Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    If they can pass the SAME fitness test as the men then I have no problem.
    The fitness test only tests one's physically ability. There's a lot more to fighting on the front line than this.

    I'm not sure if you have read some of the threads on this forum lately, but feminists have been campaigning long and hard for women to get time off work for their periods...because periods can be painful for women. This is a gender that struggles to work full time. Imagine having to rely on such a gender in war. Women also take years off work to have children and to look after them...where's admiral vanessa? She's off on maternity leave. OK, fetch admiral Charlotte. Emmm........well she had her period. So she went home...

    Its not just competency issues with women in the army but financial implications too. Their inability to work full time leaves a gap that has to be filled by other people. This requires more training and more money......and of course despite working less they want to be paid equally to their male counterparts so this means even more money being wasted...and despite working less and having less experience they want to be promoted equally to men so this will mean less competent people reaching positions of power and control...

    There is a reason why women aren't allowed into the army in most countries around the globe let alone the front line....not just now but throughout history and thats because they are not suited for this role....not physically and not mentally.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    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.
    Fair enough, but presumably, if there were more women in combat roles there would, eventually, be less shock at the fatalities because they would become more 'routine'. Who knows, maybe drones and robots will soon make this kind of debate obsolete anyway.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    As long as they are not too loud, sure.
    Hahahah
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    Fair enough, but presumably, if there were more women in combat roles
    Why do we think that will happen though?

    The Army's own research said less than 5% of their current female staff would pass the tests, and nobody's talked about whether women want to join the infantry in the first place.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Why do we think that will happen though?

    The Army's own research said less than 5% of their current female staff would pass the tests, and nobody's talked about whether women want to join the infantry in the first place.
    I'm not assuming it will. If there was shift towards more equitable tests that might result in greater female interest in being in the infantry. But, yeah, this is all just peeing in the wind.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If they are ugly enough not to distract their comrades while they are in the heat of battle then sure.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Depends what you call Front Line because since WW1 there has not been a lot of front - most soldiers from WW1 onwards were killed by someone who never saw them and most male soldiers in WW1 were not as fit as women today. Women lead more dangerous lives than men in most countries. What I find strange is for example in certain places like France, the men are short and thin - British, American, Nordic women would mostly be taller and stronger, and yet the men are considered stronger because...they are male. Imo women in history have fought in every single battle that men have lost because they and their children are considered the spoils. Hitler ordered machine gun training to women when he realised Germany would surrender in WW2. There are examples if you google it, in WW1 there was a Polish woman who fought at the front as a soldier and there was an English nurse working in the Balkans who was left behind after an attack - she walked back to the Serbian lines and fought with them for the remainder of the war, becoming a major or something. She only died towards the end of the war during hand-to-hand combat - her opponent let off a hand grenade that killed them both.
    BTW previous poster, many, many soldiers take paternity leave and some pull a fake sickey or simply quit. The number of men that come out harmed psychologically may point to the fact most men are not made for war either...the army has always been a route to take when one hasn't done well at school, not mentioning the royals or anything like that, at all. Also, today with the 'threat' of terrorism, the number of 'soldiers' being paid to do a bit of patrolling in the shopping centre vs any seeing any action is staggering...this is billions of pounds going to men purely because they are men.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.