The Student Room Group

Should Female Soldiers be Allowed to Fight on the Frontline?

It was announced yesterday that female soldiers could be allowed into front line combat roles. Should they be allowed to fight on the front line?


Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
yes
yes, if they can conform to the same standards as male soldiers then there's no reason why not
It will work against ISIS, they will retreat at the sight of female soldiers.
I'm in the armed forces and I personally don't think its a good idea.

Though of course female medics already work in a front line role.
Yea, it should be their choice.

If they want to and can pass the correct tests then good on them.
I don't see why not. I'm someone wants to run off to another country to hunt brown people, I don't see why it should matter if they're female if they're called up to be cannon fodder.
If they are of a sufficiently high standard and you can ensure discipline, why not? However if they aren't up to scratch, obviously at an individual level, they shouldn't, like the men, and that standard should be the same for both genders. Discipline is the more questionable one, but I suppose we can just look to the Navy for information on that.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 8
For about the tenth time, no.

It won't do anything except provide confirmation that women are physically inferior to men, and that's not something that anyone wants.
I don't see anything wrong with it because I'm not a bigoted, misogynist, sexist prick.
Original post by Snagprophet
I don't see anything wrong with it.


Sadly, anybody who has served in the military will. Especially teeth arms.

The Israelis have tried it and found that it actually reduces combat effectiveness, but they don't about too much about it.
Original post by Clip
For about the tenth time, no.

It won't do anything except provide confirmation that women are physically inferior to men, and that's not something that anyone wants.


So you're saying ALL men are physically superior to ALL women?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 12
There won't be any.

Very few girls will want to join the Infantry, fewer will pass the training. Almost none will serve any useful purpose in roles that they couldn't already have done.

You will just be opening the doors to leaving the MoD exposed to multiple millions of pounds worth of compensation claims for indirect discrimination and negligence issues. The reasoning will go that female bodies are not capable of the same physical exertions - to make equal physical standards is discriminatory and negligent.

The Army will have the choice between being sexist, or being discriminatory and negligent. Great choice.
Reply 13
Original post by Jammy Duel
So you're saying ALL men are physically superior to ALL women?

Posted from TSR Mobile


No, however this won't be about individuals. It will be about the average Army recruit. The average male Army recruit is physically superior to the average female recruit.

The average male recruit is fully capable of being an infantry soldier (whether they want to or not), whereas the average female is not.

A very, very small number of females in the whole population might be capable - a tiny fraction of those might want to join the Army, an even smaller proportion might want to join the infantry. We are talking about tiny numbers of women.
If they pass the same fitness tests then why on earth shouldn't they?
Original post by Clip
No, however this won't be about individuals. It will be about the average Army recruit. The average male Army recruit is physically superior to the average female recruit.

The average male recruit is fully capable of being an infantry soldier (whether they want to or not), whereas the average female is not.

A very, very small number of females in the whole population might be capable - a tiny fraction of those might want to join the Army, an even smaller proportion might want to join the infantry. We are talking about tiny numbers of women.



And that tiny number of women who are capable shouldn't be allowed because...?
Reply 16
Original post by TolerantBeing
If they pass the same fitness tests then why on earth shouldn't they?


Because it is better that the Army is considered a sexist institution than it is for women to be given the opportunity and be utterly humiliated by continued, abject failure.
Original post by Clip
No, however this won't be about individuals. It will be about the average Army recruit. The average male Army recruit is physically superior to the average female recruit.

The average male recruit is fully capable of being an infantry soldier (whether they want to or not), whereas the average female is not.

A very, very small number of females in the whole population might be capable - a tiny fraction of those might want to join the Army, an even smaller proportion might want to join the infantry. We are talking about tiny numbers of women.


And this is relevant how?

Oh my, only a few people in a group want to join the army and will be fit to do so according to you, let's just not let them in. I guess you propose we also ban asexual men called Frederick too by the same logic, few of them will want to and be fit to.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 18
Original post by TolerantBeing
And that tiny number of women who are capable shouldn't be allowed because...?


Because they will ultimately fail. They will pass the basic tests, and then be incapable of being placed in "any" role in an infantry battalion. Essentially, jobs will have to be cherry-picked for them on the basis of what they are capable of. All that will have happened is that women will do exactly the same jobs they do now, but with an infantry badge on their heads.
Original post by Clip
Because it is better that the Army is considered a sexist institution than it is for women to be given the opportunity and be utterly humiliated by continued, abject failure.




Why would women deemed capable be humiliated? You aren't making sense mate. I'm asking why the tiny amount of women deemed capable should still not be allowed in your eyes.

Quick Reply

Latest