Should women be allowed to service on the front line?

Asked by: RachaelMiller
  • Generally speaking, yes

    IMHO combat duty for women is quite possibly the final ceiling for women to break when it comes to equal rights...But it's also going to create a Pandora's box in regards to its consequences. If women can serve in combat, what's to prevent women from getting drafted? If men AND women are both drafted in future wars, what about families and family creation?

  • Equal in service

    Even though I don't believe that the U.S. military defends my freedom, or any such emotionally gushy patriotic drivel, I do believe that women should have equal rights to participate in enforcing U.S. will through violence overseas, and occasional peacekeeping or the like, with all the benefits and career paths associated with such activity.

  • Yes i believe so

    Boot camp and other psychical tests are the way to determine if the individual in question is military material, if war truly is "too hard" for women then in theory they would never pass one of these physical exams. Women should be given the opportunity to be tested. As for the men being distracted by women that is there own issue, not the woman's . I do agree though that relationships between troops should not to form in military,

  • It's about your Patriotism not Sexism

    Very simply, if you wish to fight for your country and your beliefs you should. It's a matter of the physical exam to dictate who goes to the front lines and who doesn't. I agree women can fight in the front lines, but they must follow the same physical requirements as men. Any less and they are put at a disadvantage. If they can do the same as men I see no reason why they can't fight. Anyone who doesn't pass the exams simple aren't allowed, no big issue.

  • Strength isn't everything

    Even if women are not physically stronger than men, they have different skills and qualities and are generally smarter. "For the first time in history, western women are scoring higher than men on IQ tests, according to Professor James Flynn, a widely recognized authority on intelligence quotient testing.
    Both genders’ IQ scores have improved over the past century, yet women’s scores typically lagged four or five points behind, Flynn told the Star.
    But in the last few years, women’s scores have risen faster and surpassed the men’s results by about one point, according to data Flynn compiled from testing agencies and academics in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Estonia, Argentina and Israel." (http://www.Thestar.Com/life/health_wellness/2012/07/16/based_on_iq_tests_women_are_now_officially_smarter_than_men.Html)

  • It is equality.

    Women might be physically inferior to men in a lot of ways, however we should get to choose our own lives and have as much of an opportunity for these kinds of things as men do. Women can be physically fit and adept with speed, weapons and more, even if we don't usually have the physical strength to compare with men. Even then, women can still be fitter then men in a lot of cases and more competitive. This mindset that women are definitely 'inferior' and 'uncompetitive' is one that has been disproven time and time again and that needs to go. Sure, not as many women as men do have that mindset, but they're out there- and by saying that they can't perform on the front lines is pretty much enabling that mindset further and muting the 100% equality that some claim we already have.

  • Women have the right to make life decisions.

    Women, just like men, deserve the right to choose their career. If a woman wants to fight for the military, they should be able to. And if women do become part of a draft in the future, it would be no different to a man being drafted. On a family/societal standpoint, allowing women to join the military/be drafted should not be seen as totally different because women are not required, nor should be required to get married and have children.

  • It would be very benificial for the military.

    Women should be on the frontlines as well as men as their is simply no reason to keep them away. As long as the individuel can get through boot camp they should be able to serve on the front lines. Some may argue that women will distract the men however the military is very good at changing peoples mindsets.

  • On balance, no

    Whilst the feminists may get upset about it, I argue that it is best the women do not serve on the front-line.
    The reason why is that men have an innate inclination to impress and protect women. If women are present on the front-line then men would do foolhardy things to try and protect or impress their female comrades.

    This gets a whole lot worse when you consider the likely possibility that romantic relationships would form up between comrades.

  • A physical difference

    All though many like to believe that men and women are created equal, they are not. Now don't get me wrong here, women should be given equal rights and treatment. However, a women is not physically equal to that of a man. It is also true that a mans body is not physically equal to that of a woman's. Men posses certain traits that allow them to better serve on the front lines. These things include muscle tissue in men compared to women. Women also have advantages like a higher pain Tolerance. This is a trait that women oposses due to their ability to give birth. Since men and women are created differently they should serve diffrent roles that suit them best.

  • Compete with men in sports first

    When females are 50% of sports teams and winning then female should be aloud in offensive combat units. Saying that women are just as capable in combat as men is simply wrong. Sports are as close to combat as possible without ending in death. The NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB have zero female players, none of these organisations have rules to prevent females from playing. If women were just as physically capable as men, then the NFL would have female linemen blocking for female running backs.

  • I'm only saying no because everyone else said yes- and I'm neutral.

    I don't like the IDEA of a women (the character for children that is most important and naturally not bred for war) getting blown to bits. Should they be allowed to? I don't know. But know this mcuh: Battles are ugly when men fight. They become hideous when women fight.

  • Overall, no they shouldn't.

    When it comes to physical combat, it is best to have the largest and strongest soldiers available to fight on the battlefield. Genetically, women are not physically larger, stronger or faster than men. They may be equally smart but not equally strong. Even if both genders had guns, this still doesn't equalize a fight between men and women.

  • I'm not against the concept, but the methods are questionable

    Anyone who has spent any time in the military, even just bootcamp or ROTC, can tell you that adding females into the mix changes things. I realize "change" is often the desirable outcome of liberal plans, but in the military random "changes" can kill your brothers in arms sometimes. It's a deadly thing to experiment with.

    I know a lot of career military officers from several branches, and some special forces guys as well. Not one of them is for integrating females into combat units. They objectively can't carry as much weight (standard combat loadouts are 100+ lbs of gear), they are disproportionately prone to bone/joint problems, and they even have a diminished physical fitness scale compared to men. When men have to execute 75 pushups in 2 minutes to score a 100% on the physical fitness test, females only have to execute 46. Men have to run a 13 minute 2-mile, females have to beat 15:35 to achieve a perfect score. I wasn't in the best shape of my life when I was in the military, but a disproportionate number of females in our unit struggled to meet even these diminished requirements. They generally couldn't handle the weight and handling of machine guns during infantry exercises, and often dragged unit morale down when in command of infantry exercises.

    I don't say this to beat down on women. I have deep respect for them, and believe that if you are truly qualified on the same standards that men are judged by, then you should be given a spot in a combat role (should you choose). However, the reality is that far far fewer women than people realize are qualified. If you can make it happen without any special treatment (which I hope is what feminists would want) then I'd say you've earned you're beret just the same as anyone else.

    To those who can't cut it, stop complaining and be a POG. Your service will still be appreciated and you can be proud of that as well. Combat roles are hard to come by, even for extremely qualified candidates. We can't be diluting our line units with less-qualified personnel just because it makes someone feel nice. Sorry.

  • Not Physically Equal

    No matter how politically equal men and women's rights become, it is a fact that men are physically superior in strength; anyone saying otherwise is being negligent and irrational. If you were shot in the front lines unable to walk, and your fellow soldier happens to be a woman that cannot carry your weight, I'm sure you would vote NO...

  • I have to say No.

    Not the front line. Sometimes we simply must acknowledge that some things are different. The male disposition is far more compatible with combat then the female disposition. The front line is filth, physically demanding work, and a place of little comfort. I'm fine with women in the military. I'm fine with women playing support rolls. But, the front line is where I draw the line

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.