It's a question about women and the military. It is correct that women (only in the US army?) are not allowed to be in the frontlines for direct combat, right? But why is that? Are women, even though they may be well-prepared as men, considered a distraction or biologically/emotionally for that sort of combat?

I'm not trying to become a flat-out feminist, just need opinions (for a paper I'm writing.)

I'll respond to this tomorrow; let the "oh, women should be let on the front lines, it's the fair thing to do" people make their responses. But for now, I'm sure you could do a forum search and pull up the last thread we had on this topic.

[edit - I found it for you]

it's more like... we dont want women beign prisners of war because ther are more ways to tourchure them; and some of these ways have longer lasting pscyclogocal effects

There are now women in the front lines in Iraq. The military kept it pretty quiet, but women are being taken along in front line operations. Do a Google search for "women combat Iraq".

No, there aren't women on the front lines. The problem with Iraq is that there is no such thing as a front line.

You ask this question at an interesting time because it's damned near impossible to give a real answer.

Oh man, I remember the last thread we had on this topic. It was quite interesting, and Roach brought up a lot of good points.

I'll let him say them for you.

Exactly. As far as I know, women are not allowed to be frontline soldiers. However, they are put into support roles that often end up putting them on the frontline. And, in Iraq, since there are no true frontlines, pretty much anyone can be killed anywhere, so it really doesn't matter.

Don't you remember Jessica Lynch? She was captured on the frontlines after being blown out of a hum-v and had to be rescued by the Marines.

Subsequent medical exams revealed that she had been sodomized, although she denied this, but it supposedly happened in the days that she was unconcious.

One huge argument for keeping females off the front line in my opinion.

Why? You'd prefer only males be sodomized? Seriously, though, she wasn't a front line soldier. She had a support role and when her convoy took a wrong turn they ran into crap. There are no front lines in Iraq. This argument can't be looked at in that manner.

If it was a male soldier, he wouldn't have been sodomized...

you'd hope.

I'm not seeing your point clearly.

My point?

Point being, if my girlfriend or wife was in the military, I would NOT want her subject to rape or sodomy. Talk about demoralizing! No, keep the honeys away from the action, theres plenty of ways they could serve thier country without risking thier...eh, virtue?

Not only that, but just by the differences in men and womens' physiology and emotional/mental structure, men are combatants and women are not. I'm not saying there cant be exceptions to this rule, but for the most part, it goes against the nature of women to be in roles of combat. Women can play a vital role in war, but that role does not involve the actual fighting. It involves things like caring for the wounded, preparing and providing supplies, and even to some extent, giving the men something to fight for (or over, as it were :p). It's a support role.

You'r brave for saying that buddy, now all the [females] are gonna wanna kick your supporting ***.

Please don't use "dyke" in that manner -JG

According to the movie GI Jane, they can serve on the front lines.

Argument from nature, anyone?

The reason I hear is because the women may end up sympathizing for the men on the other side, despite their wrong doings. And that the male-female grouping will add distractions to both males and females during combat.

Unless of course, the men aren't immature idiots...

I don't care who's at the frontlines so long as it's a qualified individual that can point the gun at the bad guy.

"Of course it's made by a man Lois; it's a commercial not a delicious thanksgiving dinner!"

Wow rudder. you totally discredited yourself with your choice vocabulary.

Fallable. In the case of nature, the female hunts to provide for herself and her cubs. Similarily, female humans are typicially the ones that do the grocery shopping. :p Support role.

When fighting or violence is done over territory or for other reasons (ie mating, for example, which could be considered fighting over "territory") in nature, it's generally the males that do it. This equates to humans in that when men fight wars it's (almost) always over territory or sex. Combat role.

To sum up: Females generally *are* capable of violence or force, but only as it relates to the support of others (whether it be the violence of the hunt, or the force of commerce). Males are generally the ones that use violence or force to settle disputes (as is the case in war), but do not use violence or force in support roles. I know there're exceptions to this, but I think the general rule is sound.

Furthermore, there's a difference between animals and humans in that humans are capable of acting on more than basic instinct. Humans have a cognition and the ability to see the big picture, where as animals (at least most animals) act out of instinct or personal need. They have no mind for politics. :p

Right. And our military is just full of wise, mature people. [/sarcasm] And that's to say nothing for the other nations' militaries. Why should we assume that they will be wise and mature and give them the chance to prove us wrong?

[disclaimer: As you may be able to tell by my tone in this post, I am being mildly facetious with this subject, as it really doesn't affect me personally. I recognize that everyone lives under different circumstances, and there may be instances where the groundrules I'm laying down don't apply or apply differently. If that is the case, please do not take offense at anything I've said or the somewhat flippant way in which I've said it. Thank you.]

[typos/quote tags]

I know the military's not full of wise men or anything, so please don't do that whole knocking my point with sarcastic "I'm better than you" tones. :p

I'm just saying I think the whole "they're a distraction" excuse is pretty weak, they shouldn't be a distraction. But I know in reality it really happens and that's pretty sad.

IMO, I think at least women who could get pregnant by enemy rape shouldn't be allowed on the front lines. It's one thing if they're willing to do something that could lead to their capture and getting raped, but pregnancy would be highly different.

Especially since it would also put them into a more fragile state of health.

Not all feminists would say women should be on the frontlines---just shallow feminists. Hardcore feminists would assert that the system itself is inherently biased towards men and therefore unequal. All the reasons people say women shouldn't be on the frontline are not reasons to keep inequality in the military, but reasons to get rid of the very frontlines we discuss. Maybe instead of worrying about distrations and weaknesses in our ethics of war, where peace is defined as "absence of violence"... we should instead focus on achieving an ethic of care, where peace is a positive notion of justice. This is how some feminists have answered the question.

But all I've got to say is: screw that. Frankly, this whole thing is way too essentializing. I don't really like talk in broad terms about men and women. Honestly, I would SUCK on the frontlines. Many women would be successful. I don't understand why everyone is so quick to construct a gendered role when it'd be more precise to construct an individual role.

Women have been known to flee from battle or surrender needlessly easily, in military test-runs that have been conducted. So no, women aren't usually directed to the front lines, only as a support role, such as medic, technical communications etc, so women can END up on the front line, but aren't put there for combat.

lol yeah go back to teh stove and cook me sum dinner b****

So have men, I'm sure. That quasi-statistic, so to speak, is so out-of-context that it proves nothing. It's like saying "jewish people have been known to be rich."

Anyway, many of you seem to be talking as though women have no minds of their own--maybe there is a risk that, if captured, they will be sodomized. So what? It's their decision to take that risk, not yours. They could also get shot and killed (this happens a lot in war, for reasons that experts are still looking into).

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

That statistic could be valid perhaps... Just not well supported in this case. Perhaps Monoxide could provide us with a link to the study, or at the least give us some percentages.

68% of statistics are made up on the spot.

My cousin who is in the Army actually told me, and I guess one of his sergeants told him when they got into a discussion about it.

If you want my opinion, women should be in the thick of combat with everybody else. If they ever reinstitute the draft, they should draft women as well. Women wanted equality, now they've got it.

Personally I believe women should not be on the front lines. First, there is the obvious fact that they would be a huge distraction to male soldiers. But really, I'm sick of everyone denying the differences between men and woman. Woman are not as strong physically, and they are not as strong emotionally (And by this I mean men are more able to contain their emotions). It just seems ludicrous that we try to deny these differences and act like woman are just the same as men. Women are nurturing, caring etc. They just aren't suited for combat. But of course, I'm just a big woman hating sexist aren't I.

I agree with you to a certain degree. There are plenty of hardened women out there that can control their emotions a lot better than men. And I do NOT mean women on steroids with a penis poking out.

I'd rather pay attention to how they kill. If a female soldier is better than a male one in combat, then I guess I would put her in the front lines. But then there's the rape factor. But of course it would be cool if she would kill them before they can act. Now that would rock.

Though on some cases it probably isn't too wise to put the best troops in the front lines.

As for your original question, you can't deny people around the world are still protective towards women even in the military, not to mention americans, so I wouldn't be surprised of that, Echoman.

True, but really they are the vast minority. I guess if they can prove ahead of time that they have what it takes, then they should be allowed if they want to.

Recently though, a lot of research has suggested that it has something to do with how males and females are treated differently, from birth. They filmed nurses in hospitals and noted that they talked to the girl babies a lot more, among other things. And most of them didn't even realize it--denying it stringently, even, until they saw the tape.

You mean 70%.

As to women fighting, I believe they should have their own choice in the matter.

But what happens when some feminist woman who thinks she is just as strong and capable as any man, freaks out when she reaches actual combat and deserts or can't fight at all? This puts the life of the other soldiers at risk.


Not that this can't happen with men, but the chances are less likely. And yeah, i guess the differences between the sexes have a lot more to do, not just with how they are treated at birth, but our society in general. Men and women have distinct roles, so I guess we mould into these roles. However, I still believe these roles are accurate to our true selves mostly. And by this I mean that men are naturally more fighters then women.

According to the movie GI Jane, women can also be tortured by their commanding officers for extensive periods of time, and still end up friends. Additionally, there seems to be no proscription against this type of thing happening. That was a bizarre movie...

do you guys know that most Chechen snipers are women? girls, even.