

 
Flag Post

Oh snap. How will I ever recover from such pwnage?

 
Flag Post

I doubt anyone has mentioned this but they feed you food in the army that restricts the blood flow to the male reproductive organ and slows the production of certain hormones. Thats probably why you don’t ever hear of men raping Iraqi wemon.

Our nation has taken the first step to developing celibate super soldiers.

 
Flag Post

Thats probably why you don’t ever hear of men raping Iraqi women.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13780108/

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/15/news/army.php

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/08/iraq/main616338.shtml

 
Flag Post

I think that if they wanted to, and if they are fully aware of the dangers and risks that come with it, why not let them fight on the frontlines.

 
Flag Post

So throwing a group of male prisoners into a pile is raping women? It wasn’t even a sexual crime. Abu Ghraib hardly counts. So out of 133,000 US troops in Iraq there are 6 convicted of rape. Your attempt at disproving my statement only serves to give me humor.

Is Google your friend?

 
Flag Post

It wasn’t even a sexual crime.

There were claims of sexual abuse at Abu Grahib as well. Generally involving ‘implements’. I hope I don’t have to draw you a picture.

I’m not sure if there were any female prisoners there though, so fair enough.

Your attempt at disproving my statement only serves to give me humor.

Your statement was that you never hear of US soldiers raping Iraqi women. Since the first two news stories are about exactly that, I think that disproves your statement pretty well thanks.

Is Google your friend?

Well I’d heard about the cases beforehand, but I used Google to find the specific articles.

Anyway yeah you’re right that if there’s a chemical in the food to restrict the libido, it probably results in fewer cases of rape than would otherwise be the case. I mean there’s still the whole ‘domination’ aspect of rape to take into account, but I’m sure it helps.

 
Flag Post

I find that suggestion about the food amusing. Most of what we eat is cooked by contractors, and we also (at least in my job) eat food with the locals frequently. So much for control there.

Navarre, I was addressing your insinuation that soldiers are immoral killers, which is bull (and a false generalization as I mentioned). Even if you go on about the military’s purpose being to kill others, remember that the bulk of soldiers are support.

 
Flag Post

And to add to Ajora’s thoughts on “killers” and the like, I think most of you would be surprised at the great variety of “types” of people who join the military. Every group you can think of and every possible kind of categorization; I guarantee you’ll find at least a few members thereof. So yeah there’s a few sadistic killers and racist rednecks (the most common stereotype). But here’s also punk rockers, animal activists, environmentalists, smart people, slow people, girlie girls (the girl who I referenced going bomb retrieval was uber-girlie, I miss that chick), gothics, emo kids (seriously, surprised me), and every ethnicity you can think of.

Honestly, the biggest problem I see with women in combat roles is the outdated mentalities of their more conventional counterparts. If a guy in my unit is so distracted by his misplaced chivalry that he feels he needs to “protect” me anymore than the men in our unit, that’s his disfunction not mine. I’m there to do my job.

It should be noted my field in the Navy was electronics and I was never in a direct combat situation. Unlike my friend from boot camp, while I am capable of self defense, I would not be physically fit for such a role.

 
Flag Post

“It should be noted my field in the Navy was electronics and I was never in a direct combat situation. Unlike my friend from boot camp, while I am capable of self defense, I would not be physically fit for such a role.”

You mean electronics like videogames? lol. You are capable of fighting but you’re not physically fit for it? lol.

 
Flag Post

My point in stating that is that while I am skilled in self defense here in the states, I did not have a direct combat oriented field because it is not what I am best suited for in the military. Please do note that combat in war and fending off a mugger are two totally different things — I have fended off muggers and attackers in a domestic environment on more than one occassion; I doubt I would do so well in an infantry or infantry support position as a completely different skillset is required for the latter that isn’t necessary at all for the former.

I have the more statistically conventional female build and muscle tone (unlike my friend who was seriously ripped) but exceptionally high ASVAB scores (military entrance tests) which landed me in electronics as in repairing circuit boards (as opposed to my gaming hobbies) and their components.

Therefore any comments from me about men in my unit trying to protect me are purely hypothetical and using myself as an example for ease of grammar, thus the statement you quoted. It would have been less confusing for some, perhaps, if I used one of my friends as an example. TO that end here is my rephrasing of my original concept:

“If a guy in my friend’s unit is so distracted by his misplaced chivalry that he feels he needs to “protect” her anymore than the men (other soldiers) in their unit, that’s his dysfunction not hers. She’s there to do her job.”

Since the friend(s) in question are actually in combat oriented roles because they are physically qualified to do such in the military, all disclaimers about my own physical stature should be irrelevant, and there’s no reason for anyone to be intentionally obtuse.

 
Flag Post

Nicely done. I feel stupid.

 
Flag Post

Even if you go on about the military’s purpose being to kill others, remember that the bulk of soldiers are support

Thats possibly the stupidest statement I have read on the internet in awhile. Millitaries fight. Millitaries have always killed, just because our great and self rightous America has one now doesn’t change a thing. The main purpose of the millitary is to deal out death and destruction.

What you are saying means that the guy/girl loading artilley shells into a gun or the bomber pilot aren’t liable?