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

Forums - General - 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
Lawlight on 07 April 2016
binary solo said:
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.

Yes, but that's because of a deeply rooted, cultural sexism that the men don't even realise influences their thinking. They want to save and protect the women in their squads because their subconscious says the women are weak, helpless and incapable of looking after themselves. If the men can overcome that misconception then they won't take those extra risks. But the only way for the men to overcome that misconception is for competent women to be part of their squads and show that they don't need extra care or protection over and above what a squad should ordinarily do to look out for each other.

Cultural sexism or, you know, biology. Could be the higher testosterone levels.



Around the Network
CosmicSex on 07 April 2016

because being on the front line of a war is really a great place to be. I would rather have sex.



barneystinson69 on 07 April 2016

I always base someone on skill. If a woman can do well on the frontline, then that's fine. But if she is a liability, then that should be taken out of the equation. Same goes for anyone else.



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

barneystinson69 on 07 April 2016
CosmicSex said:
because being on the front line of a war is really a great place to be. I would rather have sex.

Don't really understand the analogy on this one...



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

pokoko on 07 April 2016
binary solo said:
pokoko said:

Source, please.  I didn't see it in that article.

Source for what?

"Yes, but that's because of a deeply rooted, cultural sexism that the men don't even realise influences their thinking. They want to save and protect the women in their squads because their subconscious says the women are weak, helpless and incapable of looking after themselves. "  

Which study and/or article was this in?  I didn't see this given as a reason in the article being discussed.  Rather, it said that the male soldiers had to help female soldiers in tests dealing with upper body strength and carrying heavy loads.  Also, the injury rate for the females in the test was significantly higher.  I just want to read the source you got this from regarding the tests.



Around the Network
binary solo on 07 April 2016
Lawlight said:
binary solo said:

Yes, but that's because of a deeply rooted, cultural sexism that the men don't even realise influences their thinking. They want to save and protect the women in their squads because their subconscious says the women are weak, helpless and incapable of looking after themselves. If the men can overcome that misconception then they won't take those extra risks. But the only way for the men to overcome that misconception is for competent women to be part of their squads and show that they don't need extra care or protection over and above what a squad should ordinarily do to look out for each other.

Cultural sexism or, you know, biology. Could be the higher testosterone levels.

Clearly not. If men take fewer risks without women in the squad and take more risks when women are in the squad and in danger it's not biology that is driving the behaviour. It's the stupid hero, white knight complex. Call it a "protective instinct" for a euphemism if you like, but the origin is a culturally sexist attitude that women are in need of male protection. These guys aren't to blame for that affecting their decision-making, and indeed having a strong protective instinct is a good thing in general. But when you have to make life and death decisions on the battlefield every soldier needs to be seen as genderless in order to make the right decisions for the squad. If your thnking is being influenced by the fact that the soldier on your right is a woman and the soldier on the left is a man, and you are influenced by a subconscious belief that owmen need your protection more than men, then you are not making proper battlefield decisions.

That's not an argument for keeping women off the battlefield, that is an argument for fundamentally changning the way we think.



“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

 

d21lewis on 07 April 2016
binary solo said:
d21lewis said:
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.

That's a really dumb analogy, because the physical capacity of mean and women is a continuum from piss weak to very strong. Blackness and whiteness, in your analogy at least, is a binary condition.

The statement "all women are weaker than all mean" is so obvioously untrue that any suggestion that all women are too weak to serve in the frontline combat roles is patently ridiculous. Even if a majority of women couldn't cut it physically, a non-trivial minority can cut it.

Cut need some slack! I'm trying to work and post at the same time. I'll think of a better analogy.



Lawlight on 07 April 2016
binary solo said:
Lawlight said:

Cultural sexism or, you know, biology. Could be the higher testosterone levels.

Clearly not. If men take fewer risks without women in the squad and take more risks when women are in the squad and in danger it's not biology that is driving the behaviour. It's the stupid hero, white knight complex. Call it a "protective instinct" for a euphemism if you like, but the origin is a culturally sexist attitude that women are in need of male protection. These guys aren't to blame for that affecting their decision-making, and indeed having a strong protective instinct is a good thing in general. But when you have to make life and death decisions on the battlefield every soldier needs to be seen as genderless in order to make the right decisions for the squad. If your thnking is being influenced by the fact that the soldier on your right is a woman and the soldier on the left is a man, and you are influenced by a subconscious belief that owmen need your protection more than men, then you are not making proper battlefield decisions.

That's not an argument for keeping women off the battlefield, that is an argument for fundamentally changning the way we think.

Or maybe women introduce more weak links in the squad and therefore cause the other squad members to take even more risks.

Sexual division of labour was not a random thing, it was required for survival.



pokoko on 07 April 2016
binary solo said:

Clearly not. If men take fewer risks without women in the squad and take more risks when women are in the squad and in danger it's not biology that is driving the behaviour. It's the stupid hero, white knight complex. Call it a "protective instinct" for a euphemism if you like, but the origin is a culturally sexist attitude that women are in need of male protection. These guys aren't to blame for that affecting their decision-making, and indeed having a strong protective instinct is a good thing in general. But when you have to make life and death decisions on the battlefield every soldier needs to be seen as genderless in order to make the right decisions for the squad. If your thnking is being influenced by the fact that the soldier on your right is a woman and the soldier on the left is a man, and you are influenced by a subconscious belief that owmen need your protection more than men, then you are not making proper battlefield decisions.

That's not an argument for keeping women off the battlefield, that is an argument for fundamentally changning the way we think.

Again, source.  Otherwise I'm going to assume you're making this up based entirely on your own preconceptions and that it has nothing to do with any official studies by the military.  If you do have a source saying that this is an observed behavior in military testing then I would like to read it.  



Aeolus451 on 07 April 2016

I have to disagree with the idea that women can't or shouldn't fight in war or be in combat roles.

Well, first of all, women that are put into combat would have to want to be there with the guys fighting to be begin with. Ideally, these women would have to be trained side by side with males to build up the level of teamwork they would need to survive in war zones. Same barracks, same bathrooms, same showers, no special zones so they are used to each other 100%.

As far as physically goes, females are factually weaker than males. Just give the females a lighter load out/lighter guns and whatever combat roles that might fit them better than a traditional grunts. Roles like scouts, snipers, spies and using more guerrilla type of tactics would be work well with them. By no means take easy on them in training for anything.

The standards for special forces selection/training shouldn't be lightened for 'em regardless because of the kind of missions they will have to do and they are a lot physically demanding.