Chicks on the frontlines, opinions?

[trust-no-1]

Dont flame this thread, is is sorta serious, Our pm in oz wants chicks on the frontlines, i personally reckon thats all wrong, if you have a problem with me saying that, PM me, dont flame.
I havent said this as a men are better thing, I fully support equality, but I honestly dont think women belong on the front lines.
What do you think?

[rwymark]

Not meant to be a flame and please don't take it as such. I am curious as to why you think this. I am currently serving and i can honestly say there are quite a few women I would rather have at my side in combat than guys I work with. I have seen men crumble under fire and women impress.

[DarkAndEvil]

Although existing rules are based on the "women are weaker" argument, I believe they had other arguments - involving the risk of pregnancy, etc.

The issue is - do you want a hormonal pregnant woman with a gun? I'm not too keen, so I think it has to be handled carefully.

I'm fairly sure it will happen eventually, and for true equality we should choose our troops on ability, not sexual equality - which means that if only 1% of the troops end up as female, because they are the ones able to do the job that has to be accepted by all. Equally if the army ends up as 99% female because they do the job better, so be it!

[trust-no-1]

Because guys are more, practical i guess you could say, We can easily take a piss anywhere, We dont need tampons and it would be less hygenic for woman, they either carry their tampons around, or just leave them laying behind. Its proven men are tougher, just look at entry reqs for most armies, women get half what men do. Not only that, but how well for a man do with a possible hot chick next to you in war, productivity would be worse.

[Philosophical]

I'm going to vote yes.

It's a difficult one however because even though our troops are trained to be cold, calm and effective... we're also pre-programmed to throw that all out of the window if we see a woman in danger and go and defend them.

The question then becomes could male soldiers resist fulfilling this psychological imperative if the situation called for it? Even if it meant the death of a female colleague? Or would they sacrifice the effectiveness of their entire unit to go on a suicide mission to save her?

That one, I could not say.

[SophieAnn]

Hi

Yay, a political discussion in an erotic forum!

Has anyone thought about the consequences of a hormonal man with a gun?

The act of war is horrific. The willful act of destroying another's life, zapping the very essence of strength from another's body until it becomes no more and irrelevant. That we declare them an 'enemy' and thus somehow less than human, and needing termination. That somehow humankind has desintegrated to the significance of an ant. (Before someone makes the argument that these people engage in acts of significant harm, I will save them the time, by saying that too often it is the countries which go to war which have provided the arms which caused the war in the first place, for example the UK selling arms to Libya.

Anyhow, aside from my opinions how nobody should be on the 'frontlines' regardless of sex, lol, issues have been addressed of the problems of women who serve. Firstly, the argument has been made that women may be raped. Yet, many men suffer rape too, although many cultures refuse to acknowledge people's experience of this. True rape is about power, not sexual gratification. The second argument has been made about women becoming pregnant, but again there are ways to ensure this does not take place.

One of the main arguments has been that having women in the forces raises the possibilities of relationships and the possible loss of objective decisions being made. (Again, another example of how dehuman serving in warlike conditions can actually become.) Yet, now that gay relationships have been acknowledged (which have always existed but yet covered up) the arguments are seen to comprise men as well as women so this doesn't stand out either.

So, whilst I feel so sad war takes place, given the right training and precautions I see no reason why women cannot serve alongside men.

Blessings
Sophie

[slave1987]

In my opinion if women want to join the armed forces then they should expect to be deployed on the front lines if the role that they have taken calls for it. There's no real argument that I can see against it. Gone are the wars where the fighting is done in trenches and 'practical' matters like taking a piss anywhere are an issue.

[softeyes]

Originally Posted by trust-no-1

Not only that, but how well for a man do with a possible hot chick next to you in war, productivity would be worse.

Having experienced it for myself, I can honestly say it's not a problem.. Full combat gear aren't exactly sexy, or complimenting for the figure.

And how strong you are is entirely based on how much you train/work out.. I think all of my female superiors could beat me in anything physical, if they really wanted to.

[rwymark]

Originally Posted by trust-no-1

Because guys are more, practical i guess you could say, We can easily take a piss anywhere, We dont need tampons and it would be less hygenic for woman, they either carry their tampons around, or just leave them laying behind. Its proven men are tougher, just look at entry reqs for most armies, women get half what men do. Not only that, but how well for a man do with a possible hot chick next to you in war, productivity would be worse.

Sorr dude, but your going pee anywhere argument is bogus. I have seen women go most places guys do, including a bottle in a humvee during a convoy. I have seen some wuss around about tampons and the like, but seen many more take carf themselves and do their job. Somebody else already busted the hot chick argument. Camo and body armor don't do too much for the figure.

You're going to have to do better.

[rwymark]

Originally Posted by trust-no-1

Because guys are more, practical i guess you could say, We can easily take a piss anywhere, We dont need tampons and it would be less hygenic for woman, they either carry their tampons around, or just leave them laying behind. Its proven men are tougher, just look at entry reqs for most armies, women get half what men do. Not only that, but how well for a man do with a possible hot chick next to you in war, productivity would be worse.

Sorr dude, but your going pee anywhere argument is bogus. I have seen women go most places guys do, including a bottle in a humvee during a convoy. I have seen some wuss around about tampons and the like, but seen many more take carf themselves and do their job. Somebody else already busted the hot chick argument. Camo and body armor don't do too much for the figure.

You're going to have to do better.

[Stardares]

I'd prefer women not to be allowed on the frontlines.
Not going to say why.

[GetdareTEO]

No, I don't think women should be involved on the front line, and I have many reasons for that.
1. I think fighting (physically) is more in the masculine nature than in the feminine. I don't think males are better than girls, some girls kicks ass, but generally...
2. It would take some of the beauty, the mystery, and the attractive magic from the female gender.
3. Maybe it would make the male soldiers stare on the wrong targets Anyway, I think too many women would make the guys lose a little discipline

Actually I don't understand women who wants to fight on the fontline. I mean, I think war is a bad think. Yeah I know, sometimes it is necessary, but I don't understand why women don't just let the men do that dirty job!
But I really think it should be the women's own choice if they want to join the army or not. But if I was them, I would stay out of the frontline...

[Darkwater]

Originally Posted by The Evil One

1. I think fighting (physically) is more in the masculine nature than in the feminine. I don't think males are better than girls, some girls kicks ass, but generally...

Training, training and more training. You will have you ass handed to you any day by a woman who is trained in combat if you are not. And this is even more true for a warzone, if you haven't trained for hand-to-hand combat (whether you are a male or female) you are simply screwed if you do happen to end up in such a situation. No matter how "masculine" you are.

Originally Posted by The Evil One

2. It would take some of the beauty, the mystery, and the attractive magic from the female gender.

That is your problem, not theirs. Such a line of thinking kept them in kitchens and out of important decisions after all. No to mention all the other unjust acts we could justify if we start to accept such arguments when it comes to what someone can do.

Originally Posted by The Evil One

3. Maybe it would make the male soldiers stare on the wrong targets Anyway, I think too many women would make the guys lose a little discipline

Yeah... no. There are already a decent amount of woman on the battlefield, and do you really think guys would check them out if there are enemies with guns out there? (especially enemies who are shooting at them). It's also the same line of reasoning which kept gays banned from the military for ages in the US. Despite there being no evidence that those who are gay but kept it secret suffered from this "oh no, a hot guy, i cannot control myself!".

Originally Posted by The Evil One

Actually I don't understand women who wants to fight on the fontline. I mean, I think war is a bad think. Yeah I know, sometimes it is necessary, but I don't understand why women don't just let the men do that dirty job!
But I really think it should be the women's own choice if they want to join the army or not. But if I was them, I would stay out of the frontline...

Because they want to protect their countries. Or maybe one or both of their parents were in the military. Generally all the reasons you can find for male soldiers will apply to female soldiers.

And really, feminism is right, not all women are porcelain dolls who need to be taken care off. Some just want to go out there and do what they think is right. Who are we then to go and say "Sorry, but you got boobs, so you are disqualified from frontline service." without even knowing if they are really qualified or not?

[alpha]

The more I ponder this situation, the more unsure I am.

At the end of the day, the US should allow women on the frontlines if they (women) want to. Most of the arguments against it is a bit questionable and old fashioned.

There are a lot of women that are stronger then most men, at least mentally and emotionally, which is a big part of being a soldier in a war zone. No, I don't think rape would be an issue anymore then it is now. And for gosh sakes, do you really think they'll be given a break during combat to fix their makeup, adjust their pants and go find a toilet? No. Philosophical has a bit of a point, but even so, that point is pretty much dulled by now.

One thing I will agree on is the physical part of the job. Even in olympic sports, unfortunately women have their own devision and their times are always slower then their male counterparts. (Comparing the male 100m sprint record vs. the female 100m sprint for example)

[Dicedarefan666]

It's true, men in general are generally stronger than women in general, however, is that extra level of strength really needed? (Which is to say, that the womens' fastest 100m dash time, which is about 10.5 seconds, really not good enough, but the men's 100m dash time, which is about 9.5 seconds, is?)

Besides part of being in the military is doing strength and endurance training regardless of gender right? And at the very least, I know several chicks that are physically and emotionally stronger in me. If the military wants me, they should want those women as well.

Oh, and as for the, "Guys will lose all reason when confronted with a pretty girl in danger."

That's silly. Do you feel compelled to spend 90% of your time trying to talk to girls now? (Assuming of course, that you have graduated highschool. If you haven't then please disregard this question. I went to highschool, there is quite literally nothing else to do.) No, you have other responsibilities. If you see a hot girl on the way to work, at best you spend 2 seconds thinking to yourself, "Man, she's pretty cute!" and you continue on your way. There's no reason for you to spend more time thinking about women in a war-zone than you do in everyday life.

In fact, there's quite a lot less. In stressful situations (Such as a firefight) the body shuts down non-essential systems, such as your digestive and reproductive systems, so that you won't be thinking about how to get off when you should be thinking about the combat situation in front of you.