Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Should Women Fight On The Front Line?
Fullmetal Alchemist Discussion Board > General Discussions > Open Talk > Debate District
Stealth
We say that women should be treated equal like men and given more rights, yet women are still not allowed to fight on the front line. Now I agree with the fact that women are not physically built like men but still if they can keep up with the boys with all her gear, but also be able to carry the biggest dude to safety on the battlefield should he get injured. And if they are willing to go then I say that we should let them.

So should women be allowed to fight along side men?

Well there are a lot of reasons why and why not and I just think that this issue is something interesting to debate about.
Slashrose1010
What kind of question is this? War knows no gender. It knows no discrimination. If women enlist in a war, they are treated the same, or at least should be. Hell, I'm sure there are many female soldiers that are better than the men at many things.
kaizenyorii
i actually think this is a good debate question. obviously there are women who enlist that are more capable than most of the male soldiers. but you kinda answered your own question when you said "women should be treated equal like men and given more rights", and the keyword is SHOULD. and i think everyone in the real world knows men and women still arent in equal standing in most professions. Theres also a sexual level to the issue; one of the allures of the army is that youre joining an elite fighting fraternity. its not the fault of the women, but it is a valid point to see how a woman in the front line can be a distraction. remember, the US army recruits hardest in rural conservative and poor urban areas where a womans role is still predominantly to look good and to rear children. maybe if men can somehow evolve to stop seeing women as a sexual object first and anything else second, then we wouldnt be keeping capable and willing soldiers off of the front line.
The Mad Bomber
Women soldiers are undoutably as capable as the male counterparts, actually I have a cousin who happens to be a border guard and her father was until he retired. In my country(Finland) it is required for people to do half or one year of military or civil service(or else jail time!) unless you have a proper reason why you would not be able to do these things(religion etc). So I believe that in the modern world, when one chooses to become a soldier and serve their country they should be allowed to the front.

I mean rarely people want war, but when in war gender should be nothing to hold them back from fighting for their country, physical fitness etc is individual.... yet the world has been running under the leadership of males forever thus it`s going to be a slow change to have equal rights....

Yet dunno how dead women soldiers would seem, if they were seen in public/news etc... I believe that women soldiers is still a rather confusing concept to many men. I mean to face a woman in combat might seem odd etc, but history it`s example of women soldiers. Let us look to the east and the formerly existed USSR, in WW2 over 800,000 women served in the army as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans...
AlphonseRules
Only if they choose to. They should not be drafted.
Scythoro
Only if they receive equal training and equal treatment. If women want equal rights then they should earn equal rights. Their training should be just as vigorous as the men's training. Actually their should no segregation in the training. Obviously women and men should bunk separately, but if they are going to be on the front lines together then they should train together as a single unit.
miracle_flame_alchemist147
It's as simple as letting women do what they want to do. If they want to fight in the frontlines as well along with men they should be allowed. There's no point in saying no since women have the same rights as men anyway. It's just a matter of allowing women the same rights of men in war. War shows no mercy to anyone it just takes whatever it can, women, children, men, property, animals, anything it pleases and wants. So if women want to help in war, we should allow them the same treatment we give to men. We should allow them to have the same trainig, the same jobs, the same positions, the same weaponry and such. Its just that most people in this world says women can't do as much as men can but its just that they don't allow women to prove themselves yet. They say that can only do this set of jobs and chores bec. that's what women were told to do, they weren't told that they can try and help the military in frontlines. They were just told to clean the house, take care of the children and other things. That's why women in the past weren't knowledgeable in combat bec. they weren;t given training to do so. But women should be allowed to join in the frontline if that's what they wish since serving your country has no bounds or restrictions.
Stealth
Well I am glad that most people agree, and who knows maybe one day we will have a woman running the country.
miracle_flame_alchemist147
Our country is already being runned by a woman. She is the second woman president in the history of our country.
Chiyo
QUOTE(Stealth @ Mar 16 2007, 11:19 AM) [snapback]518301[/snapback]
Well I am glad that most people agree, and who knows maybe one day we will have a woman running the country.


We already have, and she was one tough cookie.
Kenji
QUOTE(miracle_flame_alchemist147 @ Mar 16 2007, 07:36 PM) [snapback]518302[/snapback]
Our country is already being runned by a woman. She is the second woman president in the history of our country.


President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo...if I am not mistaken? hahaha...

About 3 years ago, Indonesia is being runned by a women too, Megawati Sukarnoe Putri... but she lost to Susilo Bambang in the 2004 pool...
-------
Time to face the fact.. there are ancient unpopular Chinese history that indicates women be the ruler of the China...but not for long... I can imagine USA is much a better country with Condoleeza Rice and George Bush swapping places/roles/title/whatever you call it... tongue.gif
Amol
Well , I dont think it would be nice to have women in war.

Just doesn't look nice to see women fight for some reason.

There is a different status for women and looking at that i dont think they should go for wars. I dont any gender Bias or anything , but they simply should not. Both men and women have been designed in different manner for different things , its not that women cant fight but ...

wars sees no gender or things, its brutal and not something that need competition in by men and women , everyone is ment for different things and we should consider them too



Scythoro
QUOTE(Stealth @ Mar 16 2007, 06:19 AM) [snapback]518301[/snapback]
Well I am glad that most people agree, and who knows maybe one day we will have a woman running the country.


That topic should be in a thread all to its own.
Nepharski
If they think they can handle it, sure, let them at it. Training and expectations should be on par with what is expected of the men, though.
The Mad Bomber
QUOTE(Amol @ Mar 19 2007, 06:11 PM) [snapback]519556[/snapback]
Well , I dont think it would be nice to have women in war.

Just doesn't look nice to see women fight for some reason.

There is a different status for women and looking at that i dont think they should go for wars. I dont any gender Bias or anything , but they simply should not. Both men and women have been designed in different manner for different things , its not that women cant fight but ...

wars sees no gender or things, its brutal and not something that need competition in by men and women , everyone is ment for different things and we should consider them too


Hmh, well there`s a truth in what you say, but really it`s all about free will and I think many men will/would be shocked to face a woman in battle, but they might even underestimate them. (I would be shocked at first really cause it`s not what I would expect to face)

But there are other possibilities for women to help the war effort if not as soldiers, during WW2 my country Finland had an organization named Lotta Svärd, which was made out of women. They took care of the wounded etc so I guess there are other things that women might also do for the war, if not fighting.
Twilightz
Why not? I'm sure it would work in some way. And there are women that want to fight for their country and help it survive through bad times.
Amol
QUOTE
If they think they can handle it, sure, let them at it. Training and expectations should be on par with what is expected of the men, though.


Neph, i think that is applicable for all cases , you train anyone in the world to do anything and....!

But I think women should not be war , and Twilightz if women want to help their country during a war than sure they can , but on the front line there are others waves for that , for example they can be more proficient nurses and help out the wounded and injured rather than on the front lines ....!
Nepharski
Sorry. Just flashbacks to physical education where less was expected of the girls than the guys. In a war scenario, though, if women are to support their brothers and sisters on the frontlines, they should be expected to match their male counterparts' physical efforts and skills. Field agents need to rely on each other, so know lax treatment for some just because they're female.

Personally, I'm not sure how suited women are to a warring environment either, but like I said, if they think they can and they want to, let them try. We'll separate those who can from those who cannot, and walk away with a good force on our shoulders.
Roy the Flame Alchemist 71
If a woman wants to fight on the front line..tha i think she should be allowed to but i also see why the armed forces wouldnt let....it has been proven when a female service man is captured by the enemy..different methods of torture are used....and i think you guys no what i mean....so i do understand why they wouldnt want to put any woman in that position....
Popogeejo
I'm inclined to say no.
For a start men tend to be physically stronger so female soldiers would become a weak link in a defensive line if it gets up close and personal. It also means that there would be statistically fewer women capable of using heavier weapons.
Secondly men have been shown to be more capable at reading maps and with spacial awareness which are important for front line troops.
Mixed formations (groups with both genders) work well as far as I know but very few of these formations work on the front line (Again, only as far as I know.) If female troops get into a jam, as is not uncommon even for male soldiers, then their comrades may feel more inclined to risk their necks these women needlessly where they would normally not.
There is also the threat of capture and rape. I realise this perfectly applicable to male troops as well but if female troops are ever captured then there is probably an increased risk of rape and abuse.

If you can get female troops who can match men then that's fine, all the luck to them but women have better natural abilities that make them bettered to other (actually more risky) roles like counter intelligence (women having better memories, generally better at thinking on their feet.)
Amol
Neph , I dont think only training suffices for everything , you need to have a instinct in you too.
Also like Popo has mentioned the points where men are more capable , like physical strength cannot be compensated.

Its not about the lax treatment , they can be engaged in many other very helpful things during war time, its not necessary to only help by fight on the front !
I'm sure they can help more without being on the front !
Nepharski
And I never said it sufficed for everything. Personally, I don't think women are that suited to the battlefield (see Popo's post), but again, I'm open to them proving themselves.
Amol
Neph , Women have proved themselves everywhere (other than battlefields I guess) tongue.gif

But Anyways I too dont really think that they are suited for Field Operations, not they cant ~!
Twilightz
What if they want to battle in front of the line? I'm saying that if some woman has a good shape, she's intelligent, talented when using weapons and she has all the other skills that are needed in the army, why would anyone turn her away? It's true that raping and abuse is possible when a woman is captured, but if somebody still wants to battle then we should let her. There can be field operations that are suited for women and both genders.
Amol
Twilightz, there are soo many things people want to do but are restricted to, so anyone cannot do anything !

But in this case there is no need for a restriction , Women who feel that they can help the country during a war on the front , sure they should go , but as you mentioned there would be only some , so its difficult to manage.
Difficult to manage in terms that we cant make a regiment separately for women (or may be we can) , that would be certainly not good , and many other things, but none the less if they think they should , then sure opt of this service.
alchemist x
mad.gif NO they should be home making me some bacon!
Colette
QUOTE(Popogeejo @ Mar 20 2007, 02:20 PM) [snapback]519997[/snapback]
I'm inclined to say no.
For a start men tend to be physically stronger so female soldiers would become a weak link in a defensive line if it gets up close and personal. It also means that there would be statistically fewer women capable of using heavier weapons.
Secondly men have been shown to be more capable at reading maps and with spacial awareness which are important for front line troops.
Mixed formations (groups with both genders) work well as far as I know but very few of these formations work on the front line (Again, only as far as I know.) If female troops get into a jam, as is not uncommon even for male soldiers, then their comrades may feel more inclined to risk their necks these women needlessly where they would normally not.
There is also the threat of capture and rape. I realise this perfectly applicable to male troops as well but if female troops are ever captured then there is probably an increased risk of rape and abuse.

If you can get female troops who can match men then that's fine, all the luck to them but women have better natural abilities that make them bettered to other (actually more risky) roles like counter intelligence (women having better memories, generally better at thinking on their feet.)

I agree with everything you said here.

Really, it's not sexist =/ It's putting everyone where they have the most potential to be useful.
Little Washu
QUOTE
mad.gif NO they should be home making me some bacon!

Typical male thing to say.

Women are just as strong as men and we can take care of ourselves. Women should be able to fight on the front lines out of choice, same with men. In fact, there shouldn't be any front lines. If countries could just get along then we wouldn't have this problem.
Amol
QUOTE(Little Washu @ Mar 22 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]520612[/snapback]
Women are just as strong as men and we can take care of ourselves. Women should be able to fight on the front lines out of choice, same with men.


Women can take care of themselves and men can too , but you just forgot we are living in a dependent soceity , so why not share our part of work.

QUOTE(Little Washu @ Mar 22 2007, 09:13 AM) [snapback]520612[/snapback]
In fact, there shouldn't be any front lines. If countries could just get along then we wouldn't have this problem.


^ thats a completely different thing, off topic, but anyways there cant be such a situation , I think this one-world concept is purely idealistic.
If you think about it , then your only wasting your time !
Kenji
It is rather hilarious that there were no news about a woman ran into a 5 star hotel kitchen and shout to the chefs "What the h#ll are you all doing in here, doing activities that meant for the weaker sex?"
The Mad Bomber
It all really comes down to two factors how women can take part in the front lines

1. They meet the requirements and prove themselves equal as their male counterparts so that the woman soldier will not be seen as the weakest link etc

2. Freedom of choice really, people can really start practicing almost any profession as long as they meet the requirements(skills, knowledge of the field etc). Sex is not really a reason to ban anyone and with all the women rights activists around these days men can`t really anymore say what they want.... so to speak...

I think we guys would be afraid to have women on the battlefield as our comrades or enemies yet it`s funny enough that there are men who aren`t fit to be in the front lines biggrin.gif Well usually every single army in the world have requirements strict enough to stop weaker soldiers from passing to the front lines.
Amol
^ adding to that I'd like say that many women even lack the ferocity that you need and killing in no way is easy !
The Mad Bomber
QUOTE(Amol @ Mar 23 2007, 09:14 AM) [snapback]520986[/snapback]
^ adding to that I'd like say that many women even lack the ferocity that you need and killing in no way is easy !


but that fact should not be a reason to ban those that have the ferocity to kill from the army
Amol
^ I meant that you needed ferocity to kill , that women lack.
I think you dint understand me , or may be I dint understand you on the above post !
Popogeejo
Some women have the ferocity to kill. Heck, for a few days a month they all do tongue.gif (Although this could also be a draw back unsure.gif)
Still, while someone women do have the skills to become a soldier the majority are better suited to other uses.
The Mad Bomber
QUOTE(Amol @ Mar 23 2007, 08:46 PM) [snapback]521070[/snapback]
^ I meant that you needed ferocity to kill , that women lack.
I think you dint understand me , or may be I dint understand you on the above post !


I think I understood you clearly and isn`t that kinda saying that women can only do these things and not those? such as killing, women can kill and you really don`t need ferocity to kill. You just pull the trigger and I doubt that really requires ferocity all tough yes I understand that we are talking about the thing that could someone actually pull the trigger. Some women and some men have ferocity to kill, and some don`t. We should keep in mind that not all of us guys are not able to be soldiers.
GREEDisGOOD
This is just a stupid question - no offense to the one who posted it - I mean, it's just a stupid problem that should have been solved long ago. There should be no gender discrimination in the military. Women have just enough cause to fight for this country as men. And the whole physicality thing about women being too weak is just stupid. I mean, I've seen women who could kick my ass, so I'm sure they could kick someone's from another country.
LittleFullMental
obviously I voted for a yes.... and the reason to this because of the thing that usually arises in this forum that is "women can do anything a male can do" (when given a chance to do so) the only reason women were so belittled in the past couple of years was because they didn't get a chance to prove that they actually can do what a male can do...
Metastasis
Wow, this post is almost a year old, but it caught my eye, and I have quite a bit to say about it. Therefore, I'll try to revive it. Perhaps it is dead to everyone else, but dammit, man, we never leave a thread behind! Do you want to write a letter to it's mammy, explaining to her why her little discussion couldn't come home?!

I am in the US Army, currently in Mosul, Iraq. I'm in a transportation unit, in which we have several females. One of them is actually a cook, but she serves as a truck driver/gunner with the rest of us. I'm supposed to be a Fueler myself.

In this stage of the war, the roads ARE the front lines. We're the ones getting hit by the IEDs, we're the one taking small arms fire as well as indirect fire on our contingency bases and when stopped at a halt. The females in our unit perform just as well as the males. The only things they have easier are their standards on their push-ups and 2 mile run on the PT test, which is due to the different builds inherent in the genders.

The only Military Occupation Specialties (MOS) that are closed to women are direct combat. Infantry, Special Forces, Tankers, Cavalry Scouts, Missile Systems. The biggest reasons are fraternization and unit cohesion - In a co-ed unit, relationships form, rumors spread, grudges are held. While this kind of thing can be taken care of, in the middle of a combat-oriented deployment, it is too detrimental.

However, women can be attached to Combat units. Women can be Military Police (there are MANY), Combat Medics, Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD), and they have to be present to search any detained females. The fraternization problem exists in all of these units that I've encountered.

However, they are starting to experiment with opening combat MOS's to females. Time will tell if this works or not.

And here is hoping that this thread doesn't have to die. I hate writing those letters.
black~hayate
Yep, this post is already old. But who cares?
Hmm... There are alot of female agents and killers outta here. They can kill much easier than some men.

If you want to fight for your country, gender doesn't matter. You only need some muscles (or power) to protect it, that's all.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.