Should Women Be Able to Join The Armed Forces?

So should women be able to join the armed forces? They are prooven (not being sexist) to be not as physically strong as men. So what restrictions should they have then? If any? Or should they be exactly equal to men?

I am undiecided as yet. I can see the problems with having women serving on the front line so to speak.

Jim

women can and have served in the military for atleast 100 years.
they are not allowed in combat. i dont think anyman regardless of race,rank or backround does not want to see a woman hurt.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Just go to that web site and that discussion should let you know if woman should be able to join the ARMED FORCES. ...

In a country with a legally elected leader, not a "god-chosen" megalomaniac, military service should be gender-blind. (I would hate to see the draft thrown open to women just because Bush needs more cannon fodder for oil wars.) One of the reasons women are "proven" weaker than men, is that the physical standards for female recruits is lower than for males. Same goes for cops, I think. A friend of mine was constantly hassled in the marines for "getting off easy". She had asked to be evaluated under the same standards as the men, but was refused.

I think very few women would meet the male standards, but those that do should be right up there doing what male soldiers do. And males and females that are weaker should be support staff or whatever the military needs.

I also think pro sports should be gender blind too. If a woman is big and tough enough and skilled enough, she should be trying out for any teams she wants to.

--Saerlaith

Women are allowed to join the armed forces. They don't serve in combat positions. This means that they can be pilots and navy gunners (i think) and can operate patriot missle batteries, but they don't get put into actual 'combat' units.

Obviously women are fully capable of fighting. The isrealis have women fight in their military. And while women in general are less possesive of muscle tissue than men in general, there are certainly particular women who are stronger than particular men. As long as the standards of height health and fitness aren't changed, then why shouldn't women be allowed?

However, I do have one concern, perhaps its not even valid. I am concerned that numerous men will act unreasonably torwards 'resucing' a wounded woman. I think that the very sound of a wounded woman will be enough to 'compromise' men on the battlefield. To be clear, I don't think that entire armies will perish trying to save one woman or anything like that. But I do think that there are relationships between men and women that are relatively unique to them, and that this has to be at least considered.

My husband served in Desert Storm and I just asked him this question yesterday.
He said the reason why women aren't allowed into combat is because they would be a distraction to the men on the lines. The soldier must be able to concentrate on being in combat and not lose his concentration on his job.
Although it would be fine for a woman to be a helicopter pilot in war situations.
When our men are in a combat situation, it would be distracting for a male if a woman was in his platoon.
It's a safety issue and I do not know if it will ever be changed.
I'd rather not have a woman in combat with me if I were a man.
Men are more physically stronger as women are the weaker of the two and in hand to hand combat, a man will win.
(if you don't believe me, watch some episodes of COPS when a woman cop tries to subdue a violent criminal....she is unable to subdue the criminal)

Originally posted by rbailey7160
When our men are in a combat situation, it would be distracting for a male if a woman was in his platoon.
It's a safety issue and I do not know if it will ever be changed.
I'd rather not have a woman in combat with me if I were a man.

I guess if the powers that be really wanted to change that mentality, they would address it in bootcamp. Seems that they have so many ways of breaking down recruits' minds and rebuilding them as needed for the military, that if women side by side with men in combat was deemed necessary, they could make it work with training.

I can see how that would be a problem the way men think now though. It's too bad that having two different systems (male & female) usually ends up with women being treated worse by men. If that could be stopped, then it would be easier to condone limited gender segregation.

On a side note, in ancient Greece there was a battalion (or some such term) of male gay couples. The rationale was that they would fight more fiercely to defend their partners. If I remember correctly, they all fought to the death in a particular battle and were deemed a success. Guess it would be a little harder to maintain discipline nowadays though. The military probably doesn't want a bunch of berserkers fighting back to back to save each other

--Saerlaith

Yes, women should be in the armed forces and in COMBAT. It is time to get out of this "victorian" era. Women can fight just as well as men. Brute strenght is no longer an issue.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Yes, women should be in the armed forces and in COMBAT. It is time to get out of this "victorian" era. Women can fight just as well as men. Brute strenght is no longer an issue.

Well you are in a minority I believe.

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Yes, women should be in the armed forces and in COMBAT. It is time to get out of this "victorian" era. Women can fight just as well as men. Brute strenght is no longer an issue.

Exactly. Women will never be able to match the physical stength of men, by design, but --

they make very good bomber pilots, for example, as their motor skills are often superior. Anything related to attention and reaction, and motor skills, women can do better.

Well they are already serving, but i think Hell Yeah they should be involved in combat, YOu don't have to box the enemy, you shoot him. Of course if women were to be infantry they would probably have to gain twenty lbs , which is no prob, and also if all the women that voted this year thought they might be drafted and have to serve in iraq , where they could be shot,raped or torn apart. I'm pretty sure bush would've gotten alot less votes

I did know that women "need" to be stronger to point a weapon and shot the enemy.

Since when you have to be "stronger" to do such a thing.

I've got no problem with it. If you think that women are inferior to men in this aspect I suggest you check out Banshee's signiture.

Women have historicaly been proven quite capable soldiers.
Just ask the German vets who remained after fighting them in Russia during WWII.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by palg1]

Originally posted by marg6043
I did know that women "need" to be stronger to point a weapon and shot the enemy.

Since when you have to be "stronger" to do such a thing.

What?

Anyway, i dont think men are suprior all though Einstein, Newton and Hawken ect May disagree but i do think a man may be more capable of killing somebody than a women. There arent as many serial killers that are women as men.

Physical strength isn't as much an issue these days, as the technology advances. So women could serve in some capacities, but not all, IMO. There are some Special Ops assignments where they would probably be more of a hindrance than a help.

There's also the psychological aspect to think of. Women are the nurturers in our society (the members of ATS notwithstanding ) and I wonder if they would have the mental toughness to carry out assignments where there would be obvious civilian casualties.

Originally posted by marg6043
I did know that women "need" to be stronger to point a weapon and shot the enemy.

Since when you have to be "stronger" to do such a thing.

Sorry I mean "I didn't know"

No one is ready to see their first dead body. No one. However, women have a mental toughness men can never understand. Men have been the agressors for a few thousand years or at least thought they were. I have know some very drop-dead-gorgeous women that could flay you alive and not think twice. It about training not gender.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by DrHoracid]

I don't think that they really should go into combat, but if they want to then sure. And yes, strength is a HUGE issue. You think guns weigh nothing? You need a lot of strength to carry one of those babies around with you all day. Also, they'd have to be running long distances with the men WHILE carrying these guns along with packs on their backs. Strength is definately an issue.

I saw my fist dead body when I was 7 we were in the beach when somebody started screaming my parents got out of the car and when to see what was happening, it seems that a body was just washed out in the beach, my brother and I got out of the car by the time my parents figure out that we were looking at the body it was to late.

He was bloated white and had been bitten by probably crabs it was not a nice picture and I had nightmares for a while.

The second time was a friend of us walking to school she got hit by a car and I will never forget the way her face looked like, she was 16.

Third time was a burn body after a car accident my brother and his friend tried to help the women out of the car but she was pinned so she burned to death while we stand by the road unable to help.

yes I have seen death perhaps not in a battler field but in the streets. I think womens are stronger that most people thing.