Women in direct combat
- Thread starter Raccoon Love
- Start date
This will not apply to 96% of the posters in this forum, so to you I apologize and you will get +1.
This was a thread posted to ask a simple question; "Should females adopt combat roles?" That is it. And instead of just answering the goddamn comment people started to throw in their political views about war. Let me make this clear, I do not give a fuck about your stupid political views or how you came to that conclusion that is your own business and it should remain OUT of a personality forum. Some of you have skewed beliefs as to what a human life is worth, and I for one don't want to see or hear how fucked up you actually are. Please tell me if you have any problems with what i have just posted.
And per the original, women should be free to serve in combat roles.
This was a thread posted to ask a simple question; "Should females adopt combat roles?" That is it. And instead of just answering the goddamn comment people started to throw in their political views about war. Let me make this clear, I do not give a fuck about your stupid political views or how you came to that conclusion that is your own business and it should remain OUT of a personality forum. Some of you have skewed beliefs as to what a human life is worth, and I for one don't want to see or hear how fucked up you actually are. Please tell me if you have any problems with what i have just posted.
And per the original, women should be free to serve in combat roles.
Honestly, I don't see any comments that detract from the topic of the thread, which is military service. By nature, militant issues are political issue, and when one gender is not allowed to serve fully, it is a political issue. This thread seems to still be on topic.
It depends..
In todays world where women and men are treated equally, I think both sexes should be allowed to go to war / be drafted. If we were living in a different type of society where men were first class and women were second class, then only men should be allowed to go to war. War in this case would be the opportunity cost of having first class citizenship. The other big opportunity cost would be the responsibility of being the sole provider for your family.
In todays world where women and men are treated equally, I think both sexes should be allowed to go to war / be drafted. If we were living in a different type of society where men were first class and women were second class, then only men should be allowed to go to war. War in this case would be the opportunity cost of having first class citizenship. The other big opportunity cost would be the responsibility of being the sole provider for your family.
You are correct and I'm sorry, but, what really set me off is one someone said something along the lines of "if you want to die pointlessly." Regardless of how you view war that is a ridiculous statement to make. I don't expect this to be a patriotic flag waving forum either, but seriously exercise some decorum.
When I was in Air Force basic training several years ago, the baselines for passing each physical requirement in order to graduate were FAR lower for the women than the men, it was ridiculous. I haven't looked this up at all, and I cannot say anything further based on personal experience since I received a medical discharge during basic training, but I really hope this is not the case for all the branches, especially when the people finish tech school and go on to overseas deployments.
That said, if women want to have the same responsibilities as men by serving in direct combat roles, they should be held to the same standards. If there is a large gender gap in minimum capabilities such as there was during basic training, it will cause problems.
That said, if women want to have the same responsibilities as men by serving in direct combat roles, they should be held to the same standards. If there is a large gender gap in minimum capabilities such as there was during basic training, it will cause problems.
Interesting how 5 people voted on restricting women to auxiliary roles, but I have not seen many arguments explaining it. Pretty much everyone who has posted has stated that either they support it or are against war in general.
I say yes! Gender has little to nothing to do with physical ability, emotional stability, and overall competence. If you look at it from the typical gender stereotypes, then yeah you may see problems with women being in direct combat. But do those roles really apply anymore? The lines have been blurred so much that I just don't think so. Sure, you still have women who are frail by nature and not meant for military service, but you have men that are the same way. Then there is the opposite side of the spectrum: Strong women with sound minds that would be an asset to their country and whatever branch of the military they choose to serve in. I think this issues is not one of gender. Who is accepted into the military should be based solely on their ability to function in the position they have decided to take on. What does genitalia have to do with how well someone can perform in the line of fire? Having a penis doesn't help you fire a weapon. Nope, I say all should be held to the same standards and those who can't cut it should be placed in auxiliary roles or should consider careers outside of the military.
That is not always true. Not all "hardcore" conservatives believe that.
The first time a woman gets raped by a platoon of men she will wish she had died and gone to hell. I say no. It will put a lot of men at risk just because a woman want to play "badass". Men will get killed to protect her on the front line. Is that fair?? Should they get to serve?? Yes. On the front line? No. Eighty-five percent of women come home with PTSD compared to the mens five percent. So on the emotional level...No. Is it best for the whole? No. The Military's physical standards, of what is expected, has gone down in recent years...mostly because women weren't "strong enough" to make it through. That causes a risk to the whole group! My opinion: if one woman will get extra men killed then....H no. Extremely selfish of her.
I cannot for the life of me find statistics that measure up to this. 85% compared to 5%? Where'd you get this data?
Why is it that when a woman wants to serve on the front lines she wants to play "badass"? Men who want to serve are not viewed this way, yet I have met many service men who went into the military so they could feel like BAMFs (Their lingo, not mine). The general public doesn't think that they are dangerous on the front lines. Aren't they? Take the marine I met who talked like a bad ass, but couldn't even wear his own flac jacket due to the weight. He wants people to see him as a bad ass war hero. Isn't it possible that he could be replaced with a female that is both physically and emotionally more suited for the job? Or will she automatically be thinking of this as a game just because of her genitalia? The attitude of "i'm a big bad ass", while very dangerous, is far from exclusive to gender.
I have trouble believing that source, since on an average level though women have higher percentages of PTSD( 5 vs 10.4%) the numbers are by no means as polarized as those. Considering the military setting is applied to both, I would expect the percentages to increase for both though at similar rates.
In a "man's world" woman have something to prove. I believe there are women who can do a job as well or better than a man. There are some that just can, but to put more at risk is not best for the whole.