The Student Room Group

Should women be aloud to fight on the front line !

I am writing an essay about people’s views on women’s rights to fight , it would be a great help if you all can comment your views ( as long as they are respectful, but be as honest as you can ) thank you

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Rebecca_keill
I am writing an essay about people’s views on women’s rights to fight , it would be a great help if you all can comment your views ( as long as they are respectful, but be as honest as you can ) thank you


As long as they are not too loud, sure.
Original post by Rebecca_keill
I am writing an essay about people’s views on women’s rights to fight , it would be a great help if you all can comment your views ( as long as they are respectful, but be as honest as you can ) thank you


You might want to check out the Kurds in particular as an example - they are known for their female fighters.
Thank you for your help.
If they can pass the SAME fitness test as the men then I have no problem.
Thanks
Thank you this will be great
Reply 8
Original post by Rebecca_keill
I am writing an essay about people’s views on women’s rights to fight , it would be a great help if you all can comment your views ( as long as they are respectful, but be as honest as you can ) thank you


If they are willing to help why not let them.


Dinner ladies are Lethal. Take my old primary schools cafeteria for example.
Original post by Andrew97
Dinner ladies are Lethal. Take my old primary schools cafeteria for example.


yes; they could have used Semolina as a munition.
They should set physical and mental health tests and anyone who passes those, regardless of gender/race/religion/class, can serve on the front line
Very true thank you
Original post by Andrew97
If they can pass the SAME fitness test as the men then I have no problem.


That is kinda arbitrary though. A more equitable arrangement would be for women to be subject to tests that reflect female potentials rather than male potentials. After all, not all male soldiers are of equal fitness/strength/agility, so if we can accept variation across men why not between men and women who we know to have different physiology.
Original post by Axiomasher
That is kinda arbitrary though. A more equitable arrangement would be for women to be subject to tests that reflect female potentials rather than male potentials. After all, not all male soldiers are of equal fitness/strength/agility, so if we can accept variation across men why not between men and women who we know to have different physiology.


All men have to pass a set test, so not sure why that matters? Yes, some pass it 'better' than others, but they still pass.
Those that don't, don't get in. Shouldn't be any different for women.
Original post by Drewski
All men have to pass a set test, so not sure why that matters? Yes, some pass it 'better' than others, but they still pass.
Those that don't, don't get in. Shouldn't be any different for women.


Sure, a set test which presumably was designed with men in mind. We could require women to pass a test designed for men or, more equitably, design a test for women, given that we know women don't have same kind of strength/agility etc.
Original post by Axiomasher
Sure, a set test which presumably was designed with men in mind. We could require women to pass a test designed for men or, more equitably, design a test for women, given that we know women don't have same kind of strength/agility etc.


The issue with that being that when you're on the front line there are certain requirements placed on you; got to carry X amount of kit, be able to carry a wounded colleague... Watering down the test to allow, essentially, weaker people in means you will be putting people at risk.

Having a single set standard for everyone to meet means you don't lose capability - losing capability on the front line means losing lives.
in the Great War there were specially formed Bantam Battalions which comprised men of short stature. although they fought valiantly they were always at a disadvantage when facing full-sized Huns.
Original post by Drewski
The issue with that being that when you're on the front line there are certain requirements placed on you; got to carry X amount of kit, be able to carry a wounded colleague... Watering down the test to allow, essentially, weaker people in means you will be putting people at risk.

Having a single set standard for everyone to meet means you don't lose capability - losing capability on the front line means losing lives.


I hear what you are saying but this kind of objection only goes so far in my view. Firstly, requirements re kit are like the tests, usually historically based on what males can reasonably be expected to carry. Secondly, there are some big men in the military and not all, if many, of their colleagues will be able to carry them if wounded, so the idea that everyone should be able to carry everyone else isn't very credible.
Original post by the bear
in the Great War there were specially formed Bantam Battalions which comprised men of short stature. although they fought valiantly they were always at a disadvantage when facing full-sized Huns.


Stilts.

Quick Reply