Warning: Undefined array key "HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/includes/common.inc.php on line 360 Woman in Frontline Battle, Agree or Not? - Minitokyo

Woman in Frontline Battle, Agree or Not?

Simple: Women in Real Battle, Yea or Nay?

Yes
103 votes
No
47 votes

Only members can vote.

page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next » 131 total items

Bumble-Bee

Bumble-Bee

I'm cute, aren't I?

That's it... Simple, will woman be really useful in frontline battle (direct, face-to-face with enemies and their guns)?

Do you think there should be women like G.I. Jane in real world's battle?
Do you think they can compete with the men, in term of battle spirit, ferociousity, or others?

Are they really dependable at handling the MG, SMG, tank, or even piloting fighter plane? Simple example: can they carry that super-heavy ransack all the time? Of course, there are some excluded. My country has some women warrior as national hero. They didn't only act as commander, they also participated in battle, as one of the fighter as well. But please note, that was when swords, arrows, and spears still rule the world! And some of them were killed by gunfire...

Well, to be honest, I don't think so... Never. From views of psychology, physics, biology, or others. It's just unnatural. When facing sudden danger or attack, women will usually women will usually scream, while men will usually take necessary evasive action or counterattack. Medical support, clerk, or other simple tasks are where they fit best. What's more, if they return to normal life, they'll most probably become really different person, seeing all the blood and killing.

Sorry, not to insult the women, I'm just trying to be realistic.

I'm going to try to be nice. Tho after that last statement and the gender profiling I shouldn't.

I think we should be allowed to opt for a infantry job. Some of us are easly equal to men in war time traits; callous, malice, cunning, ferocity, and passion.

I don't think gender makes any diffrence on dependability if they opted for that job. Our average soldier carries about 70lbs (32kg). That isn't what I'd call "super-heavy". Also we are allready allowed to be fighter pilots.

Most countries have had female "heros" of war. However most of then are never recognised. The Napoleonic wars mark the start of us being able to effectively help with litte or no training. With the exception of WWI and maybe the war of 1812, women have played a combatant role in every war the US has fought.

Your view on bloth genders is based far to heavly on pop culture. Psychology killing someone damages bolth genders. The amount depends on the individual. Biologically it makes very little difference any more. This excuse was realy only valid for trench warfare. Physics is also invalid here. Gender has no affect on matter. In random attacks we are just as likely to defend our self as a guy. Granted with less success then males. I think this is mostly due to pop culture. And to reiterate sence you felt the need to. Killing a human will change anyone's personality, gender makes no difference.

To adress the line that got under my skin. I'm going to assume that;
By "Medical support" you mean the entire medical field.
By "clerk" you mean the entire business, legislative, and legal fields.
And you didn't mean "simple tasks" it was a result of poor english.

wraith11

wraith11

The Alfa Bloke

Well, tell you the truth, those women I've encountered within the ADF have generally been much harder task masters than us blokes. Quite capable of keeping up.

That said, there are also a vast number relying on "I'm a girl go easy on me" to get them through as well. Personally though, if they pass the same screening that a bloke does I don't see why gender should make a difference.

Wraith 11

Alfa Romeo Alfetta GTV - Heaven on a transaxel
http://wraith11.deviantart.com/

elsenrail

hmmm.... i must say..

I have to agree. In a battle gender has nothing to do with it. It's kill or be killed. Women fighters could be good 'cause most of them are more disciplined than men.

Signature
	Image

Not for me, but always for somebody else .....

I agree! There are no gender difference on battlefield! You can be kill or killed by another soldier!

Of course, woman are as valuable as men. So I see no reason to exclude them from warfare.
I have to admit however, that there are differences in the behaviour between men and woman, especially when they are under stress. I have seen this numerous times when practicing failures.
But I am talking about differences, this absolutely does not mean that one is superior to another.

shoujoboy

shoujoboy

Launching shoujoboy 2.0

Anybody that signs up to do a job that puts them in immediate danger have already accepted the fact that they may be tasked to make the ultimate sacrafice in the line of duty. I have a desk job but I know at any time I could be handed an M16 and told to go to battle, and most women here know that they need to be ready should the order come down too. If they raised their right hand and signed on the dotted line, they should be just as ready as a man. HUA! followed by HA!

Under construction. Who doesn't like plain text anyway?

Disagree AND Agree, I will not follow women in battle. And I'm two months from joining the infantry for eleven months, I just can't see women as persons of authority in the same way as I see men in the same positions. And stresshandling, the way most girls I know tend to show themselves scared at many points. Weal even.
By the way, do you even know what it means to be up front? Do you know the weight of combat equipment? When I will be marching (even mechanized soldiers do so at some point) you have a bag of ~25kg, a machinegun of ~5kg, A kevlar vest at ~10kg and not to mention, grenades and other stuff you must carry with you. You basicly have the armor of a knight on you. :D
Now be honest, how many women can carry that amount of weight without collapsing after a ten miles or so? Really.
I'm sure that some can do it, of course, and some men cannot. So I'm back at the point of liability, if I'm going to go to war, I would feel more safe and I would get more courage if I had a big mean guy to follow, or something like that. But just a guy is enough.
So I basicly don't want women in the front fighting army because I dislike women, I just see men as generally more fitted for footsoldiers. But it my home country, the most fited gets the position, boy or girl does not matter. And that's good I guess. I'm sure that I could have a girl as a private in my group, but not as a leader. Unless she has done something to earn my great repsect maybe.
There are no good arguments for putting the infantry positions souly to men since some girls are stronger than some boys but I just see men as more fitted. And there is as mentioned more, a battlegroup must have belief in their leader. I have no trouble with following orders from anyone but it just would not be the same sort of order if a sharp earpircing voice screamed them. And that was that.

So preferly no women in the fronlines, keep them at the strategics, it is proven that women generally are better than men with the map works I believe.

Arkano18

Far, Far Away

Wella, wella...

I think it's not really important if women would be useful or not in frontline.
The really important thing is: If they want to go, why not let them.
I think that if just one girl wants to fight for her country, her ideals and whatever she wants to fight, she should have the right to do it.
The most terrifying thing for a country is when they say: "You are not able to do this because you are...". The same thing happened with afroamerican people. First, the government thought that they wasn't able to defend the nation, 'cause they didn't had the "spirit". What, women are the new afroamerican?

My point is that women love their country the same as men. So, they should be able to do it.

Women rules, War sucks. Let's make love and spread peace and love all over the world (that was my hippie speakin').

C ya! and...

B happy.

I can't believe ist's not yoghurt!

Mnemeth

Mnemeth

Rider of the Currents

I gotta go with yes women should be allowed to particpate in battle if they so wish and if discipline can be maintained. The issue is really how the genders are viewed by one another not the capabilities of either gender (although statistically men are better suited physically for a warfare environment).
I'm also reminded by a statistical fact in nature in that the female is usually the much more dangerous gender of a species.

Do not interfere in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

i agree, women should b allowed in the army, personally i hate when ppl concider women as infirrior to men, i mean that really annoyes me, ok sure women may have less muscles as guys, but seriously..they r limits to wut a man csn do to... im only in hight school and already they discrimate girls, especially that im in a french school.... n e ways in sports, which is the best example, we only need to run 10min when the guys need to run 20 min, first i love running, and can stand more than 10min, and second it's unfair to the guys, so y not make evryone run 15 min? would that b complecated? well n e ways,,back to the poiny, i agree

LigerZSchnider

LigerZSchnider

Litterbox Trained........

First of all I am a soldier.

And I will tell you that women in the infantry isn't and will never happen! And I concur to the fullest for several reasons:

Physical standards among the ranks: If a woman was in a a 11b (infantry soldier) position, you will have to lower the standards for all military personnel in that MOS (military occupation speciality) ACROSS THE BOARD! Right now the average male at the age of 17 must pass the AFPT (Army Physical Fitness Test) with a score of no less than 60% of each events:

Push-ups - 17 yr. old males must perform a minimum of 72 correct push-ups in under two minutes in order to pass the event. A male cannot have any other contact with the ground besides the hands and the feet. Females can perform them on their knees. Males cannot.

sit ups - 17 yr old males must perform a minimum of 80 sit ups, with hands interlaced behind your head, in under two minutes in order to pass the event.

two mile run - 17 yr. old male must complete the 2 mile run, unassisted, in under 15 minutes. As the soldier gets older the standards gets lower to compensate.

The female PT standards at this age bracket are much, much lower!

This ensures the combat effectiveness, stamina and strength of todays fighting force in battle. To qualify for Airborne status, the standards are even tougher. Ever try walking 4 to 5 miles with a 70 lbs (standard combat load) rucksack and weapon in under an hour? Even worse how can a 85 lbs women fend off a 250 lbs enemy male in close quarters combat or hand to hand combat? This isn't "step on his feet and run, or kick him in the balls and holler for help.......this guy is trained to KILL YOU! Unless he decides to have his way with you first. Ask Pfc. Jessica Lynch what happened to her..... ;)

Most importantly: DISSENTION AMONG THE RANKS!

You know what I am talking about. Favorable treatment because you are a woman. Sex for favors. Sex for advancement in rank. Having sex in a combat environment. You actually think that if you are dating and having sex with a guy in the same combat unit, that nobody will feel left out? This shit happens now and there are no females in combat arms! That is because females supports the combat arms through other jobs!

Let me continue......

Rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment.......these are even now commonplace amongst the military as a whole! And once again, you want to be in a environment with your 17 yr old peers who can't control their alcohol consumption, let alone in a combat environment, without sex for at least a year? You should see how single (and married) soldiers act around females when they are not exposed to them for a year! It's brutal! If you get assaulted by members of your squad, who are you going to tell? Moreover, are you superiors going to believe you, especially if you had problems with your chain of command in the past? All it takes is for you to be in some sort of trouble and you will be in some sort of uncompromising position in a combat situation......

Pregnancy. - This is already frowned upon in the military. Single mothers serving in the Army exist, but they are at a higher rank than lower enlisted. Lower enlisted females consumes too many resources for a unit to operate effectively. Its like having a child in high school, without family support! Then if your unit deploys, they will lose a important member of their unit, because you have to stay behind to raise a child! And trust me, the Army comes first, not you!

However, you still want to be a combat soldier?

Good Luck with that endeavor of being a foot soldier or "G.I. Jane".... how short or a career it will be.

Women serves distinctively in todays Armed Forces, however not in the combat arms capacity.

"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it" - Erwin Rommel

eXDream2K5

eXDream2K5

the crazy band geek

I don't think it matters in terms of gender who's on the battlefield. It's so damn impersonal now that women can go out there and not freak out when they kill someone -- IF they kill anyone at all.

Personally, war doesn't concern me, because I'm not out there fighting, I never will, and I think war is stupid. People of different cultures, beliefs and morals will never see eye-to-eye. I say we all stop fighting and go back to isolationism. The world was better off before globalism started.

Labels are for cans. I'm not a f*cking can.

Ephix

Ephix

Chibi Dark Elf

Sure, everyone has equal rights to die.

But if the reason they want to do this is to prove to men/themselves/anyone that they are a woman and they can do it then that is just wrong. If that were the case you are wasting everyones time and endagering them for no reason but your own personal satisfaction. If they are true to what they are doing and do it for their country/army's cause then by all means have at it. They should expect to be treated differently, because like it or not, they are different.

Signature
	Image

"Sleep is for the weak. *yawn* DAMNIT!"

women should be, they can strip themselves to distract the other guys on the opposing target, so they can be picked off by our hiding snipers lol
anyway, we all have equal rights to fight and die
unless mens want to strip and cause the burning of the opposition lol

Of course I think women should. There may be some natural differences between the capabilities of women and men, but that's in general. There are millions of women who are stronger, faster, smarter, etc. than most men. I'm sorry if I think of people as people, but I consider the only reason why this would even be arguable is because societies tend to be sexist towards women and the women in these societies tend to do what society has told them to do.

BTW, Bumble-Bee, I find your post funny. I now know your a religious bigot who is sexist. Let's hope your not racist too. And I'm not sorry if that was overly harsh, I don't tolerate sexism.

In a World War scenario: I would say that females should be allowed to join the army on one condition: conscription is not used, at all. The thing is, we can send as many people as we want into the battlefield but we need some more people at home taking care of the economy, looking after the children and creating arms for the soldiers. Since males are generally stronger and females generally have lower rates of unemployment, I would say that only conscription of males should take place.

In a peace time scenario: let them in as long as they meet the male requirements. If they think they can enter the military, there's no reason for the military to go light on them because they're less capable than males.

If there is something humans must learn it is that we should treat each other as INDIVIDUALS and only use generalisations for statistical analysis. There's no reason why a female cannot be more productive on a battlefield than a male. Yet as a whole, men will fare better on a battlefield.

Arkano18

Far, Far Away

What's the thing with push ups and all that cr*p ...


Women can be lethal. Seriously.

I can't believe ist's not yoghurt!

No one should be in a war. And when there is a war, people should help according to their capacities, not their gender.
And God knows how it can vary from person to person.

shoujoboy

shoujoboy

Launching shoujoboy 2.0

Quote by LigerZSchniderFirst of all I am a soldier.

And I will tell you that women in the infantry isn't and will never happen! And I concur to the fullest for several reasons:

Physical standards among the ranks: If a woman was in a a 11b (infantry soldier) position, you will have to lower the standards for all military personnel in that MOS (military occupation speciality) ACROSS THE BOARD! Right now the average male at the age of 17 must pass the AFPT (Army Physical Fitness Test) with a score of no less than 60% of each events:

Push-ups - 17 yr. old males must perform a minimum of 72 correct push-ups in under two minutes in order to pass the event. A male cannot have any other contact with the ground besides the hands and the feet. Females can perform them on their knees. Males cannot.

sit ups - 17 yr old males must perform a minimum of 80 sit ups, with hands interlaced behind your head, in under two minutes in order to pass the event.

two mile run - 17 yr. old male must complete the 2 mile run, unassisted, in under 15 minutes. As the soldier gets older the standards gets lower to compensate.

The female PT standards at this age bracket are much, much lower!

This ensures the combat effectiveness, stamina and strength of todays fighting force in battle. To qualify for Airborne status, the standards are even tougher. Ever try walking 4 to 5 miles with a 70 lbs (standard combat load) rucksack and weapon in under an hour? Even worse how can a 85 lbs women fend off a 250 lbs enemy male in close quarters combat or hand to hand combat? This isn't "step on his feet and run, or kick him in the balls and holler for help.......this guy is trained to KILL YOU! Unless he decides to have his way with you first. Ask Pfc. Jessica Lynch what happened to her..... ;)

Most importantly: DISSENTION AMONG THE RANKS!

You know what I am talking about. Favorable treatment because you are a woman. Sex for favors. Sex for advancement in rank. Having sex in a combat environment. You actually think that if you are dating and having sex with a guy in the same combat unit, that nobody will feel left out? This shit happens now and there are no females in combat arms! That is because females supports the combat arms through other jobs!

Let me continue......

Rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment.......these are even now commonplace amongst the military as a whole! And once again, you want to be in a environment with your 17 yr old peers who can't control their alcohol consumption, let alone in a combat environment, without sex for at least a year? You should see how single (and married) soldiers act around females when they are not exposed to them for a year! It's brutal! If you get assaulted by members of your squad, who are you going to tell? Moreover, are you superiors going to believe you, especially if you had problems with your chain of command in the past? All it takes is for you to be in some sort of trouble and you will be in some sort of uncompromising position in a combat situation......

Pregnancy. - This is already frowned upon in the military. Single mothers serving in the Army exist, but they are at a higher rank than lower enlisted. Lower enlisted females consumes too many resources for a unit to operate effectively. Its like having a child in high school, without family support! Then if your unit deploys, they will lose a important member of their unit, because you have to stay behind to raise a child! And trust me, the Army comes first, not you!

However, you still want to be a combat soldier?

Good Luck with that endeavor of being a foot soldier or "G.I. Jane".... how short or a career it will be.

Women serves distinctively in todays Armed Forces, however not in the combat arms capacity.

This is the great thing about forums. You are able to hear so many different sides and get so many different view points. In an effort to portray equality, one automatically thinks that women should be allowed to do as a man. But when it comes to matters such as this, there is much more to consider. I too am a military member, but of a different branch. I'm in the Air Force, and as most know we aren't the ones that are in the trenches doing the ground pounding battle. So what we go by is ultimately just our belief system on the matter. So while I believe all is fair for women and men in battle, it does require more thinking that just 'common sense' or the 'everybody is created equal' thought process. As Liger has pointed out, there is a lot of consideration to take into account when it comes to a thing like this. Some people will consider the points he has made as potentially sexist, but keep in mind these are the words of somebody who actually lives this life. Great points and leads one to think much more about it, at least it does me.

Under construction. Who doesn't like plain text anyway?

joemighty16

joemighty16

Hope is an optimist

The whole gender thing started thousands of years ago. In those days man was due to his physical abilities more apt than females. Now before you start with push ups and whatnot, I'm talking about the time when the common soldiery was hoplites fighting in shield walls. The whole point of shield walls was to push the other one out of sink 'till it broke. Also the armor they wore (helmets, shields, cuirasses, spears) were a lot heavier than the types modern warfare use. So, war was a lot more physical in those days.

But now, how heavy is a gun (OK, a total wieght of, what was it 40kg, now that isn't light, point taken, but thats in full combat kit and you seldom make physical contact with the enemy in the front lines. You shoot at hm(her?) from a distance (if you're lucky anyway). Try fighting in that. Alright, so knights wore head to toe plated armour, generally lighter than bronze (which the Greeks had to wear), but also, the heavy armored knights fought on horse.

Point being - women in those days had to make babies to supply the mens' wars. These days, I believe, they can do what they want, as long as they can do the job (and THAT goes for everyone) As far as I'm concerned, men should be allowed to have babies - if they could of course.

Do what you want, as long as you can and are able.

Life is a game played by gods who are bored and who fight over the rules.

Signature
	Image

Quote by LigerZSchniderFirst of all I am a soldier.

And I will tell you that women in the infantry isn't and will never happen! And I concur to the fullest for several reasons:

Physical standards among the ranks: If a woman was in a a 11b (infantry soldier) position, you will have to lower the standards for all military personnel in that MOS (military occupation speciality) ACROSS THE BOARD! Right now the average male at the age of 17 must pass the AFPT (Army Physical Fitness Test) with a score of no less than 60% of each events:

Push-ups - 17 yr. old males must perform a minimum of 72 correct push-ups in under two minutes in order to pass the event. A male cannot have any other contact with the ground besides the hands and the feet. Females can perform them on their knees. Males cannot.

sit ups - 17 yr old males must perform a minimum of 80 sit ups, with hands interlaced behind your head, in under two minutes in order to pass the event.

two mile run - 17 yr. old male must complete the 2 mile run, unassisted, in under 15 minutes. As the soldier gets older the standards gets lower to compensate.

The female PT standards at this age bracket are much, much lower!

This ensures the combat effectiveness, stamina and strength of todays fighting force in battle. To qualify for Airborne status, the standards are even tougher. Ever try walking 4 to 5 miles with a 70 lbs (standard combat load) rucksack and weapon in under an hour? Even worse how can a 85 lbs women fend off a 250 lbs enemy male in close quarters combat or hand to hand combat? This isn't "step on his feet and run, or kick him in the balls and holler for help.......this guy is trained to KILL YOU! Unless he decides to have his way with you first. Ask Pfc. Jessica Lynch what happened to her..... ;)

Most importantly: DISSENTION AMONG THE RANKS!

You know what I am talking about. Favorable treatment because you are a woman. Sex for favors. Sex for advancement in rank. Having sex in a combat environment. You actually think that if you are dating and having sex with a guy in the same combat unit, that nobody will feel left out? This shit happens now and there are no females in combat arms! That is because females supports the combat arms through other jobs!

Let me continue......

Rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment.......these are even now commonplace amongst the military as a whole! And once again, you want to be in a environment with your 17 yr old peers who can't control their alcohol consumption, let alone in a combat environment, without sex for at least a year? You should see how single (and married) soldiers act around females when they are not exposed to them for a year! It's brutal! If you get assaulted by members of your squad, who are you going to tell? Moreover, are you superiors going to believe you, especially if you had problems with your chain of command in the past? All it takes is for you to be in some sort of trouble and you will be in some sort of uncompromising position in a combat situation......

Pregnancy. - This is already frowned upon in the military. Single mothers serving in the Army exist, but they are at a higher rank than lower enlisted. Lower enlisted females consumes too many resources for a unit to operate effectively. Its like having a child in high school, without family support! Then if your unit deploys, they will lose a important member of their unit, because you have to stay behind to raise a child! And trust me, the Army comes first, not you!

However, you still want to be a combat soldier?

Good Luck with that endeavor of being a foot soldier or "G.I. Jane".... how short or a career it will be.

Women serves distinctively in todays Armed Forces, however not in the combat arms capacity.

SIGNED leave the killing to the professionals
there's millions of other occupations out there, sure women can do anything men can whatever, just find some other occupation, there's a reason why our soldiers protect our freedom so you can live it!
so quit complaining about sexism already, go join the police or something.

Women in the military don't scream, and PTSD doesn't discriminate between genders.

I'm also in the military, and I support women being allowed in infantry. The lack of defined front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that women are capable of handling themselves.

HOWEVER, what women must realize is that infantry jobs are crummy, dirty, and far more dangerous than typical MOS. There's a lack of general hygiene and they'll be put into situations where they must change/go to the bathroom in front of men. They might not be able to shower for weeks or even months and they have to deal with pigheaded commentary. The training and experience will be grueling, and I firmly believe that if any female wants to be in infantry, she MUST compare to the same standards as the men.

In response to some other posts, Liger pointed out the pregancy, however, not every female will get pregnant while in the military. Not to mention females now, regardless of MOS, have been deployed while their have small children at home. It's a life military moms have to get used to.

To thorncarver, anybody can be trained to be a "professional" killer. If you go through basic training, which everybody --both male and female-- do, you're a "professional" killer. And if women can do anything men can, then they should also be allowed in infantry. You're being a hypocrite by telling them to do something else.

Fysan, you're going to be under female commanders at one point so get over it. That's incredibly disrespectful to generalize all females and you're going to wind up with a boot in your ass one day with that attitude. It's not gender that makes a good commander, it's how well they were trained and their natural ability to use logic and leadership together. I hope in due time you'll realize this.

Myself, personally, has little ambition to be a grunt. I respect any man who does infantry but it's not my forte. If any female wants to do the same, more power to her-- but I expect her to be as good or better than her male counterparts and not expect any sort of special treatment.

my vote is no, but let me put my reason before the flaming begins.
first off, i beleive in gender equality, complete equality though. i think that females should be able to vote, i think they should have all the rights that men do including higher insurance and be included in the draft. But untill we have gender equality in america i think that women should stay away from the front line for the following.

1. it must be noted that i dont think it has much to do with the potential of women. a metal slug landing you in the noggin at 2700 fps is still a metal slug landing you in the noggin no matter the person who pulled the trigger.
2. though it depends on the person, for me it would be much more psycolologically depressing to see a woman get 0wned by a land mine and lay screaming for help while im being shot at. (i just might run to help though its in a mine field.)

you know though, i dont really care if women opt to fight. i guess legally they should be allowed but i would discourage it to my gf. and the whole women vs men thing is just stupid, getting stabbed/shot/ pushing the button that launches the surface to surface missle is still getting killed. modern day combat is not based on strength anymore its based on intelligence and skill.

merged: 04-25-2006 ~ 07:44am
on second thought my finale anwser is no morally but yes leggally.

let women do whatever they want as long as its legal. my gf can barebore six 357 at 50 yards in a 8 or so seconds, i cant even do that.

page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next » 131 total items

Back to General Discussions | Active Threads | Forum Index

Only members can post replies, please register.

Warning: Undefined array key "cookienotice" in /var/www/minitokyo/www/html2/footer.html on line 73
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.