Female Soldiers on The Front Line

[Dinomania]

such as?

Most people still haven't gotten over the instinct to shove as much fat and sugar down their necks as possible while it's available

Hah, 'most' people maybe, but there's still a significant number of fit and healthy folk too.

Men in general have learned not to be rapists, women have managed to have good careers in non-caring & non-secretarial jobs, and most of us have learned how to use a toilet.

The point is, there are some women who'll be great on the front line - why stop them?

 

[Tefal]

Any different for a man? Hardly, your chances of being killed are the same.

It's the bit before death I think he's talking about.

While a professional interrogator will have it done to a man as it's very effective, the average religious extremist ain't gonna want to with a man but probably will with a woman.

Men are idiots too and make mistakes.

That is one of the biggest issue.

The men might do stupid things and ignore procedure to try and help the woman and get other troops killed, especially if insurgents make a point of capturing them with a nice graphic video afterwards.

 

[starfighter]

It's the bit before death I think he's talking about.

While a professional interrogator will have it done to a man as it's very effective, the average religious extremist ain't gonna want to with a man but probably will with a woman.





That is one of the biggest issue.

The men might do stupid things and ignore procedure to try and help the woman and get other troops killed, especially if insurgents make a point of capturing them with a nice graphic video afterwards.

I don't think so really, you could also say that men are more likely to be better friends with men than they are with women. Seeing your best mate bum raped and beheaded is hardly going to make you act rationally either.

Sexism is all this is.

 

[britboy4321]

The trouble with females on the front line is as follows:

1) A greater percentage of them refuse orders that will put them in mental amounts of danger. Many have had dishonourable discharges from the US army because they have refused to charge headlong into the machine-gun fire, or the latest, they refused to drive a humvee up a road notorious for IEDs, that 2 soldiers had been blown up on 3 days previous, because it was 'too dangerous for them'. You can't have soldiers making their own decisions on what is 'too dangerous' or again the whole command structure goes to pot and the force effectively disintergrates as other soldiers start refusing other orders.

2) When women are injured, men tend to care for them instinctinvely rather then continue with their orders. So mid-combat, battlefield orders tend to go to pot when a girl has her lower left leg blown off and the bloke that we REALLY NEED to drop a grenade into the enemy trench turns back to help her off the field rather than dropping the blimin' grenade!! When a man get his lower leg blown off, and this shouldn't be the case, but the fact is his colleagues act differently. With men the battlefield orders tend to stay in tact.

3) Before women are injured men instinctively put them out of danger by doing dangerous things for them. So if a women gets told to retreive a rifle from the battlefield and she looks scared out of her brain, men will often just do it for them for whatever reason - so again discipline and your battlefield objectives start to go out of the window.

 

[Tefal]

The point is, there are some women who'll be great on the front line - why stop them?

Same reason Harry might be great on the front line but was stopped once it was known, his presence could endanger the other troops either through their own actions or through the enemies actions.

Men in general have learned not to be rapists,

Most men in civil society have, but in warzones the men on both sides have historically shown that it's horrifyingly common.

And that's if their own side don't do it first

There have been recent reports that up to a third of female soldiers serving in the US military has been raped by their colleagues, with 80% reporting sexual harassment of some sort at any time during their career.

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968110,00.html
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=120501&sectionid=3510203

women have managed to have good careers in non-caring & non-secretarial jobs,

The caring job maybe but the secretarial stuff is purely society not a base instinct.

and most of us have learned how to use a toilet.

Again that is not an instinct, it's simply easier when there's thousands of people and only 5 trees.


People are still jealous, angry and impulsive.

 

[starfighter]

The trouble with females on the front line is as follows:

1) They refuse orders that are mentally. Many have had dishonourable discharges from the US army because they have refused to charge headlong into the machine-gun fire, or the latest, they refused to drive a humvee up a road notorious for IEDs because it was too dangerous for them. You can't have soldiers making their own decisions on what is 'too dangerous' or again the whole command structure goes to pot.

2) When they are injured, men tened to care for them instinctinvely rather then continue with their orders. So battlefield orders tend to go to pot when a girl has her lower left leg blown off - when a man does, the battlefield orders tend to stay in tact.

3) Before women are injured men instinctively put them out of danger by doing dangerous things for them. So if a women gets told to retreive a rifle from the battlefield and she looks scared out of her brain, men will often do it for them - so again discipline and your battlefield objectives start to go out of the window.

But if you test women and men for these things then you weed out the pussies from both sexes, why not have appropriate testing and training, rather than a sexist policy?

 

[platinum87]

As soon as possible we should replace all infantry with terminators

You can make them women models if you want

 

[Chimerical]

Was going to mention those articles too if you hadn't, if I was a woman in the army I'd be more scared of my own colleagues than the enemy.

This.

I don't get this men protecting women garbage.

 

[V4NT0M]

Wow the stupidity on information on the menstrual cycle.

Eh? You're missing the point, men don't have one to worry about at all...

1) They refuse orders that are mentally. Many have had dishonourable discharges from the US army because they have refused to charge headlong into the machine-gun fire, or the latest, they refused to drive a humvee up a road notorious for IEDs because it was too dangerous for them. You can't have soldiers making their own decisions on what is 'too dangerous' or again the whole command structure goes to pot.

Amazing! So a man has never been dishonorably discharged for disobeying an order?!

 

[matt_fsr]

You can make them women models if you want

All Summer Glau pls

 

[Morgoth]

Any different for a man? Hardly, your chances of being killed are the same.

Being killed wasn't my point, the women would get raped before they got killed.

 

[Tefal]

I don't think so really, you could also say that men are more likely to be better friends with men than they are with women. Seeing your best mate bum raped and beheaded is hardly going to make you act rationally either.

But it's found that they almost never are, where as women almost always are.

Sexism is all this is.

In: On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis).


The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded.

The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.

 

[Sankari]

such as?

Incest, for example. In the ancient world, it was not a universal taboo (particularly during the Graeco-Roman period). The Ptolemies were all at it!

Yes, indeed, be aware of risks and take on responsibility.

But it's not like rape is an accepted risk that the woman joining up should be responsible for, is it?

Of course they're not "responsible" for it. You're not "responsible" for a risk that might happen to you. You're responsible for anything you're required to perform in the role. That's what I meant by responsibility.

Rape is a risk that you accept when you take on the job. And yes, it's a risk for men as well (albeit a less likely one).

 

[Tefal]

But if you test women and men for these things then you weed out the pussies from both sexes, why not have appropriate testing and training, rather than a sexist policy?

How exactly can you test weather a solider will follow a probably fatal command in battle, without the threat of fatal danger?

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Mental abilities is not a concern. Only in a male dominated community would that even be discussed ;/ Physical abilities is a concern, but if a woman has proven herself as fit and capable as any of the men, then I don't really see the problem. However I do fear for any that may be captured, more so than when male soldiers are held captive and "interrogated".

The natural instinct to protect women by men is also a valid point, I reckon.

However, the biggest issue would be the sexism and prejudice. We all like to think our boys in uniform are professionals and well mannered, but frankly they aren't. Especially on the front line. There will be hazing, there will be prejudice, and it will be a very tough time for any woman on the front line, before they've even met the enemy.

 

[V4NT0M]

I think the bigger question is: "Are women really stupid enough to want to be on the front lines?".

 

[markweatherill]

Nobody has made a joke about 'Snatch' Landrovers yet.

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

I'd quite happily let them serve on the front lines if they wanted to. I can't believe some of you are actually seriously stating hygiene reasons and "time of the month" as valid reasons not to let them go out there. This isn't Victorian Britain!

 

[Begbie]

One of the biggest problems here is not the women, its the men. One of mens natural instincts is to protect women and you can tell the problems that would cause on a battlefield. It would cause more danger than its worth, just my 2p.

 

[The Funktopus]

I for one whole-heartedly support women on the frontline........As long as reverse parking isn't involved.

I'm joking. If women are held to the same standards as men and can pass the relevant selection/training process for their chosen unit, then why not? IIRC, the US Marines are using all-female patrols in Helmand province at the moment. They've found that Afghan women are far more willing to talk other females as opposed to men due to social conditioning, thus the Marines are finding that women are giving them vital intelligence that they otherwise may not have disclosed to foreign male soldiers.