Should women be aloud to fight on the front line !

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.

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.

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.

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.

If there is a minimum necessary standard to be in a role it should apply to everyone

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 ✨

The United States defence department did some research into females, and concurred that females provided a signficiant distraction, and as a result reduced the effectiveness and progress of a team. Women are biologically less fit, and have less stamina (In general) compared with men, in addition to this the enemy (most likley to be men) have a new opportunity to sexually harass women operatives. The concept of "band of brothers" is one of the primary reasons why a male dominated millitary is successful, it encourages and unites men together, sharing their experiences. It is important to recognise that when women were introduced into the front lines, some of the women became pregnant, which obviously illustrates an issue, as it introduces vulnerability.

...There are some big guys, yes. Which is why the fitness test makes sure that everyone on the frontline is strong enough to, figuratively, pull their weight...

Women have been fighting ISIS on the frontline. So why not?

https://thekurdishproject.org/history-and-culture/kurdish-women/ypj/




The US army used to segragrated on race lines. I guess black people in your squad upset the band of brother mindset.

The problem with this reasoning is that it assumes the standards set for men are somehow 'objective' standards but that's not the case, such standards relates to what men can reasonably be expected to do. You seem to already be conceding that, for example, there will be some squaddies who are less capable of carrying an injured male colleague than others, because some are much bigger than others. I would concede that there might be some minimum standards which cannot be adjusted to accommodate female potentials but I don't assume right off the bat that none of them can. Ironically, by making some adjustments for female potentials you might find that recruits are more effective not less in their roles because their kit, etc. is more suited to them.

You delusional person, race has nothing to do with this. It is the hormonal and instinctive attraction between the same sex. I am not american nor am i white, hence your statment is irrational, in addition to this, the reason why the US army segregated was because of attitude towards ethinic minorities, this was influenced by society. During WW2, "blacks" fought for the US army, and were equally considerd as brothers!

Not exactly a top priority right to focus on in my view. Might be better trying to bring some more sanity to world order.

The current Government and armed forces beg to differ:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36746917

...But the point is that throughout the armed forces currently there are two different physical standards involved. You can just about get away with that in non-frontline roles where physicality isn't as important, but the frontline is not the same.

Ok, so the principle that male and female potentials are different is applied across military tests already, but not in relation to front-line combat roles. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on the issue of front-line standards. I don't know how much trouble the UK army has in recruiting these days, if any, but if it does then it might have to be a little pragmatic.

The United States defence department did some research into females, and concurred that females provided a signficiant distraction, and as a result reduced the effectiveness and progress of a team. Women are biologically less fit, and have less stamina (In general) compared with men, in addition to this the enemy (most likley to be men) have a new opportunity to sexually harass women operatives. The concept of "band of brothers" is one of the primary reasons why a male dominated millitary is successful, it encourages and unites men together, sharing their experiences. It is important to recognise that when women were introduced into the front lines, some of the women became pregnant, which obviously illustrates an issue, as it introduces vulnerability.

Front line recruits are upon the decrease, generally specialised teams, drones do the majority of the work. If there was a full scale war (very unlikely) , the reserves and active personell would be called first. Recruitment would be next, and in the severe cases, forced conscription.

Anyone who is physicaly capable and equal is strength should be sent to the front line, regardless of sex. If the female candidate is stronger than the average male candidate, then recruit her.

...The first reports of personnel dying because teams aren't fully capable will be met with a veritable shitstorm in the media.

If memory serves there have over the years been several equipment failure or absence stories (setting aside friendly-fire tragedies) which have resulted in injuries and deaths but they don't seem to capture the public's imagination for very long. Even the outright WMD fabrication which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths has just become another old story. I'm sure there was a time not so long ago when the very idea of women in the British Army in any gun-carrying capacity was considered by those in decision making roles as outrageous and dangerous.