What are peoples ideas of women become frontline line soldiers, with everything that the current military system puts forward is it a good idea to allow women the chance to fight? Not only on a moral stand point but a logistical one. Are women equipped enough for war?
Women tend to act more on emotions than men do, which might lead to some "wrong" choices, war-wise. However, I don't think it gives them a disadvantage in war, necessarily. When it comes to physical strength, there is of course a difference - while a well trained man would be able to carry a wounded soldier, a female soldier might have troubles doing so. As of performance (following orders, firing at target etc), I don't expect there to be a big difference. The stamina might be a bit lower as well, but I don't think there would be a significant difference in an actual battle.
If Men can pick up a gun and follow orders, why can't a woman? What more is there to this? Moral Standpoint? What, like is it morally right to put someone who can give birth on the front lines? Is it morally right to put ANYONE there? Logistical standpoint? Surely this goes from person to person, it's not something you can determine from sex. You get a weedy but intelligent recruit, you put 'em where their useful, you get a recruit with more stamina and strength, you put 'em on the front lines.
I don't think it matters if we decide to put Women on the from lines. This isn't the days when men considered women weaker then them; granted there are still those that think that but they're the ones that get thrown all over the place. If a woman can handle a gun and prove herself worthy to fight, then I say let her fight
There are more issues on the pratical and logical side of including women in military activities, which I'll just quickly note down. These are against: Physical Concerns - women have less dense bones compared to men, meaning they break more easily. Physiological concerns - mainly menstruation, where during this time emotions are affected by the chemicals in the body and can affect decision making. Also it can cause a time of incapacitation from work. Psychological Concerns - the cohesion between men and women in military life where men may reject women or sexual relations can cause tension and affect judgement. Also, women taken as prisoners of war are extremely likely to be molested and assaulted. Tactical Concerns - men are more affected emotionally by a woman injured in battle, affecting their performance, with the fear that men may abandon orders froma sense of need to protect a woman. Insurgents and other enemies are less likely to surrender or follow directions from a female officer. Are these points valid or not?
There is no reason why a woman cannot act in the armed forces. If she wishes to fight for what she believes in, or not at the case my be, then it's totally her choice, and no-one should have the right to stop her, just as no-one has the right to stop anyone if they wish to or force anyone if they do not wish to.
I find all of these to be very real concerns, actually. There is an indisputable physical difference between men and women. Are there weaker men, yes. Are there stronger women, yes. Men have better upper body strength generally, and women have stronger legs. That's just the way we are. And, of course, there are the points that PAW brings up; the increased likelihood of molestation, the gender bias that may exist when taking orders from a woman, and so on. That being said, though, if the woman can prove herself to have strengths equal to that of a man's, emotional steadiness, and that she knows what she is getting into, I see no reason why she should not be allowed to serve on the front lines. Vader is right; it's hard to be moral in war.
Undeniable fact. Don't think it would have that much of an impact, though it varies from woman to woman. But I guess all they have to do is to be prepared for it. Before it is common for a woman to be in the army, men may reject them. Tension is bound to happen anywhere, but I don't think sexual relations is a problem, as long as it is a "proffesional" relationship. (As well as in an office, there might be romances, but there is not more likely to be a sexual relation/relationship within the army than another workplace.) Women who join the army are aware of the danger of becoming POW, but men are also victims of molestation and assaults when being a POW. I don't see how nursing women would be different than any other soldier, if the soldier is a good one, that is. And the other thing might be true, but when enemies will not surrender because of it, they (the women)will use force. I don't condone unnecessary violence, but if necessary, one will have to resolve to it. Also, it could teach them that women can be just as much an authority as a man.
I find these concerns for the military. I find most of these points are mostly or semi valid, which isn't very good for women or the military itself. Although it's 'everybodys equal, girls and boys' it doesn't exactly apply here, because it's not about wrestling, it's about real life, life or death, sane or insane, win or lose.
As relevant as the points I listed were, there are however a number of dissputes against them. I've found points to go against them: Physical - There evidence that the male body is less able to handle the g-forces than the female body: women are less likely to black out due to shorter blood vessel routes in the neck. Physiological - menstruation does not incapacitate or debilitate most women and that female military nurses have had a long history of functioning in wartime under primitive, unsanitary conditions without questions being raised about menstruation interfering with the performance of their duties Pratical - Governments are not using a valuable resource of soldiers that have the drive and ambition to be a soldier, but instead attempt to hire men who aren't as focused on the goal as some women. In my thoughts, it's just a choice. Women are equal in most all senses of the military and even have advantages over men, such as the fact that since women aren't seen as being threatening, the use of them as ambush units or decoys allows for greater tactical advatnages. There are a number of areas that women would excel at more than men, but also falter in others, it really should be about the proper allocation of soldiers into their specialised catergories. Women are around 95% more likely to be molested then men. And by the way, being a soldier is nothing like a desk job, it's unrealistic to compare the two. In a battle, if you see someone your in a relationship with, someone your in love with, the fear is that you'll loss you focus in battle putting yourself, your partner and your team in a comprimising position that could cost you lives. The army tries to minimalise its own casualties. In a desk job, if your in a relationship and your partner gets a paper cut, you're not going to be losing lives. A bandage maybe but... Sorry that was me misspelling, i've changed it now. I meant 'Injured' not 'I nurse', I was using my phone and it used predicted spelling. Kinda the same point that I made above about relationships.
In my opinion, it's really just up to the women if they really want to fight for their country or not. I don't think we should keep them out just because they might have a smaller frame than most boys, and I sure as heck know that a woman can fight on par with a man. Not everything is decided by strength alone. True that's important in the military, but it's not the only thing
I suggest a model to deal with these pro8lems. Namely, placing women and men into different units of the military. That'd deal with the sexual tension and drama as well as possi8le. Furthermore, if one wishes to seclude women from the military for the reason of romance impinging on the soldiers' a8lities to carry out their duties, it follows that gays should also 8e 8anned from particip8ing in the military. If I recall, the 'don't ask, don't tell' law was repealed fairly recently, so it follows that women should also 8e allowed. In terms of tactics, we have to remem8er that soldiers are conditioned to kill. It'd 8e possi8le to condition them against women too. Even so, the placing of them into seper8 units would prevent such issues from arising. I also expect that when dealing with a country that oppresses women, the military would have enough sense not to send a woman to do the negoti8ing. There's the 8enefits of a woman too. It's possi8le that the enemy may 8e more reluctant to shoot a woman, or view them as less of a threat. A minor psychological advantage, 8ut an advantage none-the-less. As for rape: the women who sign on are aware of the risks of viol8ion, as the men who sign on are aware of the risks of 8eing killed. I'd r8 8eing killed as 8eing worse than 8eing raped, so if we allow men to make the decision to go to war, even though they may die, we should allow women to make the same choice.
The segregation of the two sexes into different units only further implies the inability of cohesion between men and women in the military. That's not really a winning argument to create a better relationship between the two sexes. And cocerning gay relationships, it probably isn't as common as a heterosexual relationship would be, as obviously gay men in the military may not necessarily advertise their sexual preferrence. And even then, any relationship should be as platonic as possible in a time of high emotion and stress which can cause irrational thinking, and as such should attempt to regulated in the form of moving them in separate units and such whenever it is discovered. Also, I would agree that being captured behind enemy lines, being molested is the least of my worries when I'm tryg to figure out how long I have left to live, and escape.
I was under the impression the intention was to get women on active service, not to get women on active service with men. Segreg8ion 8etween sexes is nothing new. It works incredi8ly well in schools and sports, so I see little reason not to attempt to do the same thing in the military.
True, it's not really improved in society over time. But the likelihood that the sexes won't need to interact on an emotional or tactical level is highly unlikely so obviously some type of measure will need to be put in place in order to create greater cohesion, and I guess unisex units would've been the most likely idea. It's difficult to tell how willing men will be of women, but most evidence points to rejection of women. It's the idiotic macho idea of the sexes, which has no place in warfare.
I think wars for anyone who wants to 'take part' - if that's the way to put it. Man or woman who gives a ****
My view on it is this. If we let women cook, we can sure as hell let them fight. It's only right. The legal age of voting in the United States was changed to 18 under the logic that if you can die for your country, you should be allowed to decide for your country. The reverse, in my opinion, also applies. This is a good point. I personally thought of a similar solution. When in basic training, condition ALL cadets to be asexual.
