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
d21lewis on 07 April 2016

There was a video about this a couple of months back. I love women. They're awesome but, according to the video, even the top females were equal to probably the weakest men. The general said, in combat, you overwhelm the enemy with your best. You don't put someone out there just because the want to participate.

I think it was Gaddafi that had the all female body guard military. Those women got killed, captured, raped, and mutilated. If he wasn't stabbed in the ass and dead right now, he'd probably tell you that having an all women military security force might have been a bad idea.



Around the Network
curl-6 on 07 April 2016

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.



d21lewis on 07 April 2016

It's not even about gender. Some things are just fact. Women are weaker.

I'm black. If somebody said "White people are better at blending in with a white background", I wouldn't say " Hey, I can do anything they can! " I'd say , "no shit. They're naturally lighter than I am."

Everybody thinks they can do everything but they're wrong. That's why women aren't in the NFL.



Lawlight on 07 April 2016
Goatseye said:
Lawlight said:

We'll revisit the issue in 30 years when multiple lives have already been lost?

Your analogy is so bad. A certain level of fitness is required for the job. You are lowering that level for women but not for men?

You realize that there are already females passing Ranger school right? The school where everyone in the army strives to go.

Give me some stats and context here.



Goatseye on 07 April 2016
celador said:
All male squads outperform all other combinations, so obviously something happens when you put women in with men (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/10/marine-study-finds-all-male-infantry-units-outperformed-teams-women/71971416/).

The article mentions the obvious, like men are quicker across the ground and are generally more accurate with weapons. What I have also read elsewhere though is that men take more risks when women are in their squads and in danger, which of course puts everyone in the team in greater danger also.

So while I think women should absolutely be on the frontlines (as long as they have passed the same bar as the men, and it hasn't been lowered as it apparently has in some cases), I am not so sure about mixed units.

Cite that case.

Men should never take more risk than women in a squad because that's it, a squad, not Expendables. Tactical movements are done in unison.

With enough training, women can carry out missions with the same efficincy at every level. Especially with our always dynamic infantry tactics, which incorporates more aerial and terrestrial vehicles and less boot beating.



Around the Network
binary solo on 07 April 2016
Aura7541 said:
Psychotic said:

Yeah, this kind of talk was always there when a group previously forbidden to do something was suddenly allowed to do it.

When slaves were given freedom, many "experts" believed they were not good enough without the slavers feeding them. They were wrong.
When women were given the right to vote, many "experts" believed women couldn't understand anything and make good decisions because they were too busy menstruating and changing diapers. They were wrong.
When gay people were given the right to adopt children, many "experts" believed the kids would be bullied and depressed and suicidal and whatnot. They were wrong.

How about we skip it this time and just give them a f***ing chance? If women prove not to be capable enough, we can revisit the issue in 30 years.

There's something called sexual dimorphism...

Indeed.

vs.

Clearly the man will win in a fight every time, right?

Fact is there is a large overlap in physical stature and fitness between men and women and just because the "average" woman is smaller and physically weaker than the "average" man doesn't mean physically above average women can't exceed the minimum physical criteria to be a frontline combat soldier.. it might only be 10% of women who can meet that criteria, but why deny those 10% the opportunity because of an appeal to averages.

 

 



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Goatseye on 07 April 2016
Lawlight said:
Goatseye said:

You realize that there are already females passing Ranger school right? The school where everyone in the army strives to go.

Give me some stats and context here.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/11/11/army-responds-congressmans-ranger-school-records-request/75584150/

It was a national news at the time.



Goatseye on 07 April 2016
d21lewis said:
There was a video about this a couple of months back. I love women. They're awesome but, according to the video, even the top females were equal to probably the weakest men. The general said, in combat, you overwhelm the enemy with your best. You don't put someone out there just because the want to participate.

I think it was Gaddafi that had the all female body guard military. Those women got killed, captured, raped, and mutilated. If he wasn't stabbed in the ass and dead right now, he'd probably tell you that having an all women military security force might have been a bad idea.

Just because they were women? Do you know what happened to our embassy security forces in Benghazi?

Blackwater mercenary group in Iraq? Some US army posts in Afhganistan. I can go on and on...



Lawlight on 07 April 2016
Goatseye said:
Lawlight said:

Give me some stats and context here.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/11/11/army-responds-congressmans-ranger-school-records-request/75584150/

It was a national news at the time.

Interesting :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3249690/First-women-pass-Ranger-School-given-extra-training-lowered-benchmarks-general-vowed-one-pass-sources-claim.html



d21lewis on 07 April 2016

I think this is the video. Conserving data so I can't watch it, now.
https://youtu.be/ywASmcwFlNI