• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should women be allowed to fight on the front line?

Should women be allowed to fight on the front line?

  • Absolutely! Women and men are equal.

    Votes: 17 58.6%
  • NO! Women do not belong in heat of battle.

    Votes: 8 27.6%
  • I really do not care

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Other [please post]

    Votes: 2 6.9%

  • Total voters
    29

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,906
Reaction score
6,026
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I know it's a little late, but the interest still remains.
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Should men be allowed to fight on the front line?
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Absolutely.

Little known fact; The Russians used women to fight along side men during WWII.
Women Warriors
The Soviet Union drafted unmarried women in the later years of the war although many thousands had volunteered much earlier in the conflict. More than 70% of the 800,000 Russian women who served in the Soviet army fought at the front. One hundred thousand of them were decorated for defending their country. Komsomol, the Communist youth organization, mobilized a half-million women and girls for military service. The women trained in all-female groups but after training were posted to regular army units and fought alongside the men.
Lyudmila Pavlichencko: The greatest woman sniper. By, Thomas W. Brunner
(exerpt edited)
On 12 July, 1916, a girl was born in Ukrair in the small village of Belaya Tserkov. She became a bright student in her elementary years. By the time she was fourteen her parents moved to Kiev, the capitol of Ukraine. At that time she had joined a shooting club and developed into a sharpshooter. She also worked at an arsenal as a grinder. Her name was Lyudmila Mikailnova Pavlichencko; the greatest female sniper who ever lived.

Pvt. Pavlichencko fought about two and a half months near Odessa. There, she recorded 187 kills. The Germans gained control of Odessa, and her unit was sent to Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula. In June 1942 she was wounded by mortar fire. In May 1942, Lieutenant Pavlichenko was sited by the Southern Red Army Council for killing 257 German soldiers. Her total confirmed kills during WWII was 309 enemy. Lyudmila killed 36 enemy snipers. She found the kill logbook of one of he Nazi snipers she killed. He had taken the lives of 500 Soviet snipers.
 

Shadowlands

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Location
Ct
Hell yeah, just in case the earth blows up you need a bitch to grab and **** for the last couple of moments in your life. LOL!

In all seriousness yup they should go to war.
They want rights, they get to earn their rights on the front line also.
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, women should be allowed on the front lines. I was in the military and believe me, some of those women I served with probably would be useful on the front lines.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
alex said:
Yes, women should be allowed on the front lines. I was in the military and believe me, some of those women I served with probably would be useful on the front lines.
I remember being in Navy boot camp and qualifying as a second class swimmer. I asked why first class swimmer status wasn't doled out in boot camp and was told that it's reserved for Navy Seals. I was then told that I could take the Seals swimming test, and if I qualified I could go to re-con school. I asked why I couldn't go to Seals school and was just told women couldn't be Seals.
I told the Warrant Officer who I was talking to about this that I thought it was stupid that women who qualify for Seals school were not allowed to continue into Seals school. He said he actually agreed with me but there was nothing he could do about it and then proceeded to ask if I cared to take that test because he thought I would really pass it without much effort.
My response was (and I still remember it to this day): Why on earth would I want to put that much effort into something I would only be denied in the end?
He tried to explain that the reason women were barred from Seals school was because Congress thought it was too dangerous for women. Jobs which were deemed as too dangerous were done as such because they didn't want to loose child bearers.


I still find it completely ridiculous and thoroughly insulting.

I later qualified as an Expert Marksman, but was denied the ability to wear my ribbon because they found out that when I qualified I was pregnant. At the time there was some rule that stated women who were pregnant weren't allowed to qualify on weapons, but if they did so not knowing they were pregnant at the time, they would still be awarded the ribbon, but weren't allowed to wear it on their uniforms.

Another totally stupid, misogynistic rule by our fearless leaders.
 

Datamonkee

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
216
Reaction score
2
Location
Orlando, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"He tried to explain that the reason women were barred from Seals school was because Congress thought it was too dangerous for women. Jobs which were deemed as too dangerous were done as such because they didn't want to loose child bearers."

That is the most backwoods, inane, ignorant answer I have ever heard. OI. I'm embarrassed. I'm ex-navy myself.

There are a multitude of reasons why woman aren't allowed in combat situations, and none of them have to do with child bearing.

(A) Our society has always placed a higher value on female life do to the European Chivalric roots our forefathers had. Women did not do the fighting, women were to be treated with respect and cherished. With this higher value comes greater repercussions on the male populace when a female is injured or killed. There is a greater hit to the morale of the men of a unit when a female is injured or captured. There is more of a need to cover that female in the unit by the males, and that can lead to not paying attention to their own combat sectors, leading to the death or injury of team members. Everyone has heard of Jessica Lynch, but what about the several male POW's that the Iraqi's captured?
(B) This one will probably end up getting me flamed, is the fact that women place a much higher emotional attachment to sex than men do. The issue of rape is much more psychologically devastating to woman than men. I'm not saying that men can blow it off, I'm saying that it doesn't hit nearly as hard. Most of the cultures find sex between men as repulsive, so raping a man is far down on the list of torture techniques used. With a female combatant, this is not true. That threat is always there. And that leads me to my next point.
(C) Inter-unit romances and pregnancies. It is expected. But a combat unit must be ready and work as a cohesive unit, and cannot with the mixture of romances within the unit.
(D) Women (generally) are not as physically strong as men. Not sexist, just biology. Since women were allowed in military positions, the physical requirements for them are considerably lower than their male counterparts. This is extremely important to be able to carry full packs the miles needed to hike to positions. While they are not as strong, their pain tolerance are much higher than the typical male, and have a better hand/eye coordination. This is one of the reasons pilot spots were opened for women.
(E)(with regards to SEAL training), the female monthly friend. A sharks ability to sense an ounce of blood in the ocean is amazing (one park per one hundred million). Missions cannot be planned around the menstruation cycle of a female combatant. This is a minor, but valid reason. Missions are planned with regards to acceptable risks.

Ironically enough, most of these arguments are also used to keep the homosexual community out of the military. I don't say that they are right, just reporting the facts, ma'am. ;)

I am NOT saying that some women aren't capable of carrying their own weight (figuratively speaking). There were over 40k women serving in Iraq, and the USMC awarded 23 woman the Combat Action Ribbon for fighting along side their male counterparts. I served with some woman that could kick my butt and not break a sweat. But the rules are based on a majority. There would be several woman that would attempt the training, feel unfairly treated, turn it into a political game, and get the training adapted to suit their needs, and not the needs of surviving special forces missions.
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are some situations that men can handle at the front far better than Woman, especially under physcological terms. For example the average man can handle heavy equipment like parts for a basic 30 cal machine gun much better than a woman can just because of the frame of our bodies and the way the gun ends up getting carried.

Scientific studies have concluded that woman carry far more emotional "baggage" than a man does when it comes to pitch combat and even more so once the fight it over. Basically what the study tries to say is woman have more battle consience than men in many cases which can be a bad thing.

Also a nation as a whole is more disgusted/shocked/saddened when a female soldiers comes home in a coffin than when a mans comes home.

Also the Russians indeed deployed woman in large numbers, this was only after whole Soviet army groups were engulfed and destroyed in the first few weeks of the war.

However any nation that refuses to use Woman as a combat resource is a fool, true there are some natural shortcomings that woman have as soldiers but they can still (and do) make damn fine soldiers. There is only slight reason why they should not be deployed as combat troops but the reasons are there none the less.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Datamonkee said:
"He tried to explain that the reason women were barred from Seals school was because Congress thought it was too dangerous for women. Jobs which were deemed as too dangerous were done as such because they didn't want to loose child bearers."

That is the most backwoods, inane, ignorant answer I have ever heard. OI. I'm embarrassed. I'm ex-navy myself.

There are a multitude of reasons why woman aren't allowed in combat situations, and none of them have to do with child bearing.
Actually many of the "reasons" you listed aren't directly inline with what was actually said to me, but are loosely connected.


Datamonkee said:
Ironically enough, most of these arguments are also used to keep the homosexual community out of the military. I don't say that they are right, just reporting the facts, ma'am. ;)
Unfortunately there is no "fact" behind this claim. I'm not saying the claim is false just the facts utilized in this reasoning.

{don't call me Ma'am, I work for a living!}


Datamonkee said:
I am NOT saying that some women aren't capable of carrying their own weight (figuratively speaking). There were over 40k women serving in Iraq, and the USMC awarded 23 woman the Combat Action Ribbon for fighting along side their male counterparts. I served with some woman that could kick my butt and not break a sweat. But the rules are based on a majority. There would be several woman that would attempt the training, feel unfairly treated, turn it into a political game, and get the training adapted to suit their needs, and not the needs of surviving special forces missions.
I personally still find it to be pure misongyny.
 

vandree

Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
234
Reaction score
0
Location
Studio City, ca
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Basically what the study tries to say is woman have more battle consience than men in many cases which can be a bad thing.
Are women more reluctant to kill? Just wondering if that's part of the "battle conscience".
 

Datamonkee

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
216
Reaction score
2
Location
Orlando, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vandree said:
Are women more reluctant to kill? Just wondering if that's part of the "battle conscience".
Yes, more reluctant to kill, with the exception of protecting their own. They also are more susceptible to the post combat stress disorders. Men have been trained to be more callous about human life, and thus, have the ability to "shrug it off" better. I am not saying that this is good or bad. Women produce life, thus treasure it more.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Men, women, gays, quadrapalegics, that surfer girl with one arm, abese, anorexic, tall, short, etc...

If you got the goods, you should be allowed....

How about those on death-row? Put them in a covert operation in the middle of a bad situation and tell them to "have at it".
 

beautymrgn

New member
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I voted 'other' since I don't think all men and women are equal in ability. But. I do believe women (and men) who can handle the job should be given equal opportunity to do so. As long as they aren't 'dumbing' the requirements to allow women the position just to be 'fair' then, by all means, yes.
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
vandree said:
Are women more reluctant to kill? Just wondering if that's part of the "battle conscience".

It's all relative, some men suffer from it as well and as such lose combat assignments, however woman are far more subject to it for genetic reasons. What it means is they kill in battle, but afterwards they carry the effects of what they did for much longer thus making them a combat risk to their unit in the next fight due to a reluctance to shoot again, even if it is only a split second more reluctance. But as a whole woman suffer more from battle conscience, as well as a reluctance to deal well under heavy battle conditions due to a lesser extent of adreneline, and the lack of the male stimulant hormones. The ones that make us guys go nuts. However woman still make excellent combat soldiers, it's just that on a whole men are on average the "better" choice.
 

punkyg0608

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
8
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If women join the military, why should we keep them from fighting? Even if they are less likely to kill than men are, what are we going to do, just keep all women from fighting but still pay them? What good are they in the military if we do that? I'd say if they join the military, they should not be held back from fighting.
 

Datamonkee

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
216
Reaction score
2
Location
Orlando, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
punkyg0608 said:
If women join the military, why should we keep them from fighting? Even if they are less likely to kill than men are, what are we going to do, just keep all women from fighting but still pay them? What good are they in the military if we do that? I'd say if they join the military, they should not be held back from fighting.
There are more "support" positions in the military than fighting positions. Logistics, Supply, Intelligence, Religious, Media and many others. We are steadily putting woman in much more dangerous positions (see my post on the number of woman in combat in Iraq right now). It is just more shocking to see females tortured or in body bags than men. Men are expected to die to protect the family, the women. It isn't a slight on the ability of women to do this, it is just a statement of our quasi-chivalric upbringing.
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Datamonkee said:
There are more "support" positions in the military than fighting positions. Logistics, Supply, Intelligence, Religious, Media and many others. We are steadily putting woman in much more dangerous positions (see my post on the number of woman in combat in Iraq right now). It is just more shocking to see females tortured or in body bags than men. Men are expected to die to protect the family, the women. It isn't a slight on the ability of women to do this, it is just a statement of our quasi-chivalric upbringing.
Religious? Say it isn't so. Let's call Mikey Newdow & the ACLU...that's got to be a violation of our rights.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well.......

Don't go holdin' your breath too long on that whole Female Chaplains idea. Concidering there happen to only be 130 female chaplains in the military at all:
There are now 130 female chaplains on active duty--28 in the Air Force, 49 in the Army and 53 in the Navy. Among those serving the Navy, Chaplain Melody Goodwin--the daughter of two Pentecostal ministers--has been promoted to the rank of commander. This rank has elevated her to her current position as ethical adviser and pastoral planner for the assistant commander, Navy personnel command, fleet support.
Prepared for action

Evangelicals at the majority of chaplains military wide: Evangelicals Are a Growing Force in the Military Chaplain Corps

and Southern Baptists pull endorcement of females as military chaplains: NAMB will no longer endorse ordained female chaplains
 

Datamonkee

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
216
Reaction score
2
Location
Orlando, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Mine really wasn't a "Put women in church positions to get them out of the way" post, it was just a list of other spots that are important, but non-combative. Other countries have used females in combative positions for decades, but most of them have had a very, very violent history.
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Datamonkee said:
Mine really wasn't a "Put women in church positions to get them out of the way" post, it was just a list of other spots that are important, but non-combative. Other countries have used females in combative positions for decades, but most of them have had a very, very violent history.
What? Like ours isn't? Please.


Just give me 12,000 women all PMSing and any war would be over in 24hrs! Guaranteed!
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
JustineCredible said:
Just give me 12,000 women all PMSing and any war would be over in 24hrs! Guaranteed!
Now I understand what Bin laden meant when he said...

"Or enemies blood will be flowing like rivers".

Thank you! Thank You!...I'll be here all weekend!...Don't forget to tip your waitresses & bartenders!
 

JustineCredible

Wading through the Mire
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,379
Reaction score
91
Location
Eastern Standard Time zone
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
Now I understand what Bin laden meant when he said...

"Or enemies blood will be flowing like rivers".

Thank you! Thank You!...I'll be here all weekend!...Don't forget to tip your waitresses & bartenders!
BINGO

We have a winner!!!!

tell'im what he's won Don...


Don: A brand new toaster oven!!!!

Heard mumbled just off mic: Oh wait, that's a different show.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
One must consider that with modern warfare tactics and weaponry, the precise definition of a combatant is becoming blurred. Would 'Combat Search and Rescue' (CSAR) helicopter teams be considered as a combat force? It is not an aggressive force but the mission is extremely hazardous. Is the remote firing of a Hellfire misssile from an airborne drone combat? It is indeed an aggressive action and violent death is the strict intent. What about firing a torpedo from a submarine? A Tomahawk from a surface ship?

Beyond the traditional fighting forces are new tactical elements that contribute greatly to waging war on an enemy. What is the new definition of a combat soldier? Must one be within enemy artillery range or closer? Because death can tumble from the sky in many forms, would a combat position be anywhere in the 'theater of operations'? Modern military doctrine embraces the concept of a coordinated and combined Air-Land-Sea battle. Is 'combat soldier' now synonymous with 'combat participant'? These very questions are under consideration by both ethicists and the heirarchy of every modern military organization.

Where would you draw the lines?


 

ghost

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think that id the women wants to be put into the fireline then she should be allowed to. But if she doesnt she shouldnt have to, because they can fight. Most women can do anything a man can. And I found that sometimes they do things better then a man ever could. Its just the way it is.
 
Top Bottom