Turn on thread page Beta

Should women be aloud to fight on the front line ! watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    If there is a minimum necessary standard to be in a role it should apply to everyone
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Because that is simply ineffective and stupid.

    Men on average, are stronger than women. The test that was given to men is the test that ensures you have the minimum capabilities to become a soldier on the front line. If you make a separate test for women, who on average are weaker, meaning the test will be easier than the male test, you are essentially allowing soldiers who would not be qualified otherwise, to fight. Not only is this a risk to them, but also to their fellow soldiers. There should only be one test. A test that ensures that the minimum requirement to train to become a soldier on the front line is met, regardless of sex.

    Equity, in this case, is painstakingly dumb.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    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.
    Nope, the kit is based on what you need to survive. Carrying less means you are not equipped to survive in combat. How can that be justified? Are you suggesting we should be sending troops into battle not equipped to face the threat?

    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.

    I've been in the Forces, I know how this works.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    The army is an elite fighting force, you cannot lower the requirements because of gender.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joep95)
    If there is a minimum necessary standard to be in a role it should apply to everyone
    I would actually agree with this but I think it is worth thinking about where there might have been a male-based standards arbitrarily treated as if a minimum necessary for male and female.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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 ✨
    Women have been fighting ISIS on the frontline. So why not?

    https://thekurdishproject.org/histor...ish-women/ypj/


    (Original post by Science99999)
    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.
    The US army used to segragrated on race lines. I guess black people in your squad upset the band of brother mindset.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    ...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...
    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 relate 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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Women have been fighting ISIS on the frontline. So why not?

    https://thekurdishproject.org/histor...ish-women/ypj/




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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    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.
    But you can't argue that the idea of having two sets of standards for the same job is not the way ahead.

    Currently, that's the case across the entire armed forces.

    And no, I don't concede that about squaddies. Any guy who was too big to carry out would not himself pass the tests.

    The standards set are designed to ensure people are capable of performing the tasks needed in the variety of environments they're likely to face.

    If the women applying can meet those standards, then sure, crack on. But meeting some arbitrarily lowered standards isn't the same thing. The social side of it mentioned above is a minor issue, relatively.

    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Science99999)
    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!
    Ok if its that bad (and I'm no saying it isn't) have gender segregated armed forces. Which is something the YPG do. They have an all female segment (YPJ).

    Sex in war zones isn't exactly an unheard of things though...

    Blacks were considered such brothers during world war 2 that they entered segregated divisions and were often consigned to support roles only.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Not exactly a top priority right to focus on in my view. Might be better trying to bring some more sanity to world order.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarek)
    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
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    The current Government and armed forces beg to differ:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36746917
    Can't deny the equality arguments. And if there is one bit of fairness the Tories are going to sponsor it is probably this.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    As others have already mentioned, if women are able to meet the fitness requirements required for roles in the combat arms so that their presence will not affect combat effectiveness of their chosen units, then no problem.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    ...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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    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.
    Given that it believes less than 5% of the current 7000 serving female personnel could pass the infantry tests then I don't think pragmatism is going to come into it.

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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Science99999)
    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.


    I read that study before

    When female are on the battlefield males turn into a bunch of white knights and stop fighting as effectively

    If the female can match the male fitness then send them to the front line in an all female squad so the team does not loose effectiveness due to white knighting

    also tell the females on the front line to mentally prepare themselves for rape if they are captured alive, because tbh it's likely to happen...., and if they can't deal with that they shouldn't be in the army...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    ...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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    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.
    They're big enough when it happens.

    Remember the sailors taken prisoner by Iran? There were over a dozen - but the only one that got any media attention was the sole woman.

    There was a helicopter crash in Iraq, a Lynx went down, killing the 4 people on board. One was a female and she was the only one the media named.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.