Welcome Guest ( Log In · Register · Change Skins )
Global PokedeX Plus
Lab · Shelter · Main · Dex · PC · Shop · Stats · Help · Rules · Users Online · IRC Chat
GPX+ GPXPlus Forums Member Options
X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Women in Combat Roles, Should women be allowed in combat?
Natasha Romanoff
post Feb 24 2015, 02:24 PM
Post #1


I only act like I know everything.
Group Icon

Group: +Donors
Posts: 370
Joined: 26-June 09
From: Red Room Academy
Member No.: 38 923

Antimatter



A simple question that can be quite difficult to answer. Surprised it hasn't showed up in the forums around here, with the variety of topics available in the debate section.

I'll start by listing a few of the pros and cons of the issue, and hand the mic over to you all, so to speak, to continue the list and/or debate your pov.


Common Reasons Listed for Why Women Should Be Allowed in Combat:
1.) If a woman wants to serve her country on the front-lines, so to speak, why deny her that right?
2.) A woman in a combat zone may be able to speak to local women and children in order to collect counterinsurgency information that her male counterpart would not otherwise be able to do because of local customs. I should add that the women who perform these roles are often attached to combat units are not usually a part of them.

Common Reasons Listed for Why Women Shouldn't Be Allowed in Combat:
1.) Men are physically, on average, much stronger than women. How likely is it that a woman is capable of carrying 100+ pounds of gear while running for several miles (not to mention carrying a wounded soldier)?
2.) Women can become a distraction in a combat situation.


Just for the record, I'm talking about equal combat roles, where women and men would fight side-by-side. Unequal combat roles are a whole 'nother can of worms.

Debate away!

EDIT: Because I can't type.

This post has been edited by Candidate Psyduck: Feb 24 2015, 06:43 PM


--------------------








Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

jayrachi
post Feb 25 2015, 10:06 AM
Post #2


Janitor
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 566
Joined: 27-February 11
From: A generic location such as a house.
Member No.: 133 427

wat



Everyone deserves the right to die on the savage battlefield. Equal combat only makes sense.

I also want to note that while males on average have a larger muscular build, women on average have a higher pain tolerance.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Lord Raven
post Feb 28 2015, 06:57 PM
Post #3


i need something to put here
Group Icon

Group: Global Moderators
Posts: 3 900
Joined: 2-July 07
From: Ellicott City, Maryland
Member No.: 34

Active Squad



I don't think women are going to be much of a distraction when you're in battle, I highly doubt that some dudes will have more lust than sheer adrenaline. I guess that is in battle, though I highly doubt sex is really much of a worry outside of it.

Men might be stronger on average, but that doesn't mean a woman can't be as strong as a man...


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

kaseykg
post Jul 17 2015, 11:24 AM
Post #4


Pokémon Trainer
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 2-June 14
Member No.: 220 070

Active Squad



I think women and men should have the same requirements. If a woman can keep up with everything the men have to do, have at it. But I don't agree with women having lower standards. If they can't perform, it endangers everyone else.
Recently 2 women actually finished the first level of ranger school, which is the hardest school to complete. It took them a couple tries, but they did it, which is awesome. (Most men fail out also).


--------------------

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Gryphaena
post Nov 9 2015, 12:51 AM
Post #5


She Who Can Be Voracious
Group Icon

Group: +Donors
Posts: 2 648
Joined: 9-January 10
From: Flatland
Member No.: 79 103

My Purple Ones



I pretty much agree with kaseykg.

Soldiers should follow a certain standard.

If everyone is supposed to be able to run a mile in under four minutes then that's that.

Of course, I say this as a female who is not military, authority or surgeon material.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

DJ Majja Kool
post Nov 14 2015, 01:17 AM
Post #6


Hungry hungry Hippowdons
Group Icon

Group: +Donors
Posts: 527
Joined: 31-May 09
From: GPXPlus
Member No.: 29 051

Hi.



Basically what the above two said. If a woman wants to fight for her country and is capable of meeting the requirements, she should be allowed to.

I don't see the distraction point as very strong because following that idea, you'd also have to say that other men would be a distraction for gay men. But like Raven said, I think adrenaline would far outweigh any other sensations.

btw, on the planet I believe is our real home, even children can be in combat. They can be just as powerful as adults, and their bodies don't take more pain than they can handle (plus medics, even enemy medics, would be taking care of them immediately). But of course that's all entirely different from what this thread is about.

This post has been edited by DJ Majja Kool: Nov 14 2015, 01:17 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

mage
post Nov 14 2015, 01:45 AM
Post #7


Pokémon Trainer
Group Icon

Group: +Donors
Posts: 29
Joined: 11-February 11
From: North Korea
Member No.: 131 214

Active Squad



Women, naturally, should be allowed in combat. I don't see a valid argument against that, and I'm sure most people in the society that I live in would agree.

However, standards for women should not be lower for the sake of improving the gap between genders in figures and statistics, which I fear may actually be happening.

If a woman truly cannot perform the tasks asked of them in tests and training, then that's just the way that the cookie has crumbled. Sure, a woman is at a disadvantage, but honestly? When it comes to their life and the lives of others, I don't want to have that be risked just to look more fair to outsiders focused entirely on equality in numbers.

In the long run, that's not fair to anyone, especially those whose lives may be lost by the overlooking of a requirement or two.

The United States already has the problem of overlooking poor performance within our police force. We don't need it in our military, too.

QUOTE(DJ Majja Kool @ Nov 14 2015, 01:17 AM) *
btw, on the planet I believe is our real home, even children can be in combat. They can be just as powerful as adults, and their bodies don't take more pain than they can handle (plus medics, even enemy medics, would be taking care of them immediately). But of course that's all entirely different from what this thread is about.


I really love and hate the internet sometimes.

It introduces me to all sorts of new viewpoints and experiences from people I would otherwise never meet, enriching my own life and allowing myself to immerse myself into a complete paradigm shift.

However, it also shows me opinions like this.

I cannot honestly understand how, in the year of 2015--you heard me, Two-Thousand-And-Fifteen--I can meet someone who actually defends and condones the usage of child soldiers. The intentional usage of children in an environment frequently compared to Hell or other obscene forms of torture. The intentional usage of children in places where they could very, very easily be raped or kidnapped. The intentional usage of children in places foreign to them, where they could more easily become sick. The intentional usage of children in traumatizing areas committing murder instead of placing them in school. The intentional usage of children as a means of borderline inhumane psychological warfare on "the enemy."

Two-Thousand-And-Fifteen, and this opinion exists and is defended by an Actual Human Being who thinks they're justified in saying this.

Yikes.




--------------------

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

DJ Majja Kool
post Nov 14 2015, 02:53 AM
Post #8


Hungry hungry Hippowdons
Group Icon

Group: +Donors
Posts: 527
Joined: 31-May 09
From: GPXPlus
Member No.: 29 051

Hi.



QUOTE(Daydream @ Nov 14 2015, 01:45 AM) *
QUOTE(DJ Majja Kool @ Nov 14 2015, 01:17 AM) *
btw, on the planet I believe is our real home, even children can be in combat. They can be just as powerful as adults, and their bodies don't take more pain than they can handle (plus medics, even enemy medics, would be taking care of them immediately). But of course that's all entirely different from what this thread is about.


I really love and hate the internet sometimes.

It introduces me to all sorts of new viewpoints and experiences from people I would otherwise never meet, enriching my own life and allowing myself to immerse myself into a complete paradigm shift.

However, it also shows me opinions like this.

I cannot honestly understand how, in the year of 2015--you heard me, Two-Thousand-And-Fifteen--I can meet someone who actually defends and condones the usage of child soldiers. The intentional usage of children in an environment frequently compared to Hell or other obscene forms of torture. The intentional usage of children in places where they could very, very easily be raped or kidnapped. The intentional usage of children in places foreign to them, where they could more easily become sick. The intentional usage of children in traumatizing areas committing murder instead of placing them in school. The intentional usage of children as a means of borderline inhumane psychological warfare on "the enemy."

Two-Thousand-And-Fifteen, and this opinion exists and is defended by an Actual Human Being who thinks they're justified in saying this.

Yikes.


I don't defend the usage of child soldiers on earth. I said that on the planet I believe is our real home, things are different. People have a protective layer that recedes as/if they age, so children have the most of this layer and are not severely wounded, and also medics would still help them immediately. I myself have a condition where I literally stopped developing at the age of 12 physically and emotionally, and I want to do combat myself at the home I believe in. It's not like on earth where they're forced and brainwashed. On the real planet that I believe in (I reiterate, I see earth as not real) children can just be as powerful and strategic as adults and choose to be in combat. We had a misunderstanding because you envisioned the way child soldiers are used on earth, when I was describing a very, very different world than this planet. You described trauma and torture in your post, none of which exist in the world I was talking about.

But that was meant as an aside note; I don't want to derail the thread so if you want to continue this conversation we can do it in PMs.

This post has been edited by DJ Majja Kool: Nov 14 2015, 05:55 AM


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Hitaka5Ever
post Nov 14 2015, 04:04 AM
Post #9


is deep in Hitaka Hell
Group Icon

Group: +Donors
Posts: 725
Joined: 27-May 10
Member No.: 97 935

Battle Subway Team



I think if women can handle it then they should be allowed to fight. If they don't pass their training then they shouldn't be in combat situations. Not all women are weak just as not all men are strong


--------------------

Need Social Network? PM me; 14/48
You can call me Sladin or Rocky (:
Please do not use my icon for your personal use. Thank you happy.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

TheWingedKetten
post Apr 30 2017, 08:05 AM
Post #10


Pokémon Trainer
Group Icon

Group: Newbies
Posts: 3
Joined: 30-April 17
Member No.: 249 277

Active Squad



(Copy + Pasting so I remember)
Common Reasons Listed for Why Women Shouldn't Be Allowed in Combat:
1.) Men are physically, on average, much stronger than women. How likely is it that a woman is capable of carrying 100+ pounds of gear while running for several miles (not to mention carrying a wounded soldier)?
2.) Women can become a distraction in a combat situation.

1) With the proper training, a woman can accomplish just as much as a male. Many people forget that soldiers don't just get up one day and say "Time for battle!" and are immediately ready for everything. There are years of training involved, and that could make a woman just as strong, if not stronger than men.
2) I agree. They can. If we give them classic RPG armour that's an armoured bikini, that is. If a woman is given the same armour as a man (with slight modifications to allow for a female body type), they won't be distracting. If you don't believe me, just look up "military armour". It leaves no visible feminine figure.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post


Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd November 2019 - 06:09 AM
All content and images ©2007-2015 GPX.Plus and Shiny New Software, LLC. Powered By IPB 2.3.1 © 2019 IPS, Inc.
Optimal viewing in the latest version of Safari, Chrome, or Firefox, 1024x768+.