By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Women are not fit for front line combat!

Tagged games:

 

Why can't women be on the front line?

They're physically not fit. 62 32.29%
 
They can do it if trained properly. 102 53.13%
 
That's not women's duty. 12 6.25%
 
I'm weak so I can't fat... 16 8.33%
 
Total:192
Jazz2K said:
Goatseye said:

Call of duty is a responsibility of every citizen of a country.

Unless you are being invated I don't see how this is a responsibility. At the same time I don't live in a war mongering country. Also most wars are not justified so I don't see how this is a responsibility... 

You don't have to live in a war mongering country to understand that.

It's forward thinking and beneficial to the military logistically.



Around the Network
COKTOE said:
Women are physically inferior to men. Period. It takes absolutely no analysis to understand this. Part and parcel, they will be worse at literally everything a man would need to do in a combat situation. How is this even a debatable topic? There are a small number of female outliers, truly capable frontline soldiers, that should be considered on a case by case basis, but that is as far as women on the frontline should go. Mandating female frontline duty in large numbers in the name of equality is insane.

The heaviest piece of equipment issued to a GI is the body armor.

Weighs 16lb but the weight is distributed when worn and after 4 months of intensive physical training it won't be an issue.

M4 is light, ammo cartridges are light, etc...

Nowadays most movements on the battlefield are done mechanically, be it aerial or terrestrial.

This topic is only debatable if you're ignorant about US military or bias against women.



Well, Israel has every man and woman enlist, they seem to have a pretty well (arguably best) trained military. I think they can do it. Maybe fewer women are capable of it when compared to men, but there are certainly many women that are as well.



Goatseye said:
COKTOE said:
Women are physically inferior to men. Period. It takes absolutely no analysis to understand this. Part and parcel, they will be worse at literally everything a man would need to do in a combat situation. How is this even a debatable topic? There are a small number of female outliers, truly capable frontline soldiers, that should be considered on a case by case basis, but that is as far as women on the frontline should go. Mandating female frontline duty in large numbers in the name of equality is insane.

The heaviest piece of equipment issued to a GI is the body armor.

Weighs 16lb but the weight is distributed when worn and after 4 months of intensive physical training it won't be an issue.

M4 is light, ammo cartridges are light, etc...

Nowadays most movements on the battlefield are done mechanically, be it aerial or terrestrial.

This topic is only debatable if you're ignorant about US military or bias against women.

This is what I will say about the topic. We are not fighting with sticks and stones anymore. Let alone what where we will be in couple of years/decade.



 

Lets not generalize all women. If they can pass the same rigorous test as men they im all for it.



Around the Network
Goatseye said:
Jazz2K said:

Unless you are being invated I don't see how this is a responsibility. At the same time I don't live in a war mongering country. Also most wars are not justified so I don't see how this is a responsibility... 

You don't have to live in a war mongering country to understand that.

It's forward thinking and beneficial to the military logistically.

Because to me war is a consequence or an act of violence... not a responsibility. 



Goatseye said:
COKTOE said:
Women are physically inferior to men. Period. It takes absolutely no analysis to understand this. Part and parcel, they will be worse at literally everything a man would need to do in a combat situation. How is this even a debatable topic? There are a small number of female outliers, truly capable frontline soldiers, that should be considered on a case by case basis, but that is as far as women on the frontline should go. Mandating female frontline duty in large numbers in the name of equality is insane.

The heaviest piece of equipment issued to a GI is the body armor.

Weighs 16lb but the weight is distributed when worn and after 4 months of intensive physical training it won't be an issue.

M4 is light, ammo cartridges are light, etc...

Nowadays most movements on the battlefield are done mechanically, be it aerial or terrestrial.

This topic is only debatable if you're ignorant about US military or bias against women.

Oh you're being silly. It's not about how one piece of equipment weighs but the total amount. That's what matters. If you think soldiers just ride around in cozy jeeps all day from point A to point B, you're wrong. 

Women have a hard time keeping up with males with no gear. Imagine if you strap them up with 60 lbs to 138 lbs of gear and see if they can keep up. The vast majority can't. There's some women that can but they are the exception and not the standard of a average female soldier. 

I'm all for equality but I'm a realist also. Women are not equals to men physically. That doesn't mean they shouldn't fight on the front lines but let's not pretend that they're equal to the guys either. Give 'em lighter load outs and different roles than just a standard grunt. 



curl-6 said:
If women can meet the existing standards for fitness and such, let them in.

However, that bar should not be lowered for them. Lives and security are more important than political correctness.

Agreed. I understand that Kurdish women are hell of a fighters, but in a modern army, where selectiveness is key, you can only accept what is proven as being the best.



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

hunter_alien said:
curl-6 said:
If women can meet the existing standards for fitness and such, let them in.

However, that bar should not be lowered for them. Lives and security are more important than political correctness.

Agreed. I understand that Kurdish women are hell of a fighters, but in a modern army, where selectiveness is key, you can only accept what is proven as being the best.

That means those "best" have to go through selective training right? Right?

You have 4 months to go through basic training. Two is boot camp and two are your military occupational training.

Do you believe that in 4 months, women can't be trained to do 50+ push ups, 60+ sit ups and run 2 miles under 15mn?

That's your combat readiness physical requisition.



Aeolus451 said:
Goatseye said:

The heaviest piece of equipment issued to a GI is the body armor.

Weighs 16lb but the weight is distributed when worn and after 4 months of intensive physical training it won't be an issue.

M4 is light, ammo cartridges are light, etc...

Nowadays most movements on the battlefield are done mechanically, be it aerial or terrestrial.

This topic is only debatable if you're ignorant about US military or bias against women.

Oh you're being silly. It's not about how one piece of equipment weighs but the total amount. That's what matters. If you think soldiers just ride around in cozy jeeps all day from point A to point B, you're wrong. 

Women have a hard time keeping up with males with no gear. Imagine if you strap them up with 60 lbs to 138 lbs of gear and see if they can keep up. The vast majority can't. There's some women that can but they are the exception and not the standard of a average female soldier. 

I'm all for equality but I'm a realist also. Women are not equals to men physically. That doesn't mean they shouldn't fight on the front lines but let's not pretend that they're equal to the guys either. Give 'em lighter load outs and different roles than just a standard grunt. 

Who said that women are equal to men phisically? I said in my earlier statements that, if trained they cen meet combat readiness.

The video that you showed, displayed an exception to the rule. Not every soldier carries a SAW and drums of ammo with himself in Afghatnistan.

There's a reason why mechanized units were mostly in Iraq and not Afghanistan. You have to have kind of specialized units to fight in Afghanistan, like: 10 Mountain and Airborne units. You achieve that specialization through years of training. No soldier was born one.