Women on the Frontline-opinions

[Mirkgirl]

EDIT:
this thread has been split from the "getting to know you" thread as it seems that people have a lot to say about it..........lol and thats not JUST me either
:catz:

94. Depends on many things, but I wouldnt go paying just out of pride... pride doesn't give money
95. Oh please... of course yes... if one wants to be there... opinions like that stop so many women from their dreams... If she want to go to the frontline, she belongs there!
Physically weaker, yes, but some of the women have a more physical strenght than others, plus the todays frontline isnt that much of a muscle field... plus endurance, esp to pain is something in which women are a lot better! And that's a scientifically proved fact... emotional... now that's the worst argument I have ever heard... we learn that when we're soft and tender and cry we get what we want easily... while the boy gets said that man dont cry... are we really that emotinal? or is it just so convinient to be? sheesh... there's the maternal instinct, but one intelligent women usually can say when the urge to protect and feel for one is worth following... well not always, but if she's in the frontline, she'd get the maternal instinct beaten out of her... and if that's her choice that's great
I hate hearing people saying they dont want women on the frontline for their damn good... no thanks, the ones that want it know whats good for them... and they don't need your misunderstood protection.
Sometimes I wish just to take that profession... just to prove you all wrong... just to make path for the next girl that really has that dream... I dont care for that that much myself... Id preffer money to miserable life of a female hero.
If you don't feel capable of it Daisy and all, don't do it. But don't speak for everyone. If you ever get told that the next position in your work is male-only that'll make you mad, right?
95. life is all exciting, once you live it your way.

[Catz]

94. Pay for dinner:
95. Women on the Front:
96. Exciting thing:

94: whoever has the cash lol.....im really not into making a big deal of it...tho its common politness to pay if you were the one who asked
95: thank you mirky you said it all.........why should it be just the men who suffer? its everyones freedoms that are being protected(supposedly)........and in every war women have played vital roles........look who ran most of the resistance movements during the second world war.......they ran just the same risks as soldiers.......worse really, since civilians werent covered by international law in the same way, nor were they able to be traced as easily.......but they still did it, and with great bravery
96: exciting? whats that? :rolleyes: lol
:catz:

[Ithielnor]

94. If you go out for dinner on a date, who should pay?
95. In military, should women be allowed at the frontline?
96. Anything exciting happen yesterday?

94. The guy. And if he doesn't have the money he shouldn't be asking ppl out.
95. I don't care.
96. We got snowed in. 18 in. and it started coming down again about two hours ago. :(

[Tar-Ancalimë]

94. If you go out for dinner on a date, who should pay?
95. In military, should women be allowed at the frontline?
96. Anything exciting happen yesterday?

94. so far, the guy has payed for all my dinners. if he didnt want to id be happy paying some of my own, but as long as theyre cool with it, i am
95. i have to disagree with you, once again, mirky... and rum and catz ;)
although its not for the same reasons as daisy. the fact is, the tradition of women not going to war stems from the old wars, in which 90% of the men in a society would die at war. they couldnt have their women out there as well, then they're be no one to take care of the children and have more. real good way to destroy your society there. today that is not as important, sure, but still, its the womans role to take care of the kiddies, even today, argue it how you will. and even today lots of people die in wars... better to keep half the society intact at least
96. ugh, too many exciting things happened. waay too many to be happy

[Catz]

actually Tar.......thats a good a reason TO send women to war as i can think of........maybe then well stop and think before fighting wars ;)
but its not true anyway.......just as many women and children die in wars as soldiers.....so the theory doesnt hold water......and its only the womans role to take care of the kiddies in this society, not all of them
:catz:

[Mirkgirl]

what catz said

And one more thing... if you feel like the mother, who takes care of kids and so on, its cool, stay there. We dont mean mass mobilization for women... just if they want to, let them go god******... you'll stay home and watch the kids, I'll go to war, if I decide that. What's that to you?
If the woman wants to go to war, do you think that even if she's not allowed she'll stay home and take care of the kids? Get real.
And something more... some men don't like war... they despise it and aren't ready to face it... wouldn't it be better if women who want to be there take their places? There are men who'd love to stay with the kids... and let the woman go get herself killed if she wants to. But they can't because they're male and people would laugh at them. We are first people with their desires and choices and just then male or female... the world needs to understand it. And it'll be a bit happier place to live... that'll be the world where I want my kids to grow... where my boy or my girl can make a free choice and don't care for the male and female roles in society.

[Daisy Gamgee]

I think military is the one aspect where you can't expect equality - maybe that's because of tradition, or other things I don't know. What I said above was probably a mass generalisation - there may be the odd woman who excels in the army, but not the frontline and not behind enemy lines- there's a difference.
Here's a quote taken from the Guardian "And what of the Israeli army, which believes women sabras as well as men should face enemy fire? That idea has proved a disaster - with men behaving suicidally to protect the women, casualties mounting, and the government now considering legislation to keep women away from the front. It's been a dire tale in the American military too, with physical strength tests rigged to accommodate women soldiers who with the best will in the world cannot throw a hand grenade to a safe distance."
So you've got an army where the men are getting themselves killed just to save the women, and another where the women are liable to blow themselves and their squads up.
The frontline may be different to that in the 2 world wars but its still tough, and its still physically demanding. And I don't think any of my friends could cope with it, both physically and mentally.
But of course this is just my opinion, it may be an old fashioned arguement, and I may be wrong. If any one really feels that strongly about there being equality on the frontline, try doing it for a week or a month, and see if you can keep up with and cope as well as the boys. Maybe you will, I know I won't, and I'm relatively fit.

[Mirkgirl]

ah so the women should give up frontline, becuase men feel the urge to behave like machos and save them, even when there's no hope?

If we ask most of the men, the best women is the one that is always in the kitchen, unless when they want it (yes it) in the bedroom. Let's just do that and avoid of all the problems. heh

[Catz]

ok im going to split this off from the "getting to know you" thread
and in reply to your points Daisy.........no women dont have the ability to cultivate as much upper body strength as men........but they DO have more endurance.......and funnily enough, the teenaged girls in the French resistance didnt have any trouble blowing up trains, shooting guns, making bombs or tramping miles in the dark without maps.......nor did they or their compatriots find that men were suicidally leaping to thier defence.......they knew what they were doing, as did the men they worked with.......it is spurious to refer to some "natural" desire on the part of men to "protect" women........its cultural.......there is NO evidence to support it being anything but.
and from what i can see the dire tale in the US military is a bunch of boys trying to humiliate any woman with the temerity to try to enter their domain............they seem to equate it with emasculaltion.......there are a LOT of documanted cases of severe hazing on female recruits
the fact is that as women, we want all that society can give us.......is it so unfair to say that we should take on the responsiblities too?
and no......the average woman on the street would not keep up...........that doesnt in fact prove anything, as niether could the average man on the street......it would take training before they could, and even then, not every woman is suited to being a career soldier, any more than every man is........its an individual thing.......i mean thats a little like what you say about there being no women excelling on the front line.........thats cos they cant get there..........doesnt prove anything, except that they cant get there.
when the landgirls started in WWII there were people saying that it couldnt possibly work......that there was no way that women could do the work.....that "obviously" they werent strong enough, mentally or physically for the tasks........just as women in earlier times still were thought to be incapable of driving......or going out unaccompanied.......or any number of other things that are laughable now.........its all in the perceptions
:catz:

[Bonos-Girl]

my friend used to want a sex change so she could fight on the front line. i thnk that people, regardless of sex, should be allowed to fight if they wish. surely as long as they can cope (some sortof mental and physical test would soon sort it out) with the whole thing then why shouldn't they be allowed?

[SindarinGirl]

I know women I'd much rather have at the front than some of the so-called "men" I know.
I'd rather serve at the front than wait around for what's left of my friends to come home. This is my home, and no one will stop me from defending it if need be.

[Rumil]

I don't know whether anybody saw this TV show but they took a group of (admitedly very fit citizens - male and female) and saw whether they could pass the SAS entrance test. (The SAS btw is the elite of Britain's armed forces) The instructors were all male and the SAS has not up until this point accepted women. However, in certain areas the women out performed the men - in particular they really impressed the instructors under real life interogation situations (this was quite disturbing really as they used really nasty techniques like food, sleep and sensory deprivation). Whereas these big muscly men were crumbling really quickly the women were, to quote the SAS instructor, among the best he'd ever seen. As war becomes less a matter of hitting each other with heavy bits of metal and more about endurance and operating equipment I see no reason why women shouldn't fight.

[Daisy Gamgee]

Well, you've all made good points - maybe, BG's right if women can prove they're every bit as capable as the men, then maybe they should be there. I still think that most women wouldn't be able to cope at the front, but maybe thats just the women I know.

[Bonos-Girl]

well....even if most women wouldn't be able to fight at least some would, and these people should be allowed to if they so wished.

[Gwaihir]

Have any of you read the story of Emma Edmonds, civil war spy? It was a great story of a woman who wanted to find in the Civil War so much that she pretended to be a guy and became an important spy for the Union. Even her own army thought she was a man.
I think women are capable of fighting, almost like a man. Women are different from men, and both have different skills. If only I were allowed and I can fight for a good cause, I would be enlisted.

[Bonos-Girl]

has anyone seen the disney film mulan?
kinda random..but also not at the same time! she basically pretended she was a guy so she could fight insteaad of her grandad or dad or summat...

[Finrod Felagund]

I'll just put my $.02 in:

I'm not against woman only frontline units but I am against coed frontline units

My arguments against women in frontline units have nothing to do with where the woman's place is

Argument 1:Women have better endurance: women do not win marathons or major endurance competitions. They beat plenty of men but not men who are in the same height of condition. Highly trained shock troops such as airborn troops have to carry 60-90 lb packs, most women who are in good shape do not weigh more than 120-130lbs, you do the math. Army Rangers who are in top physical condition have a hard time carrying half their body weight. Just in Basic Training (just to get into the Army) we had to carry 50lb packs. I have seen some special ops teams that were male/female teams but they were highly trained and traveling light and the women scared me, not manly just the air of lethality. These are exceptions. Generally, most women can't do what those women could.
However,I have no doubt that women have more mental endurance, just ask Amarie (my wife) ;)

Argument 2: Male-female interaction causes too many distractions. Its a fact of life, women and men get together and there will be tomfoolery. Period. The US navy has a real problem with women sailors getting pregnant. In my non-combat training in the Army, we were coed, we lost three (in a company of 80 or so)to pregnancy. Unit cohesion is hard to accomplish, why throw in "who is sleeping with who" to make it harder. You can't tell somebody to stop doing what their basic instincts tell them to do. Some will argue about male/male interactions but they aren't nearly as prevelant has the media would like you to believe.

Some use the race integration argument for women in combat positions, however we are talking about biological and emotional interactions, not overcoming illogical racial prejudice.

I could be wrong, its just my opinion...

[Catz]

well id have to say that yes.........very few women are up to the level of those in special ops..........but then again........neither are many men......they are special types all up, male or female
and the pregnancy thing does amuse me a bit........i know its an issue.......but it does remind me of the "if the world was logical men would ride horses sidesaddle" thing..........where theres a will theres a way........both sexes have thier weak spots you know ;) lol
as for endurance, there is more to that than just physical strength........there is also the mental aspect of it......being capable of continuing in the face of pain and hardship, and it IS a fact that a woman can go without food and water for substantially longer than a man, and can also take a far higher proprtion of blood loss before succumbing.
women in the Fire service are expected to keep up with the men.......and risk thier lives in the same manner......they train with men, and are expected to reach the same levels.........there arent any screams for women to be removed from the fire service, so i assume theyre not proving inadequate to the task
Elite troops are a special case whichever sex youre talking about........they are the top percentile of the armed forces.........given the numbers of women in the forces in comparison to men.......it stands to reason that there would be very few of them.........but that doesnt mean that they would be any bettter or worse at it than the guys, just that there are fewer of them
:catz:

[Finrod Felagund]

I meant any frontline trigger puller units. I agree where there is will there is a way but why introduce another stress to an already high stress situation. If it means that a unit is less efficient at killing people and breaking things ( the basic job description of a frontline soldier) and not getting our people killed and our stuff broken, then I don't think it is a good idea