Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
Women and War
last reply
41 replies
4.1k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Should Women be on the frontlines in a war?
Active Ink Slinger
If a woman wants to fight on the front lines it should be her chioce.
That's the beauty of this country no one forces anyone to join the military I give women a lot of credit for it myself I mean why can't a woman go to the front lines and fight along side her male counter parts? She can fire a weapon just as well as a guy can and can stop a bullet just the same to. I say if they are qualified for it in basic training then by all means as said they get the same training as men do. One person in the other thread said something about countries not being ready to see women come home in bodybags well shit we don't wanna see men come home in them either ideally would be keep them all on their home soil but unfortunately that's just not gonna happen. Nobody wants to go to war but it does has and probably always will happen. As Silverdragon said if she wants to join up and fight along side her brothers in arms then that should be her choice.
Her Royal Spriteness
i am all about choice, so yes. That said, my thoughts tend towards a MUCH smaller percentage of women who are "gung ho" about serving on the front lines. That said, i am sure some would be quite capable doing so and should be given the chance, if they so desire it.
You can’t truly call yourself peaceful unless you are capable of violence. If you’re not capable of violence, you’re not peaceful. You’re harmless.
Quote by bikebum1975
That's the beauty of this country no one forces anyone to join the military I give women a lot of credit for it myself I mean why can't a woman go to the front lines and fight along side her male counter parts? She can fire a weapon just as well as a guy can and can stop a bullet just the same to. I say if they are qualified for it in basic training then by all means as said they get the same training as men do. One person in the other thread said something about countries not being ready to see women come home in bodybags well shit we don't wanna see men come home in them either ideally would be keep them all on their home soil but unfortunately that's just not gonna happen. Nobody wants to go to war but it does has and probably always will happen. As Silverdragon said if she wants to join up and fight along side her brothers in arms then that should be her choice.
Really? Is 1969-1973 really that far removed from memory? Oh right....you just use stop-loss policy now to keep the ranks filled.
But that aside, I think women should be able to be on the front lines if they are able to pass the same physical requirements as the men. I think the same should go for police officers and firefighters. I've always been against lowering physical standards for females. Equality for all after all.
Quote by DamonXQuote by bikebum1975
That's the beauty of this country no one forces anyone to join the military I give women a lot of credit for it myself I mean why can't a woman go to the front lines and fight along side her male counter parts? She can fire a weapon just as well as a guy can and can stop a bullet just the same to. I say if they are qualified for it in basic training then by all means as said they get the same training as men do. One person in the other thread said something about countries not being ready to see women come home in bodybags well shit we don't wanna see men come home in them either ideally would be keep them all on their home soil but unfortunately that's just not gonna happen. Nobody wants to go to war but it does has and probably always will happen. As Silverdragon said if she wants to join up and fight along side her brothers in arms then that should be her choice.
Really? Is 1969-1973 really that far removed from memory? Oh right....you just use stop-loss policy now to keep the ranks filled.
But that aside, I think women should be able to be on the front lines if they are able to pass the same physical requirements as the men. I think the same should go for police officers and firefighters. I've always been against lowering physical standards for females. Equality for all after all.
First off Damon we are talking about modern wars not the Vietnam war different time period and what you are referring to is a draft that is not what I was talking about our military is totally volunteer based. And I will agree with you about there being equal standards though. But reread the post for what the question is about and don't take this as the start of a fight cause not what I am intending just pointing out a fact of what I meant to you.
Quote by bikebum1975Quote by DamonXQuote by bikebum1975
That's the beauty of this country no one forces anyone to join the military I give women a lot of credit for it myself I mean why can't a woman go to the front lines and fight along side her male counter parts? She can fire a weapon just as well as a guy can and can stop a bullet just the same to. I say if they are qualified for it in basic training then by all means as said they get the same training as men do. One person in the other thread said something about countries not being ready to see women come home in bodybags well shit we don't wanna see men come home in them either ideally would be keep them all on their home soil but unfortunately that's just not gonna happen. Nobody wants to go to war but it does has and probably always will happen. As Silverdragon said if she wants to join up and fight along side her brothers in arms then that should be her choice.
Really? Is 1969-1973 really that far removed from memory? Oh right....you just use stop-loss policy now to keep the ranks filled.
But that aside, I think women should be able to be on the front lines if they are able to pass the same physical requirements as the men. I think the same should go for police officers and firefighters. I've always been against lowering physical standards for females. Equality for all after all.
First off Damon we are talking about modern wars not the Vietnam war different time period and what you are referring to is a draft that is not what I was talking about our military is totally volunteer based. And I will agree with you about there being equal standards though. But reread the post for what the question is about and don't take this as the start of a fight cause not what I am intending just pointing out a fact of what I meant to you.
Oh, I would never take that as the starting of a fight. I am well aware of the subject of this thread, hence the last four sentences of my previous post. The first three were simply a playful jab at your persistent flag waving, for the amusment of myself and others.
No offense intended of course. PS: I think your computer might be missing the comma key.
Active Ink Slinger
Typical wisdom says that women on the front lines would be too great a distraction, and would harm morale more than they helped the fighting effort. For instance, men could be more willing to sacrifice themselves to "save" their female counterparts. Women (generally speaking) are less capable of performing tasks requiring great physical labor. Women could also be divisive if two or more men become physically attracted to a single woman. Or, the women could use their feminine assets to try to earn special favors from their male counterparts.
There are plenty of fighting roles for women to play, as pilots, equipment operators, gunners, artillery specialists... I see no reason to have them in foxholes as well.
There are plenty of fighting roles for women to play, as pilots, equipment operators, gunners, artillery specialists... I see no reason to have them in foxholes as well.
Alpha Blonde
I think that the best candidates should be chosen for the job. If a woman is able to hold her own against a man, and has the desire/drive/focus, then I'm fine with her being on the front line. The issue is that woman are at a natural disadvantage due to size, strength, muscle mass for many physically demanding jobs (such as military front lines, firefighters etc).
I don't believe in the approach that there needs to be a certain percentage of all minorities represented in every job. I believe that the person who is best qualified should be in that role.
When we are talking about life or death situations requiring physical strength, unless the female in question can measure up in every way to her male counterparts, then I don't believe society is best served having her in that role. It's not a time to be politically correct in gender equality when human lives are stake...
I don't believe in the approach that there needs to be a certain percentage of all minorities represented in every job. I believe that the person who is best qualified should be in that role.
When we are talking about life or death situations requiring physical strength, unless the female in question can measure up in every way to her male counterparts, then I don't believe society is best served having her in that role. It's not a time to be politically correct in gender equality when human lives are stake...
Wild at Heart
Quote by MrNudiePants
Typical wisdom says that women on the front lines would be too great a distraction, and would harm morale more than they helped the fighting effort. For instance, men could be more willing to sacrifice themselves to "save" their female counterparts. Women (generally speaking) are less capable of performing tasks requiring great physical labor. Women could also be divisive if two or more men become physically attracted to a single woman. Or, the women could use their feminine assets to try to earn special favors from their male counterparts.
There are plenty of fighting roles for women to play, as pilots, equipment operators, gunners, artillery specialists... I see no reason to have them in foxholes as well.
How about an all woman regiment or platoon or whatever its called? I'd go for that.
From a person who has been in combat and have seen the face of what's out there, my opinion is I wouldn't want women out there. Not to say they shouldn't be allowed, just that they shouldn't be there for a few reasons.
The physical aspect is there to be sure, and in more ways than one. Women can run just as far and do as many push ups, pull ups, sit ups, etc. But can they fend off a knife wielding goon of 180+ lbs that not only can she not push his body weight, but he can push hers 2:1. Physical strength and power are a huge key in a fight that comes to ground fighting, if a normal woman and a normal man go to the ground, the woman will not win without an equalizer.
Another physical aspect that also brings into mind emotional and psychological problems is . Not only does this happen from our own men in the military on civilized bases right here in the states, but it will happen more if you mingle in the field. That's the minimum on the card, now lets talk about the enemy. The enemy will a woman repeatedly, and not with his own dick, but use large and painful instruments meant for genital mutilation. Are women prepared for that? Because they don't do it to men, it is solely left for women due to knowing how strong of an psi-fuck it is.
Another physical aspect brought up already ... the love triangle. Men can't help but to fall for women for the smallest of flirts, thinking this to be something more than it may be. This causes problems with the other men who've had the same friendly-but-mistook-for flirt and are rabid for her as well. If you think men are animals state side, you should see them overseas when combat has turned them from playful puppy dogs to full blown rabid rottweilers. Its in a man's nature to be violent, civilized society teaches us to keep it down as it is uncivilized ... but combat is the most uncivilized situation one can be in where violence is how you survive.
And a note on Stop-Loss ... it has nothing to do with voluntary joining, just the voluntary leaving. The military is 100% voluntary for joining. So if women want to get in there, that should be their right. But just know what's out there, combat is an animal best left for animals.
The physical aspect is there to be sure, and in more ways than one. Women can run just as far and do as many push ups, pull ups, sit ups, etc. But can they fend off a knife wielding goon of 180+ lbs that not only can she not push his body weight, but he can push hers 2:1. Physical strength and power are a huge key in a fight that comes to ground fighting, if a normal woman and a normal man go to the ground, the woman will not win without an equalizer.
Another physical aspect that also brings into mind emotional and psychological problems is . Not only does this happen from our own men in the military on civilized bases right here in the states, but it will happen more if you mingle in the field. That's the minimum on the card, now lets talk about the enemy. The enemy will a woman repeatedly, and not with his own dick, but use large and painful instruments meant for genital mutilation. Are women prepared for that? Because they don't do it to men, it is solely left for women due to knowing how strong of an psi-fuck it is.
Another physical aspect brought up already ... the love triangle. Men can't help but to fall for women for the smallest of flirts, thinking this to be something more than it may be. This causes problems with the other men who've had the same friendly-but-mistook-for flirt and are rabid for her as well. If you think men are animals state side, you should see them overseas when combat has turned them from playful puppy dogs to full blown rabid rottweilers. Its in a man's nature to be violent, civilized society teaches us to keep it down as it is uncivilized ... but combat is the most uncivilized situation one can be in where violence is how you survive.
And a note on Stop-Loss ... it has nothing to do with voluntary joining, just the voluntary leaving. The military is 100% voluntary for joining. So if women want to get in there, that should be their right. But just know what's out there, combat is an animal best left for animals.
Quote by freefallin1309
From a person who has been in combat and have seen the face of what's out there, my opinion is I wouldn't want women out there. Not to say they shouldn't be allowed, just that they shouldn't be there for a few reasons.
The physical aspect is there to be sure, and in more ways than one. Women can run just as far and do as many push ups, pull ups, sit ups, etc. But can they fend off a knife wielding goon of 180+ lbs that not only can she not push his body weight, but he can push hers 2:1. Physical strength and power are a huge key in a fight that comes to ground fighting, if a normal woman and a normal man go to the ground, the woman will not win without an equalizer.
Another physical aspect that also brings into mind emotional and psychological problems is . Not only does this happen from our own men in the military on civilized bases right here in the states, but it will happen more if you mingle in the field. That's the minimum on the card, now lets talk about the enemy. The enemy will a woman repeatedly, and not with his own dick, but use large and painful instruments meant for genital mutilation. Are women prepared for that? Because they don't do it to men, it is solely left for women due to knowing how strong of an psi-fuck it is.
Another physical aspect brought up already ... the love triangle. Men can't help but to fall for women for the smallest of flirts, thinking this to be something more than it may be. This causes problems with the other men who've had the same friendly-but-mistook-for flirt and are rabid for her as well. If you think men are animals state side, you should see them overseas when combat has turned them from playful puppy dogs to full blown rabid rottweilers. Its in a man's nature to be violent, civilized society teaches us to keep it down as it is uncivilized ... but combat is the most uncivilized situation one can be in where violence is how you survive.
And a note on Stop-Loss ... it has nothing to do with voluntary joining, just the voluntary leaving. The military is 100% voluntary for joining. So if women want to get in there, that should be their right. But just know what's out there, combat is an animal best left for animals.
Yes...I wasn't going to mention the R-word, but I think it definately is an issue. (as it is with police officers, since a female cop was by two fifteen year olds during the 1994 Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver). Funny how I'm actually agreeing with freefallin on everything he's saying in the thread.
But...I am aware of how stop loss works. But I don't see it as "volunteer leaving". Once a contract is up, its up. Violating that contract is just as ethically bad as the draft. And the fact that the US doesn't have mandatory military service doesn't make them any more valiant than other nations, since they consistently conscript the population when needed. Just because they haven't used it currently doesn't mean that they wouldn't use it again if needed. After all...they used it in the Civil War, WW1, WW2, and Vietnam. That's a pretty consistent pattern of conscription in my opinion. And if they couldn't fill the ranks in Iraq, you can bet they would do it again.
But, that is getting a bit off topic. I think if women are on the front lines, there would be complications just as FF said. It would be kind of like mixing men and women in prison. Not good.
Active Ink Slinger
Even though women have been fighting along side men since the beginning, the thing I would worry about is the intense natural inclination or preference to protect a woman which would lead to distraction.
Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
Quote by DamonX
But...I am aware of how stop loss works. But I don't see it as "volunteer leaving". Once a contract is up, its up. Violating that contract is just as ethically bad as the draft.
I didn't mean it that way, the US normally has "volunteer leaving" when your time is up, but not now. I don't know when they started Stop-Loss, but it is certainly misused. I have several buddies that have been Stop-Lossed, a few are young and it has only happened once to them. Another, a man in his late 40's who has served in the Army for 20+ years has been Stop-Lossed several times due to his combat experience, not only is he Special Forces (Green Beret's are their nick-name for those that don't know), but he's been in command of troops in combat for many years and they wont let him go ... when is the cut-off point? He's been in every year of the Iraq-Afghanistan affair, spending 15 month tours and they let him go home (he's in the reserves now) for a few months before bringing him back, Stop-Lossing him when his term is up every time.
Sorry for being off topic, Stop-Loss pisses me off!
Rookie Scribe
Personally I'm planning on joining the military (marines). I really think it should be a matter of choice for us women, and not just 'oh cant just because you are a woman'. That's basically going against everything America stands for by saying you cant do do this your......"" . I understand that we would be a distraction but it should ultimately be a matter of choice.
Active Ink Slinger
Quote by Magical_felix
How about an all woman regiment or platoon or whatever its called? I'd go for that.
Can I be their commanding officer? I'd love to be able to go to work and play with my Privates...
maybe the question should be "should men be allowed to go and wage war?
Allowed by whom?? War is a reality. Its human nature. Let's not cloud a good discussion with useless idioms, shall we.
Unless Chef...you don't want males posting on this thread. I know that it displeases Rocco ever so much. I honestly didn't even realize that this was in the "Ask the gals thread" so if you want this to be a women only discussion, I will bow out respectfully.
Active Ink Slinger
I think yes, just look at the IDF, Israeli Defense Force. There are several views of them on YouTube, or you can ask Savanna about them.... My belief is that women have been fighting alongside men since warfare has been in existance. Just because it's a female doesn't mean she can't be a warrior and damn good fighter. Women are serving in front line patrols in both Iraq and Afghanistan now. There are women leading these patrols also. While in the service, I've served with women and would certainly trust my life with them, so why not...
Wild at Heart
Quote by MrNudiePantsQuote by Magical_felix
How about an all woman regiment or platoon or whatever its called? I'd go for that.
Can I be their commanding officer? I'd love to be able to go to work and play with my Privates...
I think this is why people feel women shouldn't be on the front lines with men. I think it's more about the way men think rather than the women not being able to fight. (Not judging nudie, funny joke, I'm the same way) Quote by DamonXmaybe the question should be "should men be allowed to go and wage war?
Allowed by whom?? War is a reality. Its human nature. Let's not cloud a good discussion with useless idioms, shall we.
Unless Chef...you don't want males posting on this thread. I know that it displeases Rocco ever so much. I honestly didn't even realize that this was in the "Ask the gals thread" so if you want this to be a women only discussion, I will bow out respectfully.
I was not clouding anything with useless idioms. I replied to the question that was put to the Gals. The question was worded in such a way that the idea of anyone being "allowed" to go and fight on the front lines meant that permission could be refused or granted, and so I responded by giving a different take on it.
Chef started this thread, and she didn't cyber-slap me for my comment but seemed to appreciate it. I was, at least, replying to the question, and not attempting to poke fun at anyone.
Active Ink Slinger
The world is ever evolving and we along with it. I think of the strides women have made in the Israeli military and think "Yes, there can be a place for women on the front line", and then I recall my days as a lowly constable and the instances when I and fellow male officers had to console, calm or even downright protect the females officers from what was going on around them.
The female can be a distraction as our pre-programmed male disposition to 'protect' the female (whether justified or not) can distract from the primary mission and cause the mother of all clusterfucks. And I'm not even going to stray into the topic of sexual tension.
In closing, I can say I have worked with some very courageous women, however, ultimately, they have suffered more emotionally from the traumas of frontline life than many of my former males colleagues. Perhaps that is why males have tradionally been the hunters (lop off that bunnies head for a stew)?
The female can be a distraction as our pre-programmed male disposition to 'protect' the female (whether justified or not) can distract from the primary mission and cause the mother of all clusterfucks. And I'm not even going to stray into the topic of sexual tension.
In closing, I can say I have worked with some very courageous women, however, ultimately, they have suffered more emotionally from the traumas of frontline life than many of my former males colleagues. Perhaps that is why males have tradionally been the hunters (lop off that bunnies head for a stew)?
"Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English." - Korben Dallas, from The Fifth Element
"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
Just don't pee in it. 
This is an incredibly deep subject. Men and women are different but not in ways that define inequality.
I have no doubt whatsoever that women are the equal of men no matter what a majority of men and women in the world think. The subjugation of women is cultural and/or religious not based on reality. I am ready to debate this if need be.
I believe woman and men have been brainwashed by religion and culture to see women as weak and not as good as men. That is wrong. I could write ten thousand pages on why it wrong and just be getting stated.
I have no doubt that woman are as courageous as men. If having a woman on the front lines distracts men then the men have to learn how to relate with women in different ways. The converse is true that women have to learn how to relate with men in different ways too. I have total confidence in ability of women to go to war, run countries, universities, corporations etc. I would trust my life in or out of a foxhole to a well trained woman without a second thoughts.
On the question of , a strong confident well trained warrior would understand that she could face and worst if taken alive. Warriors are not gripped by fear of what might be they live in the present.
I have no doubt whatsoever that women are the equal of men no matter what a majority of men and women in the world think. The subjugation of women is cultural and/or religious not based on reality. I am ready to debate this if need be.
I believe woman and men have been brainwashed by religion and culture to see women as weak and not as good as men. That is wrong. I could write ten thousand pages on why it wrong and just be getting stated.
I have no doubt that woman are as courageous as men. If having a woman on the front lines distracts men then the men have to learn how to relate with women in different ways. The converse is true that women have to learn how to relate with men in different ways too. I have total confidence in ability of women to go to war, run countries, universities, corporations etc. I would trust my life in or out of a foxhole to a well trained woman without a second thoughts.
On the question of , a strong confident well trained warrior would understand that she could face and worst if taken alive. Warriors are not gripped by fear of what might be they live in the present.