Females in combat zones/jobs. Good Idea? Bad idea?

[Bluedog]

I was discussing this with my sister today , and after seeing the rape of servicewomen thread, thought I would throw the question out here and see what people think.

My personal thoughts are that a combat zone is the very last place a woman should be anywhere near if she can possibly avoid it.
Sorry ladies, raw instinct tells me it's wrong.
I may be a chivalrous fool, but I believe women should be protected and shielded from harm, not deliberately placed directly in it's path.

Then again, there are some situations where a woman present is vital in some cultures, for instance patting down a civilian woman in the street.

I believe a female soldier, particularly a pretty one, will distract the men around her from the job at hand, and that those men will take risks for her sake in a hopeless situation where they perhaps would not for a man, possibly making a bad situation worse.

I also believe a female soldier is somewhat at risk from the men around her, sexual assault is going to happen.
War, killing and being surrounded by death has always inspired lust and an urge to procreate in men, some in more gentle ways than others.
It is why armies throughout history have had camp followers, it is why the Japanese had comfort women, it is why rape and pillage is a common turn of phrase, it is why we have 'baby boomers', it is why the two oldest professions are soldiery and prostitution, in short it is a fact.....fighting men are horny.
To some, the nearest female will do, weather she like it or not.



Having said all that......my Mum was a  reserve soldier. Infantry, M-60 gunner ,platoon and drill seargant  at various times

I am fully aware that it is possible for a woman to make just as effective a soldier as a man, but is it right for them to do so?

[soda72]

It's been going down hill ever since we gave them the right to vote...

[B@tfinkV]

Originally posted by Bluedog

I may be a chivalrous fool, but I believe women should be protected and shielded from harm, not deliberately placed directly in it's path.
 

gotta watch out here, some may infact call that sexist not chivalrous

Originally posted by Bluedog


I believe a female soldier, particularly a pretty one, will distract the men around her from the job at hand, and that those men will take risks for her sake in a hopeless situation where they perhaps would not for a man, possibly making a bad situation worse.

 

or....maybe they will go the extra mile to save a trooper in an impossible situation and actualy pull it off!

a male trooper may be left for dead in the same situation....possible....

but why would making a heroic sacrifice be considered a bad deal? if there is a chance at all then i think most servicemen would risk it all for either male or female friends...thats what love is.

[Viking]

Originally posted by Bluedog
Sorry ladies, raw instinct tells me it's wrong.

Perhaps you should not let primitive instincts influence you so much. You choose to be a man ... or an animal.

[Bluedog]

Originally posted by B@tfinkV
gotta watch out here, some may infact call that sexist not chivalrous

 

Sexist would be if I said they just cant do it as well as a man can.
I believe they can, I'm just not sure they should.

[john9001]

i think it depends more on the motivation of the woman than on the men, women were in combat in Russia in WW2 to save their country, that's OK, but if you are talking about some 19 year old who joins the US army just to get a free education, i say no.

[lasersailor184]

I say yes, provided there is no special treatment expected or given whatsoever.

[Bluedog]

Originally posted by Viking
Perhaps you should not let primitive instincts influence you so much. You choose to be a man ... or an animal.

Instincts like that one is what makes me a man.

If you don't have an urge to protect those weaker than yourself from harm, it isn't a problem.
If that were the case, you would have no one to protect anyway.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Bluedog
Instincts like that one is what makes me a man.

If you don't have an urge to protect those weaker than yourself from harm, it isn't a problem.
If that were the case, you would have no one to protect anyway.

How old are  you Bluedog?

TIGERESS

[B@tfinkV]

Originally posted by Bluedog
Sexist would be if I said they just cant do it as well as a man can.
I believe they can, I'm just not sure they should.

a good point, but try telling one of the russian sniper heroins of WW2 this and they might find a point to argue on...or two... (or 300+ confirmed kills for one girl)

S!

edit:
 

Originally posted by Bluedog


If you don't have an urge to protect those weaker than yourself from harm, i

oh god, now you gone and done it. maybe your first post wasnt sexist, but that really is very sexist indeed.

and very untrue in many cases.

did you know that women have faster reactions and are better able to cope with G-force than men?  did you also know that women make better undercover agents than men?

[KgB]

Originally posted by Bluedog
Sexist would be if I said they just cant do it as well as a man can.
I believe they can, I'm just not sure they should.

 I don't think they can,phisicly.

[moot]

A soldier is a soldier is a soldier.  If something or someone can get the job done, they should be allowed to, no matter how unconventional it might seem.  If a woman can satisfy the physical and mental criteria, nothing should disallow her from doing her duty.

[Saxman]

I'm of two minds:

First, I believe women have the same potential ability as men to serve in combat. Women combatants is a historical fact, and BEYOND the Russians in WWII (for example the Norse/Germanic shieldmaidens, and many of the Celtic tribes men and women shared in combat equally). Furthermore, if a woman wants to serve her country she has every right to do so.

But...

I HATE the thought of a woman's life in danger. There's just something I find fundamentally wrong about putting a woman in a position where she's deliberately targeted by lethal force, and exposing her to the horror of combat. Partly, it's because I have a desire to protect, shelter, and take care of her: better *I* have to face that danger than she.

I also tend to put women on something of a pedestal, that a woman is more innately innocent and good (I'm a writer, and it's VERY rare that I create a woman character who is undeniably evil). I'm perfectly aware of the flaw in that reasoning, but that's my belief.

[moot]

You believe in something you know is flawed?
There's nothing more wrong about women in combat than there is about men or children. It's all barbaric.

[AWMac]

Bluedog I've met a few ROK SF Women in  S. Korea that would smile from ear to ear while they kicked yer arse.



Women can be tuff!

Mac