Extremely debatable topic: Female soldiers on front lines in wars?

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

No.

Natural Male Instict is to defend the female, and this can get in the way of combat situations. Also there is more chance of abuse (verbal and physical) from the men. There is obvously the attraction between man and woman that can get both distracted. Also, If captured by the enemy, Women face more horrible torture (ie Rape) than Men Would.

Strength is not a problem as many women are stronger than men.

And in actual fact. If the requirments were EXACTLY the same, they should be allowed, but they shouldnt get it any easier

Guiltfeeder566

Almost everyone knows that woman have less upper body strength then men, and that would allow them to be raped more easily. And male rape really isen't... ya...

I think its ok, so long as they don't have really big boobs that distract the other soldiers or give away their squads position.imsomebody

[QUOTE="luckystar23"][QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

No.

Natural Male Instict is to defend the female, and this can get in the way of combat situations. Also there is more chance of abuse (verbal and physical) from the men. There is obvously the attraction between man and woman that can get both distracted. Also, If captured by the enemy, Women face more horrible torture (ie Rape) than Men Would.

Strength is not a problem as many women are stronger than men.

And in actual fact. If the requirments were EXACTLY the same, they should be allowed, but they shouldnt get it any easier

Wetall_basic

Ok if you were on the frontlines, would you rather have a man fighting by your side or a woman. Let's just say they have equal strength.

In the military you can't exactly chose who you want to fight beside you based on who you "trust more." If you really have no preference towards having one gender fighting along with you that is quite interesting. Even everyday experiences should mold your choice slightly in one side's favor.

[QUOTE="Guiltfeeder566"][QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

No.

Natural Male Instict is to defend the female, and this can get in the way of combat situations. Also there is more chance of abuse (verbal and physical) from the men. There is obvously the attraction between man and woman that can get both distracted. Also, If captured by the enemy, Women face more horrible torture (ie Rape) than Men Would.

Strength is not a problem as many women are stronger than men.

And in actual fact. If the requirments were EXACTLY the same, they should be allowed, but they shouldnt get it any easier

Wetall_basic

Almost everyone knows that woman have less upper body strength then men, and that would allow them to be raped more easily. And male rape really isen't... ya...

And most men could do without raping a man. Due to both higher risk and "taste."

The claim that men have some instinct to defend women anymore than they would defend ANY comrad in arms,is baseless.
A woman may get ridiculed more than a man would,but how is that her fault? As for attraction,in a combat situation where your getting shot at,I doubt your thinking, "Damn,Mary looks hot right now". And a man can be raped just as easily as a woman can.
Wetall_basic

No. Its well documented. Even say if you saw a guy hitting a girl. Natural reaction is to defend the woman (Even if the woman could have started it or even if she had enough strength to defend herself) You see two guys beating each other up most of the time you would hestitate to step in, in fear of become part of the conflict. Dont give me some PC BS about how you would step in whether it was a Man or Woman being beaten.

Is it a woman fault that they might be abused? Of course not. But things like that DO happen. You cant deny it, and of course we dont want it to happen. It is much more likey to happen with frontline troops then say logistics or engineers as well.

I am not talking about attraction in combat situations like that. Im saying If Male Soldier A and Female Soldier A are 'an item' than Male Soldier A is more likely to try and defend Female Solider A than Male Solder B. Even if Male Soldier B is in more danger.

This depends upon the reason. Now historically I believe it was due to their ability to bear children with no other practical considerations, though certainly sexism was involved somewhere in there.

If its for the issues others have outlined here and that is in fact true then it makes sense, but if its still for the issue of child-bearing then they should be allowed.

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="luckystar23"][QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

No.

Natural Male Instict is to defend the female, and this can get in the way of combat situations. Also there is more chance of abuse (verbal and physical) from the men. There is obvously the attraction between man and woman that can get both distracted. Also, If captured by the enemy, Women face more horrible torture (ie Rape) than Men Would.

Strength is not a problem as many women are stronger than men.

And in actual fact. If the requirments were EXACTLY the same, they should be allowed, but they shouldnt get it any easier

luckystar23

Ok if you were on the frontlines, would you rather have a man fighting by your side or a woman. Let's just say they have equal strength.

In the military you can't exactly chose who you want to fight beside you based on who you "trust more." If you really have no preference towards having one gender fighting along with you that is quite interesting. Even everyday experiences should mold your choice slightly in one side's favor.

I don't really see what sex has to do with who I would like to fight alongside...

[QUOTE="JackMcSexbeard"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="JackMcSexbeard"]Yes i dont find anything wrong with it, I understand some of the arguments against it but if women want equal rights then they should be made to risk their lives as well. Combat isnt as physically strenuous as it used to be with more mobile, strategic warfare.Frattracide

wow. :lol:

What was the wow part?

I think its fine for a women to want to join the military if she wishes and she should be able to go to the frontlines as well, I dont see how they would be a burden, women can be just as courages as men and excell in a situation like that if given equal training.

Also by what I meant w/ combat being so less physically intense is that the strength and endurance meant to carry on in battle isnt the same as using swords and shields and doing hand to hand combat for long hours. This is when human kind became indoctinated with the idea that women should stay off the battlefield.

With modern warfare soilders only carry a gun and equipment the upperbody strength is important but not needed as much b/c it is not as strenuous, also the addition of aircraft and navies using advanced computerized weapons have med war less personal and roles can be found for anyone either women can succedd on the front just like men as long as they are kept to a high standard just like men.

What was so silly about my post?

Have you ever participated in armed conflict?

No so ill admit my ignorence on the subject but ill assume you have. So im just curious then if you could tell me certain things about the physical requirments.

How heavey is the rifle you carry along with all the equipment you wear?

When you go into an area where your going to engage the enemy do you march for several miles in possibly terrible weather conditions over the course of several weeks maybe more? or do you take a helicopter, jump out of a plane, take an APC?

How are the engagments fought? I mean tactically, do you run head long into another wall of men and fight it out through force of will and strength until one is either too tired or dead to fight, or do you use precise assults accompanied with air support, precision weapons. Is it more of a test of tactical soundness, training, prcision, intelliagnecce and bravery or is it just the bigger and stronger that wins?

I honestly have never fought in war and im not trying to be sarcastic or a jerk I just kind of want you to tell me whats wrong w/ my perceptions.

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="luckystar23"][QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

No.

Natural Male Instict is to defend the female, and this can get in the way of combat situations. Also there is more chance of abuse (verbal and physical) from the men. There is obvously the attraction between man and woman that can get both distracted. Also, If captured by the enemy, Women face more horrible torture (ie Rape) than Men Would.

Strength is not a problem as many women are stronger than men.

And in actual fact. If the requirments were EXACTLY the same, they should be allowed, but they shouldnt get it any easier

luckystar23

Ok if you were on the frontlines, would you rather have a man fighting by your side or a woman. Let's just say they have equal strength.

In the military you can't exactly chose who you want to fight beside you based on who you "trust more." If you really have no preference towards having one gender fighting along with you that is quite interesting. Even everyday experiences should mold your choice slightly in one side's favor.

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="Guiltfeeder566"][QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

No.

Natural Male Instict is to defend the female, and this can get in the way of combat situations. Also there is more chance of abuse (verbal and physical) from the men. There is obvously the attraction between man and woman that can get both distracted. Also, If captured by the enemy, Women face more horrible torture (ie Rape) than Men Would.

Strength is not a problem as many women are stronger than men.

And in actual fact. If the requirments were EXACTLY the same, they should be allowed, but they shouldnt get it any easier

Guiltfeeder566

Almost everyone knows that woman have less upper body strength then men, and that would allow them to be raped more easily. And male rape really isen't... ya...

And most men could do without raping a man. Due to both higher risk and "taste."

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"]

The claim that men have some instinct to defend women anymore than they would defend ANY comrad in arms,is baseless.
A woman may get ridiculed more than a man would,but how is that her fault? As for attraction,in a combat situation where your getting shot at,I doubt your thinking, "Damn,Mary looks hot right now". And a man can be raped just as easily as a woman can.
PerilousWolf

No. Its well documented. Even say if you saw a guy hitting a girl. Natural reaction is to defend the woman (Even if the woman could have started it or even if she had enough strength to defend herself) You see two guys beating each other up most of the time you would hestitate to step in, in fear of become part of the conflict. Dont give me some PC BS about how you would step in whether it was a Man or Woman being beaten.

Is it a woman fault that they might be abused? Of course not. But things like that DO happen. You cant deny it, and of course we dont want it to happen. It is much more likey to happen with frontline troops then say logistics or engineers as well.

I am not talking about attraction in combat situations like that. Im saying If Male Soldier A and Female Soldier A are 'an item' than Male Soldier A is more likely to try and defend Female Solider A than Male Solder B. Even if Male Soldier B is in more danger.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="JackMcSexbeard"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="JackMcSexbeard"]Yes i dont find anything wrong with it, I understand some of the arguments against it but if women want equal rights then they should be made to risk their lives as well. Combat isnt as physically strenuous as it used to be with more mobile, strategic warfare.JackMcSexbeard

wow. :lol:

What was the wow part?

I think its fine for a women to want to join the military if she wishes and she should be able to go to the frontlines as well, I dont see how they would be a burden, women can be just as courages as men and excell in a situation like that if given equal training.

Also by what I meant w/ combat being so less physically intense is that the strength and endurance meant to carry on in battle isnt the same as using swords and shields and doing hand to hand combat for long hours. This is when human kind became indoctinated with the idea that women should stay off the battlefield.

With modern warfare soilders only carry a gun and equipment the upperbody strength is important but not needed as much b/c it is not as strenuous, also the addition of aircraft and navies using advanced computerized weapons have med war less personal and roles can be found for anyone either women can succedd on the front just like men as long as they are kept to a high standard just like men.

What was so silly about my post?

Have you ever participated in armed conflict?

No so ill admit my ignorence on the subject but ill assume you have. So im just curious then if you could tell me certain things about the physical requirments.

How heavey is the rifle you carry along with all the equipment you wear?

When you go into an area where your going to engage the enemy do you march for several miles in possibly terrible weather conditions over the course of several weeks maybe more? or do you take a helicopter, jump out of a plane, take an APC?

How are the engagments fought? I mean tactically, do you run head long into another wall of men and fight it out through force of will and strength until one is either too tired or dead to fight, or do you use precise assults accompanied with air support, precision weapons. Is it more of a test of tactical soundness, training, prcision, intelliagnecce and bravery or is it just the bigger and stronger that wins?

I honestly have never fought in war and im not trying to be sarcastic or a jerk I just kind of want you to tell me whats wrong w/ my perceptions.

I'll be honest, I'm new to this job and have yet to fight (A temporary condition to be sure.) But I know people who have and have been training to for the last year and a half. What you do depends on who you are. Though, the guys who do fight will go very long distances on foot The crap you carry is heavy. Not as heavy as iron plate armor but consider most ancient fighters were peasants who didn't have armor, the guys who could afford it road horseback. Combat in an urban environment is extremely exhausting. Crewing an aircraft or an armored unit is too. There are no rules like there used to be, you are always on edge, you are always a target. ALWAYS. Even when you go inside the wire. We function in a high stress, high fatigue, high speed environment which is very draining both mentally and physically. Why do you think that recruits get yelled at in basic/boot camp? Why do you think they are deprived sleep? Just because we got smart about the way we fight doesn't mean it got easier.

[QUOTE="JackMcSexbeard"][QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="JackMcSexbeard"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="JackMcSexbeard"]Yes i dont find anything wrong with it, I understand some of the arguments against it but if women want equal rights then they should be made to risk their lives as well. Combat isnt as physically strenuous as it used to be with more mobile, strategic warfare.Frattracide

wow. :lol:

What was the wow part?

I think its fine for a women to want to join the military if she wishes and she should be able to go to the frontlines as well, I dont see how they would be a burden, women can be just as courages as men and excell in a situation like that if given equal training.

Also by what I meant w/ combat being so less physically intense is that the strength and endurance meant to carry on in battle isnt the same as using swords and shields and doing hand to hand combat for long hours. This is when human kind became indoctinated with the idea that women should stay off the battlefield.

With modern warfare soilders only carry a gun and equipment the upperbody strength is important but not needed as much b/c it is not as strenuous, also the addition of aircraft and navies using advanced computerized weapons have med war less personal and roles can be found for anyone either women can succedd on the front just like men as long as they are kept to a high standard just like men.

What was so silly about my post?

Have you ever participated in armed conflict?

No so ill admit my ignorence on the subject but ill assume you have. So im just curious then if you could tell me certain things about the physical requirments.

How heavey is the rifle you carry along with all the equipment you wear?

When you go into an area where your going to engage the enemy do you march for several miles in possibly terrible weather conditions over the course of several weeks maybe more? or do you take a helicopter, jump out of a plane, take an APC?

How are the engagments fought? I mean tactically, do you run head long into another wall of men and fight it out through force of will and strength until one is either too tired or dead to fight, or do you use precise assults accompanied with air support, precision weapons. Is it more of a test of tactical soundness, training, prcision, intelliagnecce and bravery or is it just the bigger and stronger that wins?

I honestly have never fought in war and im not trying to be sarcastic or a jerk I just kind of want you to tell me whats wrong w/ my perceptions.

I'll be honest, I'm new to this job and have yet to fight (A temporary condition to be sure.) But I know people who have and have been training to for the last year and a half. What you do depends on who you are. Though, the guys who do fight will go very long distances on foot The crap you carry is heavy. Not as heavy as iron plate armor but consider most ancient fighters were peasants who didn't have armor, the guys who could afford it road horseback. Combat in an urban environment is extremely exhausting. Crewing an aircraft or an armored unit is too. There are no rules like there used to be, you are always on edge, you are always a target. ALWAYS. Even when you go inside the wire. We function in a high stress, high fatigue, high speed environment which is very draining both mentally and physically. Why do you think that recruits get yelled at in basic/boot camp? Why do you think they are deprived sleep? Just because we got smart about the way we fight doesn't mean it got easier.

I am 21 years old and I have done and seen things most people will never experience in their lifetime. I haven't even started to play this game.

Thanks, I never meant to trivialize what it took to be a soilder and I have a lot of respect for you for doing that, but I guess the point that I was trying to make was that the intense physical nature of one on one combat is alot different then the technologically advanced warfare that takes place now, but I guess I over simplified that too much without taking into account the door-to-door urban combat In Iraq right now.

However I would still say that a women, if held to the same standard and trained as well can succeed in combat or at the very least pilet aircraft, I dont know if you were disagreeing with me on that or not but I don't see how it would be a big deal, but then again im not in that enviroment.

But thanks for the reply and stay safe out there, again sorry if I came of as disrespectful anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc-ZAMPDmTA

no

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="JackMcSexbeard"][QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="JackMcSexbeard"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="JackMcSexbeard"]Yes i dont find anything wrong with it, I understand some of the arguments against it but if women want equal rights then they should be made to risk their lives as well. Combat isnt as physically strenuous as it used to be with more mobile, strategic warfare.JackMcSexbeard

wow. :lol:

What was the wow part?

I think its fine for a women to want to join the military if she wishes and she should be able to go to the frontlines as well, I dont see how they would be a burden, women can be just as courages as men and excell in a situation like that if given equal training.

Also by what I meant w/ combat being so less physically intense is that the strength and endurance meant to carry on in battle isnt the same as using swords and shields and doing hand to hand combat for long hours. This is when human kind became indoctinated with the idea that women should stay off the battlefield.

With modern warfare soilders only carry a gun and equipment the upperbody strength is important but not needed as much b/c it is not as strenuous, also the addition of aircraft and navies using advanced computerized weapons have med war less personal and roles can be found for anyone either women can succedd on the front just like men as long as they are kept to a high standard just like men.

What was so silly about my post?

Have you ever participated in armed conflict?

No so ill admit my ignorence on the subject but ill assume you have. So im just curious then if you could tell me certain things about the physical requirments.

How heavey is the rifle you carry along with all the equipment you wear?

When you go into an area where your going to engage the enemy do you march for several miles in possibly terrible weather conditions over the course of several weeks maybe more? or do you take a helicopter, jump out of a plane, take an APC?

How are the engagments fought? I mean tactically, do you run head long into another wall of men and fight it out through force of will and strength until one is either too tired or dead to fight, or do you use precise assults accompanied with air support, precision weapons. Is it more of a test of tactical soundness, training, prcision, intelliagnecce and bravery or is it just the bigger and stronger that wins?

I honestly have never fought in war and im not trying to be sarcastic or a jerk I just kind of want you to tell me whats wrong w/ my perceptions.

I'll be honest, I'm new to this job and have yet to fight (A temporary condition to be sure.) But I know people who have and have been training to for the last year and a half. What you do depends on who you are. Though, the guys who do fight will go very long distances on foot The crap you carry is heavy. Not as heavy as iron plate armor but consider most ancient fighters were peasants who didn't have armor, the guys who could afford it road horseback. Combat in an urban environment is extremely exhausting. Crewing an aircraft or an armored unit is too. There are no rules like there used to be, you are always on edge, you are always a target. ALWAYS. Even when you go inside the wire. We function in a high stress, high fatigue, high speed environment which is very draining both mentally and physically. Why do you think that recruits get yelled at in basic/boot camp? Why do you think they are deprived sleep? Just because we got smart about the way we fight doesn't mean it got easier.

I am 21 years old and I have done and seen things most people will never experience in their lifetime. I haven't even started to play this game.

Thanks, I never meant to trivialize what it took to be a soilder and I have a lot of respect for you for doing that, but I guess the point that I was trying to make was that the intense physical nature of one on one combat is alot different then the technologically advanced warfare that takes place now, but I guess I over simplified that too much without taking into account the door-to-door urban combat In Iraq right now.

However I would still say that a women, if held to the same standard and trained as well can succeed in combat or at the very least pilet aircraft, I dont know if you were disagreeing with me on that or not but I don't see how it would be a big deal, but then again im not in that enviroment.

But thanks for the reply and stay safe out there, again sorry if I came of as disrespectful anything.

No disagreement there. If they can and will thats fine by me. They're just harder to impress because they do the same crap you do. Oh well, BDU's and flight suits aren't exactly form fitting anyways.

Do you think women should be allowed on the front lines in wars?

The reason some people say no is because women DO lack the upper body strength to pull an injured comrad back, and that does make a lot of sense.

Others say yes because they think it isn't fair.

fatzombiepigeon

If they were all women, then we wouldn't have this problem. ;)

Strength isn't the problem, they go through the same training anyway, if they pass training then YAY they can fight, and pull, and shoot, and run, etc. etc.

I think someone mentioned earlier that it's because of just "sex related" problems,, and that doesn't just mean "intercourse".

I think its ok, so long as they don't have really big boobs that distract the other soldiers or give away their squads position.imsomebody

No but seriously women should be if they are strong enough to pull the injured back.

[QUOTE="imsomebody"]I think its ok, so long as they don't have really big boobs that distract the other soldiers or give away their squads position.darkIink

No but seriously women should be if they are strong enough to pull the injured back.

I doubt an insurgent hellbent on killing you is going to be distracted by flashing, and I doubt he'd even notice.

:P

Seriously though, the people over there they're fighting, can be really crazy.

[QUOTE="Guiltfeeder566"][QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="Guiltfeeder566"][QUOTE="Wetall_basic"][QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

No.

Natural Male Instict is to defend the female, and this can get in the way of combat situations. Also there is more chance of abuse (verbal and physical) from the men. There is obvously the attraction between man and woman that can get both distracted. Also, If captured by the enemy, Women face more horrible torture (ie Rape) than Men Would.

Strength is not a problem as many women are stronger than men.

And in actual fact. If the requirments were EXACTLY the same, they should be allowed, but they shouldnt get it any easier

Wetall_basic

Almost everyone knows that woman have less upper body strength then men, and that would allow them to be raped more easily. And male rape really isen't... ya...

And most men could do without raping a man. Due to both higher risk and "taste."

If a female is put through the same physical and mental testing as a male and they achieve the necessary results to pass then sure I see no reason why not, now if the testing is made easier for a female then well, I think that's stupid and insulting.

Now the argument that females will distract males, well quite frankly it's the stupidest thing I have ever heard, these soldiers are mentally disciplined against that kind of thing and if it's a problem then fault lay's in the training not in the women not to mention I am seriously doubting the amount of self control males have if you think that will be a problem. Same thing goes for forming relationships, it's against regulations for good reason, again I fail to see the problem, how is it any different then if you're best mate was in trouble and you'd rather try save him then the more severally wounded soldier you hardly know?

The suggestion that a male would more likely come to the aid of a female is probably correct to, as from my experience that does indeed happed but that is the whole reason for mental training and if men cant get past that simple basic instinct then perhaps we should rethink having males on the frontline, which of course probably sounds stupid to you but what does it say about men if they can't get past their animal instincts? Now remember I was not the one who suggested they can't, I think they can and therefore the whole point is moot.

The sexual abuse is perhaps a valid point, is she gets captured by the enemy then yeah chances are she'll be raped of course a female soldier must be fully prepared for that and that doesn't just go for frontline soldiers. All female soldiers, whether frontline or not can be captured and they should be prepared for that same as males (who are almost just as likely to be sodomised). Now the sexual abuse that could occur in her own unit from fellow soldiers, well that's disgusting and I would say more the fault of a defective selection process, potential rapists should not be allowed in the military. Now of course nothing is perfect and a few imbalanced people will still slip through the cracks but really it's probably just as likely a girl will get raped walking down the street, it's disgusting and unacceptable but sadly a part of life for females that may never change.

Female soldiers? Sure, if they dont mind being captured and raped :D

women joining the military is genius

the enemy wont want to kill the women, just capture and rape them, THEN eventually kill them :)

Hypothetic Random Situation

There is a squard of soldeirs patrolling the streets of bagdad. 5 men and 1 woman. The woman is at the back of the group to take guard. Off to the side, a Iraqi women sticks a gun out a window aiming for the squad. She is milisecond form firing. The woman at the back is the only able to see this. She quickly raises her gun and get the iraqi woman in the crosshairs. She hesitates for half a second to take the life of the other women and half the squad get shot.

Its natural female instict to be more nuturing (less aggresive) and less likely to willing to kill someone if given the choice. Im not saying all female solders would hestitate. But im pretty sure a few might. And I am very sure that a woman solders is more likely to hestitate.

So is that sexist to say? Well probably to some of you. But far out sometimes pointing out the differences between the sexes is not sexist. We should be equal but we are NOT the same. Physically and Mentally.

Yes, G.I. Jane convinced me. :lol:

I think women should play different roles in front line combat. There are now female fighter pilots who give support to ground troops, how is that not at the front line? I've also heard that females make better snipers than men do, but maybe I'm mistaken. Would that be considered front line?

If you mean "boots on the ground" front line conflict, then no......I don't agree.

women dont make better of ANYTHING, we're equal, REMEMBER?

LOLOLOL

thats what they want you to think

Hypothetic Random Situation

There is a squard of soldeirs patrolling the streets of bagdad. 5 men and 1 woman. The woman is at the back of the group to take guard. Off to the side, a Iraqi women sticks a gun out a window aiming for the squad. She is milisecond form firing. The woman at the back is the only able to see this. She quickly raises her gun and get the iraqi woman in the crosshairs. She hesitates for half a second to take the life of the other women and half the squad get shot.

Its natural female instict to be more nuturing (less aggresive) and less likely to willing to kill someone if given the choice. Im not saying all female solders would hestitate. But im pretty sure a few might. And I am very sure that a woman solders is more likely to hestitate.

So is that sexist to say? Well probably to some of you. But far out sometimes pointing out the differences between the sexes is not sexist. We should be equal but we are NOT the same. Physically and Mentally.

PerilousWolf

[QUOTE="PerilousWolf"]

Hypothetic Random Situation

There is a squard of soldeirs patrolling the streets of bagdad. 5 men and 1 woman. The woman is at the back of the group to take guard. Off to the side, a Iraqi women sticks a gun out a window aiming for the squad. She is milisecond form firing. The woman at the back is the only able to see this. She quickly raises her gun and get the iraqi woman in the crosshairs. She hesitates for half a second to take the life of the other women and half the squad get shot.

Its natural female instict to be more nuturing (less aggresive) and less likely to willing to kill someone if given the choice. Im not saying all female solders would hestitate. But im pretty sure a few might. And I am very sure that a woman solders is more likely to hestitate.

So is that sexist to say? Well probably to some of you. But far out sometimes pointing out the differences between the sexes is not sexist. We should be equal but we are NOT the same. Physically and Mentally.

Wetall_basic

umm, clearly men like to shoot sh!t and women are pu$$ies, WHY? because they has pu$$ies

Hypothetic Random Situation

There is a squard of soldeirs patrolling the streets of bagdad. 5 men and 1 woman. The woman is at the back of the group to take guard. Off to the side, a Iraqi women sticks a gun out a window aiming for the squad. She is milisecond form firing. The woman at the back is the only able to see this. She quickly raises her gun and get the iraqi woman in the crosshairs. She hesitates for half a second to take the life of the other women and half the squad get shot.

Its natural female instict to be more nuturing (less aggresive) and less likely to willing to kill someone if given the choice. Im not saying all female solders would hestitate. But im pretty sure a few might. And I am very sure that a woman solders is more likely to hestitate.

So is that sexist to say? Well probably to some of you. But far out sometimes pointing out the differences between the sexes is not sexist. We should be equal but we are NOT the same. Physically and Mentally.

PerilousWolf

I agree that males and females are not the same psychologically, but 'more likely' is not a good enough excuse. There maybe males who have the same delayed reaction, yet there exists no test to judge that.

Women might hesitate to shoot a pregnant woman

for all thye know, it could be a woman with a bomb in thier tummies, and even if it was a real baby, the enemy has shown they are not afraid to kill themselves and others

That is possibly the most retarded hypothetical situation I've ever heard.

To say that women are somehow less likely to shoot when they see an hostile soldier is completely rediculus. There is absolutely no bases for that statement, this nuturing nonsense is clearly something you've just pulled out of your ass. The idea that a woman is somehow inclined not to shoot another female soldier is completely ridiculus. It makes no more sense than saying a male would hesitate to shoot an enemy because they are male,or for that matter female.
Wetall_basic

Key words there. I didnt say hostile soldiers. I said a woman civilian who is about to shoot.

Increasinly (since Vietnam) conflict is become less about Army vs Army and more about Army vs Hidden Enemy.

We both know men have been killing men for millions of years. Its not in women nature to be aggresive or war-mongering.

I am saying in this HYPOTHETIC situation can you 100% gaurentee that the Women is not more likely to hestitate than a man?

There is no way to prove this but from what you can 'estimate' its PROBABLY more likey for a Female to stutter than Male.

It may only be a 1 in 10000 chance of that hisitation happening. But if the mans is 1/50000 than thats a risk that shouldnt have to be taken

[QUOTE="Wetall_basic"]

That is possibly the most retarded hypothetical situation I've ever heard.

To say that women are somehow less likely to shoot when they see an hostile soldier is completely rediculus. There is absolutely no bases for that statement, this nuturing nonsense is clearly something you've just pulled out of your ass. The idea that a woman is somehow inclined not to shoot another female soldier is completely ridiculus. It makes no more sense than saying a male would hesitate to shoot an enemy because they are male,or for that matter female.
PerilousWolf

Key words there. I didnt say hostile soldiers. I said a woman civilian who is about to shoot.

Increasinly (since Vietnam) conflict is become less about Army vs Army and more about Army vs Hidden Enemy.

We both know men have been killing men for millions of years. Its not in women nature to be aggresive or war-mongering.

I am saying in this HYPOTHETIC situation can you 100% gaurentee that the Women is not more likely to hestitate than a man?

There is no way to prove this but from what you can 'estimate' its PROBABLY more likey for a Female to stutter than Male.

It may only be a 1 in 10000 chance of that hisitation happening. But if the mans is 1/50000 than thats a risk that shouldnt have to be taken

But you're basing that argument on absolutely nothing other then an old notion that most males are brought up with, that females are extremely sensitive and weak minded and governed by their emotions. Let me ask you a question, would you be more at ease at killing someone just because 20 thousand years ago your male ancestors were beating each other heads in? You do realise how retarded that sounds right?

Your not basing your argument on anything substantial, and you're not backing up your claims on anything, see I could say women are far more protective over their comrades due to their protective mothering instincts and therefore more likely to shoot to protect her friends. See how I can make up stuff to back up my claims, maybe my example it true, maybe it's not I'm not going to claim either way.

Also there is such a thing as mental conditioning and training, soldier are trained to prepare for the eventuality of killing a civilian and to claim a male will be more at ease killing a civilian is completely baseless and not to mention retarded, also there is the fact wars are becoming less and less lethal, a soldier will have other options other then just straight up killing.