should women be aloud to fight on ..........

how do you mean?

Originally posted by Linkalicious
i don't see what a pain threshold has to do with this arguement anyways.

If you get shot....it's gonna hurt regardless. If it's a stomach or chest wound, you'll be on the floor whether your threshold is high or low. If you get hit in the leg, you won't be running or probably walking at all...don't matter if your threshold is high or low.

thats kinda what i was trying to say

whether the woman can deal with being raped/tortured or not...as a man (perhaps even gentleman) I'd gladly take my spot on the front line rather than ever leave the possibility of something like that happening to a female. And I hate war....i'd never only join the military because of a draft.

Originally posted by Lara
how do you mean?

Like you could be tortured in worse, more subjective ways

did you know that women can endure alot more emotional and mental exersion than men.?

I think women who decide that they want to fight at front lines, should be aware of that...i mean, its war, and war is shitty, and people get killed and raped and what not.

and thats life. that doesnt strictly apply to the rules of war. it happens every day in many palce at many times. so whats the difference of walking down the street and being jumped and going into something where you know its a possibility and can be prepared for it? because it your taken by surprise then its gonna be ten times worse.

You are right indeed. Women should be allowed, if they wish, to be in front lines. I know women warent allowed in Marines until receantly, im not sure if they still arent.

well here in the uk women are allowed in both the air force and the army and have been for a long allowed up to the front line since 1991 I think, the gulf war.

Originally posted by Lara
did you know that women can endure alot more emotional and mental exersion than men.?

And why is that?

not too sure.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You are right indeed. Women should be allowed, if they wish, to be in front lines. I know women warent allowed in Marines until receantly, im not sure if they still arent.

I think Russia during ww2 had women in the front lines..or at least as gunners and tankers..heard they were exceptional

Such ridiculous double standards as those set on gender lines work to the advantage of the female gender more often than not.

Originally posted by badkittykitty
in the states they are now.I have a girl friend who is in the marine reserve..the thing is with the way war is today (guns rather than swords) they should be allowed to fight in battle..but I do believe they can not be in the same units as men because both men and women would be messing up their military mind set and getting in to romantic relationships and stuff..it wouldn't work.

I think Russia during ww2 had women in the front lines..or at least as gunners and tankers..heard they were exceptional

Absolutely. 👆

Like I said previously, wmen fought in wars long before alongisde men and they will continue to do so. Rome had female gladiators, there were amazons, Greek had female warriors, Persians even had a female military leader...if women chose to fight, then they should be allowed.

and again I ask who have been in the service, who speaks of experience and who speaks of how they think it is.

My dad was in the military during Vietnam, I should ask him what he thinks on the subject.

Russia in WWII had women leading assaults in the front lines.

But that is not actually relevant- that was a patriotic war of national survival where everyone fought if they could hold a gun. Note that the Red Army AFTER WWII stopped doing that. It is different with a professional army for 'general' use. Like I say, there is good evidence that having women in the front lines reduces overall combat effectiveness. No-one is saying women cannot fight, just that it is possible that the front lines in a modern professional army is not a suitable place for use to be made of them.

Linkalicious> No, women’s pain threshold IS higher than men’s. We have to give BIRTH fer Chrissake! So women can, generally speaking, take more pain than men. What’s teh problem with that for you. Men are, generally, stronger than women.

“Child birth...as painful as it may be. It not nearly as fatal as an assualt rifle wound to the stomach.” Do yourself a favour. Go out and research the amount of women who’ve died during child-birth during the ages, and compare that number to the number of men who’ve died on the battlefield.

Are you basing your argument on a MOVIE? Would you rape or abuse a woman who’s away from her home??? Or what are you trying to say?

Darth> One small correction: Unless you shoot up a woman with lots of testosterone, you’ll never get a woman who can get as strong as a man. It’s the hormone levels that regulate our body-shapes when we go into puberty.

IS there anyone with a degree in biology around here??

Ush is right! Men will, generally, be stronger than women – that’s biology and there is no arguing with that. But for military services, if you want to fly an airplane, or go into research or intelligence, you of course don’t need to be able to carry twice your weight. So the tests could be tailored to what branch of the military you’d like to join.
There’s no reason to have women being in the front-line going “Yikes, I broke a nail”, when she could sit in a computer-controlled fighter-plane and do her manicure (Okay, THAT was a joke, ladies and gentlemen!)

About the child-birth thing and getting kicked in the nuts: Women are genetically wired to endure labour. Nature didn’t intend for men to go around and kick each other in the nuts.

Before I post the following reply, I should state that it is intended in no way to be sexist:
As most of you know, I am a member of HM Forces, and the reason that women today are still not allowed to fight on the front line is two-fold; the first reason dates back years to the society we used to live in whereby women were there to stay at home and cook the meals, but this is an ethos that is not supported by a modern-day Army.
The second reason is that, biologically speaking, women are weaker. Now, I know that this is 100% the case, and I know that this is going to infuriate the feminists amongst you, but both statistically and biologically women cannot carry out the same physical tasks as men.
Now, this does not apply to the whole of womanhood; I have seen sonme women who are stronger than blokes, but on the flip side of the coin, I can also say that throughout all of my time in the army, women do not come upto scratch. Even during training, there was only one female in my platoon that could pass a basic fitness assessment. And the vast majority of women can't even carry artillery shells. so, what use is the typical woman in a war effort?
Try taking your average female soldier, loading her with ehr bergen, her webbing, full operational uniform, her rifle and helmet, and all of the gear that she has to carry in order to operate, and you've got yourself a sack of shit. Do excuse my bluntness, but it is the truth.
So, that is the reason why women within the British army (I can't account for any other forces) are only allowed to work as Military Police, clerks or medics.
Now, I agree with the majority of women that this case should be subject to change, but only in the circumstances that the woman wishing to fight can pass all of the same physical tests as the males around her. At the en dof the day, what is more important, women's rights, or the lives of those around you. Because when you have a soldier in your midst who cannot cope both physically and psychologically, people die.

I think most of us here are pretty much of that mindset, Soldat- that there should be no double standard for females.