Women in the Military

I've brought this up in the feminism debate topic earlier, but I thought this could be a separate debate topic on its own.

All across the world, the military forces of developed nations - and even some developing nations - are beginning to incorporate women into their armed forces. On the other hand, most of these roles occupied by women are far from the frontlines, and women are encouraged to take on support roles rather than frontline combat roles. The question, of course, therefore, is how you feel about women in the armed forces, and what you think about the decision of the armed forces across many countries keeping women away from the frontlines.

Please forgive my copy and paste. ^_^;

This brings me to a topic that a friend of mine in the United States Navy and I were talking about before. The United States armed forces has a policy of keeping women out of frontline combat where the action would be heavy, and there would be a lot of bullets flying about. But consider this hypothetical situation: A female non-commissioned officer of the United States Army is captured by terrorists in Afghanistan demanding a ransom; to show they are serious, they release a video tape to the press showing the woman being raped. At the same time, a male non-commissioned officer of the United States Army is captured by terrorists many miles away in Iraq, who also demand a ransom; to show they're serious, they also release a videotape of the man being very brutally tortured and mutilated. The question, of course, is this: Who do you think is going to get more media coverage?

Personally, I don't necessarily disagree with the Department of Defense's policy of keeping women out of combat zones. In a world where most soldiers are men, I think it's actually a rather genre-savvy decision; we can also guess and fear what happens when a female soldier is captured by a male-dominant armed force with a lack of respect towards the Geneva Convention. But let's be honest here: Especially in a military force where service is voluntary and the nation doesn't have a draft, every man or woman should know the risks. Every man and woman should know that there is a chance that they may have to suffer or pay the price - some of them great and ultimate - as a sacrifice for their nation. So while I'm neither trying to downplay rape or torture (mercifully, none of them have ever happened to me), I must ask: What makes one more horrible than the other? And why is it that we have such differing reactions to them?

Of course, because he's an enlisted man and thereby forbidden to speak out of turn about policy-making about the Department of Defense (which is also why I will also decline to specify who he is), he didn't (or, really, couldn't) speak much on the issue. He did, however, make a point: He personally, as a private citizen (this part is important, so don't put the DoD on his case, please~), feels that he wouldn't have any problem with women serving in combat roles if they can displace the same weight (meaning they're physically as strong) as men.

Let the debate begin. ^_^

Last I checked Rape is a form of torture.

Let me ask you this:
If your older brother was shot and survived, would you be able to carry him (which would most likely be dead weight) to safety?

I'm not trying to start anything with this post, I just want to know.

Originally Posted by Glutexo

Let me ask you this:
If your older brother was shot and survived, would you be able to carry him (which would most likely be dead weight) to safety?

I'm not trying to start anything with this post, I just want to know.

I don't have an older brother, but assuming I did, I think I probably could. I am fairly strong (a lot of women are) - and the adrenaline rush would probably make me stronger.

Of course, even though the mean strength of women is less than that of men, women applying to be in the military undergo a rigorous training regime, so would be stronger than average women. I think there's a standard of physical prowess that must be attained for anyone who wants to be in the frontlines - anyone who passes it, regardless of gender, could be eligible. Picturing strengths as a Gaussian distribution, even though the peak of the distribution is probably less than the required standard, there'll always be that upper tail end that can pull off the feats of strength required.

Yes, women do need to be aware of the risks associated with being a female in war. I don't think they should be barred from being at the frontlines, however - if they want to serve in that manner, and they are physically capable, it is their own choice.

They probably automatically assume you wouldn't be able to which is a problem, because I know many girls that are stronger than me.

Or they could think that you'll think before you shoot. You know us guys, don't think about anything.

Women in the military? Only if they can pass the exact same tests as the rest. I know that women in the fire department don't have to pass as hard tests. For instance, men has to carry a weight of 90kg (I guess this is the weight of an average human) a certain distance, but woment only 60.

Such policies are acceptable for everyday work, but not for emergencies. Imagine a woman having to carry a person out of a burning building and being like "oh this guy weighs 90kg, can comeone else take him?"

If they can pass the same tests as men, and are willing to risk being treated worse if captured, go for it.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

If they can pass the same tests as men, and are willing to risk being treated worse if captured, go for it.

This is one of the points I'm trying to make. As Tigerboi previously mentioned, rape is a form of torture. But why do we immediately assume that "women being raped" is "being treated worse" in comparison to "whatever happens to men"?

Originally Posted by Ysionris

This is one of the points I'm trying to make. As Tigerboi previously mentioned, rape is a form of torture. But why do we immediately assume that "women being raped" is "being treated worse" in comparison to "whatever happens to men"?

Because that's one extra thing on top of being tortured and mutilated.

If they want to I say let them die along side their male comrades! I don't understand why western culture has decided that women are inferior to men anyway, it is really stupid.

Originally Posted by Mr. 32

If they want to I say let them die along side their male comrades! I don't understand why western culture has decided that women are inferior to men anyway, it is really stupid.

Western Culture doesn't claim they are inferior.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Western Culture doesn't claim they are inferior.

No, be we sure as s*** act like it.

I don't really want women in the frontlines. Blame chivalry.

If a woman is captured and raped, she could get many STDs that will affect her for life, and she could possibly become pregnant. I'd much rather the armies be over careful and keep women in a safer zone than have them put women in the front lines and risk their safety. Yes, rape is a form of torture, and yes, men can be raped as well, but the difference is that men can't get pregnant. It may seem small to some people, but pregnancy, even if it is terminated, has a massive effect on a woman for the rest of her life (emotionally/mentally at least). I am not sure about other countries, but the United States army exists to "protect the people and the nation". If they went blindly placing women in that sort of situation, they would be being irresponsible.

There are some things that are done for your protection, whether or not you think it's fair.

Originally Posted by Bradapalooza

I don't really want women in the frontlines. Blame chivalry.

Even if they want to be there?

Originally Posted by Glutexo

No, be we sure as s*** act like it.

Why do you say that?

Keeping the woman off the real front line would be best for (in general) men a more suited for it. All so, in policy they take everything that happens to a woman more serious then a man because people are more sympathetic to woman. That"s just how it is.

But is the woman chooses to step into the harsh battle field, it should be there decision and they know what comes along with it.

History shows

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Why do you say that?

"Woman should be at home cooking, cleaning, and sewing. It's what they're good at."
"Woman are only good for three things; cooking, cleaning, and sex."

I hear these types of remarks all the time. From people I'd NEVER expect to here them from.

I'd never say them, but a lot of people think them.

Originally Posted by Glutexo

"Woman should be at home cooking, cleaning, and sewing. It's what they're good at."
"Woman are only good for three things; cooking, cleaning, and sex."

I hear these types of remarks all the time. From people I'd NEVER expect to here them from.

I'd never say them, but a lot of people think them.

I have never heard someone say any of those things outside of a joke. I doubt they seriously meant it, but if they did, from me at least, it would elicit a swift uppercut to their slack jaw.

I see no problem with women in the front lines, however, I think all women soldiers should be volunteers. If the draft was ever re-instituted, it should not include women.