• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Women in Modern War.

Vermehlo_Steele

Grand Arbiter II
Women already serve in several War Machines around the world including the USA, EU/ NATO, Russia, Israel, Thailand, Turkey, Australia and a few others.

However only in Australia, Sweden and Israel (from what I have heard) are women allowed to serve in all heavy duty roles such as infantry, armour (tanks), artillery and special forces. NATO/ Russia and others don't allow women to serve in the most heavy duty work, but allow women on ships, aircraft, non-tank vehicles and auxillary roles like technicians, communication operators and medical staff.

The point is that most modern War Machines allow women to serve, but not in a few restricted areas.

Reasons used for this include physical concerns, distorted chivalry, sex discrimination and traditonal views on 'womens roles'.



So, are women allowed to fight (and risk death) along side men in all roles such as infantry or tank operators or should restrictions be put in place.

Personally, I believe that they shouldn't be restricted based on gender.
 

7 tyranitars

Well-Known Member
I agree, since that can be considered discrimination, next to the should have the free chooice to do so, I think it's really hypocrit from the member of nato (which my country is part off) who consider themself free countries that you can do what you want (except killing random people or stealing you know what I mean..
 

BlazeShadow

Well-Known Member
IMO no, but that would mean men not fighting either, because why would we need to fight against each other at all? >_<

Otherwise, sure. If they want to.
 

ShinyPichu4Ever

Eye of the Storm
I think that if they want to, they should be allowed to.
 

Ash-kid

Ash-kid
They shouldn't be involved in wars. Only men can fight and use weapon without any fear.
 

Kaim_Fabuyashi

Prepare Yourself
They shouldn't be involved in wars. Only men can fight and use weapon without any fear.

Evidence please. Debating = opinions with things to back up said opinion.



Personally, I say why not? Not to sound like a sexist pig, but if women want the same rights as men, they need to take the responsibility that comes with it. Some may not be too thrilled about that, but oh well, if they didn't have too (like they don't now), then it's pretty much discrimination against men, since we are getting killed for a job they should be contributing too as well, not just support jobs. It's almost like having your dessert and eating it too, which the men cant do, cause they're getting shot at. XD

~Kaim
 

Sarcasticus

Pleasure's all yours
They shouldn't be involved in wars. Only men can fight and use weapon without any fear.

okay, why shouldn't they be involved? where is the supporting evidence for your argument that only men can fight and use weapons without fear? Who says they fight without fear? Without any explanation as to why you have your posture, your argument is only an opinion, and as far as I know, opinions alone aren't well received in debates.

As for my posture here, yes, they should be allowed to be in any type of military branch, because the base differences between men and women are minimal, and the large ones which seem to be causing all this discrimination are purely social.
 

Ash-kid

Ash-kid
Evidence please. Debating = opinions with things to back up said opinion.



Personally, I say why not? Not to sound like a sexist pig, but if women want the same rights as men, they need to take the responsibility that comes with it. Some may not be too thrilled about that, but oh well, if they didn't have too (like they don't now), then it's pretty much discrimination against men, since we are getting killed for a job they should be contributing too as well, not just support jobs. It's almost like having your dessert and eating it too, which the men cant do, cause they're getting shot at. XD

~Kaim

In my opinion there are several reasons:

1. If they will be hurt everyone will say then that it was a mistake to bring women to a war.
2. Men's hard to function/concentrate when women are near to them. it's a fact.
 

Sarcasticus

Pleasure's all yours
In my opinion there are several reasons:

1. If they will be hurt everyone will say then that it was a mistake to bring women to a war.
2. Men's hard to function/concentrate when women are near to them. it's a fact.

1-war is supposed to get people hurt, it's war, it's not like you're drafting them blindfolded.

2-I guess all that military discipline and separate training facilities don't really count for that, and yeah it's totally women's fault men can't keep their pants on.
 

FEEPtheFlareon

Crazy but not insane
Women know what they're getting into when they enter war. We have more to prove b/c history tells us that men think they have to be the stronger version, when in truth, women are just as strong, if not stronger.
 

FEEPtheFlareon

Crazy but not insane
;136;Women know what they're getting into when they enter war. We have more to prove b/c history tells us that men think they have to be the stronger version, when in truth, women are just as strong, if not stronger.;136;
 

Kaim_Fabuyashi

Prepare Yourself
Ash-kid said:
In my opinion there are several reasons:

1. If they will be hurt everyone will say then that it was a mistake to bring women to a war.
2. Men's hard to function/concentrate when women are near to them. it's a fact.

I think Sarcasticus summed it up pretty well XD

Women know what they're getting into when they enter war. We have more to prove b/c history tells us that men think they have to be the stronger version, when in truth, women are just as strong, if not stronger.

;136;Women know what they're getting into when they enter war. We have more to prove b/c history tells us that men think they have to be the stronger version, when in truth, women are just as strong, if not stronger.;136;

Holy effff, deja vu. Minus the Flareons @__@

It is proven that women have a better tolerance for pain, but again, I go with with that one is not better/stronger over all, we each have our pro's and con's.

~Kaim
 

~p 0 k e y

Well-Known Member
The average woman wouldn't last a second on the front line and would be a liability. Sorry to burst your bubble feminists.
 
Last edited:
They shouldn't be involved in wars. Only men can fight and use weapon without any fear.
And somebody with your stupidity level shouldn't be allowed to serve, either!

As usual, it should be based on qualification. While it is biologically true that the typical woman is not as strong as the typical man, there are always women who break that barrier. It shouldn't be closed off to all of them.
 

Kaim_Fabuyashi

Prepare Yourself
The average woman wouldn't last a second on the front line. Sorry to burst your bubble feminists.

'Tis why we have something called training. An average male wont last a second either, thats why he get trained. After that no one who goes through training is average because now they are specialized in something.

~Kaim
 

Ethan

Banned
I truly don't think it has anything to do with discrimination. Women are allowed in the military, and in fact they can be any rank in the military as well. The United States appointed a female 4 star general not that long ago. I'd imagine that the restrictions placed on women in war may have similar reason to why you can't shoot a doe, a female deer. Men are more dispensable than women are. Countries like Israel only allow women to serve in combat roles because they need all the resources that they can get. Israel is basically a giant military academy, and rightfully so considering all the enemies that surround them.

There is also the fact that most women can't be physically on par with men. If we were to introduce co-ed platoons for the sake of "gender equality" we would have issues with women not being able to keep up or dragging their fellow soldiers down in combat. Plus there are already huge issues with soldiers getting female soldiers pregnant in Iraq to get sent back home (Which is now an offense that can be court marshaled I believe.) and this would only get worse if women were allowed into more integrated roles with men.

Once again, I have no issues with women in the military. But just because you see discrepancies don't cry sexism.
 

~p 0 k e y

Well-Known Member
You can train a woman all you want, but most women can't handle the front line due to their physicality.
 

Ethan

Banned
I truly don't think it has anything to do with discrimination. Women are allowed in the military, and in fact they can be any rank in the military as well. The United States appointed a female 4 star general not that long ago. I'd imagine that the restrictions placed on women in war may have similar reason to why you can't shoot a doe, a female deer. Men are more dispensable than women are. Countries like Israel only allow women to serve in combat roles because they need all the resources that they can get. Israel is basically a giant military academy, and rightfully so considering all the enemies that surround them.

There is also the fact that most women can't be physically on par with men. If we were to introduce co-ed platoons for the sake of "gender equality" we would have issues with women not being able to keep up or dragging their fellow soldiers down in combat. Plus there are already huge issues with soldiers getting female soldiers pregnant in Iraq to get sent back home (Which is now an offense that can be court marshaled I believe.) and this would only get worse if women were allowed into more integrated roles with men.

Once again, I have no issues with women in the military. But just because you see discrepancies don't cry sexism.
 

TomDraco

I'm a /tr/ainer.
My question is, how do we know that women would be reduced to "thumb-sucking crybabies" on the battlefeild? We really haven't seen much of women's skills on the front lines. I bet there are some tough women who would love to serve in infantry or other combat roles. Actually, this whole thing reminds me of the story during the American Revolutionary War where a woman let a few British soilders into her home, and when they weren't looking, she took one of their guns, and she held them up. Things like that make me think that women could serve.

But, I can see reasoning behind the restriction here, as the media and other groups would pound the government for letting women serve. It's as complicated as letting homosexuals serve without "don't ask, don't tell", but that's a diffrent debate.

MY opinion though: Women should be allowed to serve in the military in combatant roles voluntarly, and if there's a draft, women should be exempt from it.
 
Top