Should women fight on the front line?

Question

My belief is not. Both my Grandmother and Mother were Army Officers (GB, WRAC), and whilst they both proved (my Grandmother was based at Bletchley Park) to be insightful, brave and analytical women, I do not (nor do they) believe they could be any use in front line battle.

Firstly, a good man is seriously affected by a woman in distress. As my father, a Para and later Secondered SAS would argue - a man in battle does not have time for emotion. Of course men look after their friends. But they also trust them to be as strong as themselves. A man could falter momentarily for a woman - and lose his life.

Also, women have certain sanitary problems. Alright, changing a tampax mid-fight may not seem that problematic, but when your fighting in a jungle and even brushing your teeth is not allowed due to the carrying scent....

I believe women can be incredibaly strong, brave, incisive and dynamic. However, men ARE stronger and I think fighting should be left to men.

Aquarias, thank you for your point, but do you realise, that women on the front line are not as strong as men? They therefore require support, and as a consequence, can put men's lives in danger.

Please do take this as genuine debate and conversation - I value your point, but disagree strongly. Please email if you are insulted. Cx

FUSS 336 Thank you for your point, I note that you do not accept emails. I am intersted in this subject. In the event that you would like further (brief mate - I'm a busy girl, not a stalker) debate, please feel free to email me.

For God's Sake.

*"First of all, to the one response, your answer is rather moot seeing as how you spelled "great" as "grate,"*

I have combed my diatribe, and finding no such grammatical defection, can only surmise that you have not read my question properly.

Answer 1

It's the men's opinions that need to change. They need to start looking at women as comrads and equals.

Look at the Israeli Army, for God's sake. From it's INSEPTION in the 60's they have had women serving in the same capacity as men.

Yes, a woman can not pick up a 250 lb man and carry him any great distance. But she is just as capable of stealth and accuracy. And her smaller size can become a real asset when situations come up that tight close terrain has to be negotiated.

As to the sanitary problems. There are now, and have been available for awhile, pills that not only give complete birth control, but shut off the menstrual cycle completely. I am sure you have been hearing about them on the news. When a woman knows she is going into a war theatre, then she can have a depo-like implantation done that would preclude any sort of sanitary problems.

I myself was an Armed Forces sharpshooter. I resented not being able to see front line action. It was the reason I went into the forces to begin with. My talents were wasted, because a group of men could not see past my breasts and my vagina.

Answer 2

I have heard the reasoning before and as a girl, Im even glad that I wont be drafted to front line positions, but EVERYONE remember that women are trained in combat along side their male counter parts because in WAR everyone is a fighter, whether they are stronger, or stronger-smelling. Platoons of cooks get ambushed and taken prisoner. War is a dirty thing and there is a very very fine line between front line and not front line when you are deployed.

As a matter of debate, there are hormones women can take to avoid their periods, thus taking away that excuse...also, although women are built differently, they make up for their lesser strength with a greater endurance than men. So if they want to fight front line, I would let them.

I applaud the men and women brave enough to desire the position of being the first line.

Answer 3

great question, and i think u answered it adaquately urself.
I dont think women should b on the front line, for the reasons u stated bout physical strength and fitness, however not many people actually fight on the front lines these days anyway,(as in WWII) its too dangerous. i think u r refering to infantry type soldiers who patrol the streets to enforce a presence and end up caught in confrontations.
most female soldiers who have duties in the field these days either continue to take the pill or take the depo injection to prevent untimely menstrual cycles, so that reason is illeminated.
there was some research done in aisa bout the how men respond to feamles on the front line and the study found that it affected the men much more greatly as they felt a need to protect their female counterparts and thus were more traumatised by battle.

I dont think some of the people here realise how much kit u have to carry to b an infantry soldier, it actually angers me here that women and men alike are commenting on sum thing they prob no v little about. try packing a ruck sack with 15lb of sand (or anything handy, stones) and carrying it around with u for 2 weeks, its bloody hard. its nothing to do with the womans mental state and v little to do with the mans mental state either, but the physical capabilities of the woman to keep up when running, walking ova long distances carrying an extreemly heavy weight.
When i was in the army every week we had to carry this weight and run/walk for 8 miles in 2 hrs (inf soldiers carry more!!!), doin this for 7 yrs i observed women were nearly always struggling more than their male collegues, there r exceptions, but men ARE physically more adept for this role.

What stupid answers some people give

Answer 4

First of all, to the one response, your answer is rather moot seeing as how you spelled "great" as "grate," so I have a hard time taking you seriously. Spell check is available to every person who answers a question. Second, most fights these days are done with bombs, planes, guns and things that don't require a person to be stronger, although I might point out you obviously don't know many strong women because I know some that could knock a marine on his butt. Anyway, both women and men can be equally emotional, it's just a lot rarer for a man to actually emote or focus on these emotions because of the way society is. Women are often a lot more mature and emotionally stable than men, contrary to some people who will roll their eyes at this sentence.

As for fighting in the wilderness, women don't need to brush their teeth, just like men don't need to in those situations, and sanitary needs are often thought of in a military situation. In battle, no one has time for emotions, according to your father, except that war is an emotional response or preemptive move and men often times are emotional during battle. Take, for example, how men fight while driving tanks in Iraq. Often times they play music over the PA system that promotes emotion and energy, even angry emotions.

Also, FUS 336 actually supports my answer seeing as how he had to defend a man, showing that even men have their vulnerabilities.

So, to answer your question, yes, women should be allowed to fight on the front line. Gender descrimination would not be acceptible in a mine or factory, and it shouldn't be acceptible in the military.

Answer 5

Yes, women should be on the front line.
I think all the military should be women only.
This way some day there will be no more wars.
Rather than fight they will invite each other to have coffee, do their hair and nails, and talk about their men, or the the lack thereof.
Men being stronger is a crock.
Women outlive men on the average by 20 years.
Fighting for dominance in a job situation is just as stressful as fighting a battle.
At least in a battle you get to take out the opponent for real.
Males fighting for territory and females is present in all animals.
Yeah, let the girls have a shot at this nuisance.

Answer 6

First, to Social Science Lady, I know that this is not about you but your comment in my eyes is erroneous. Women are "nurturers" because they are socialized to be so (you should know that). Men are not born in any: way, shape, form or fashion to be any more aggressive or rugged than women. Yes, we might be more physically built but, what does that prove? As you may or may not know, we are largely socialized. Men play with G.I Joe while, women play with Barbie. We might be more rugged because we are expected to be that way but their are so many men and women that would love to break away from their social gender norms.

With that said, their does not exist any truly viable reason for women not to serve on the front lines with men. Someone argued about smell after not showering for days, I would smell like an onion too. Get fifty men together and imagine the drifting smell. A women's menstrual smell, I don't buy it. It is no more or less problematic.

In battle, I would see the men or women in my company as my life lines. I don't care what your gender. If a woman chooses to fight for her cause, I applaud her as I would a man. Maybe the issue is not women on the front lines, maybe its our gender biases that are the issue and that need to be interrogated.

Answer 7

Their fighting ability would not be the problem, I hear you on the distraction front however I think the issue would be how to get them to stop fighting.
As a rule guys are fairly rational.
Gals have the power to create, so you better believe they can destroy.
I genuinely believe you'd have trouble stopping them when they get the green light, an after they finish with the enemy they'd go straight on to whats wrong with their own side.

You've seen fights with blokes, at some point its decided that its over. With girls they always have to be stopped by others.

That's just what I've seen.

Answer 8

maybe its not a good idea that women should go out and kill.
I once knew a young lady who when doing her national service for the israeli army once had to shoot someone and that person was killed. Now she is married and does not feel able to a mother, which in her opinion is a bringer of life and not a taker of life.
women can be strong, brave and very competetive, but they are also much more sensitive to suffering and phsically have other biological functions which are decided by nature and not by men.

Answer 9

Women have the ability to do most things that men can do, so based on that assumption the answer would be yes. There are two main drawbacks to this in reality, the first is men. All men have mothers,sisters,grandmothers, whom most of them will have always treated with care love and respect, they`ve protected them(sometimes without even realising they are doing it) When a man becomes a soldier he carries this life lesson with him, consequently any woman fighting beside him is`extra baggage` War does not erase his `life lesson ` from his mind, it is second nature to him to want to protect a woman it is in his genes. Therefore his own life could be endangered because of his concern for her.
The second drawback to it is women. Women are not natural killers, it is in their genes to nurture,care for and give life; not to take it. Yes military training can teach a woman all she needs to know about killing, but that is not the same as actually doing it. A woman will kill without thought to protect her children, but other than that, to kill someone she would have to be so engulfed with hatred for them that she would do it in rage. Killing in cold blood is not the way of a woman.

Answer 10

Yes, I agree with you ,having served in a similar situation as your father. It's not that women may not be able to do the job, but whether the men try to shield the woman. I had a similar situation , not with a woman ,but a man who although tough and passed all the special forces training. Once in combat he fell to pieces and endangered the rest of us, because it is human nature to protect the vulnerable .You have mentioned the other more personal aspects of a woman's needs. When on operations we had to hide all traces of ourselves, that means taking your mess with you. Any unusual odour is a grave danger .