Should women be allowed to serve on the front lines?

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

Trump’s pick for defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has very openly stated he feels women have no place alongside men in combat claiming “[Women] has made fighting more complicated.” And it’s believed he’ll try to undo the pentagon’s allowance for open combat positions for women in the military. Do you agree with this view?

Yes, women should not be on the battlefield with men

I don’t like the idea of women on the battlefield but I don’t think it’s a good idea to stop them

No, women have the right to serve their country just like the men do

[NathanOlipop]

The reality is that when I was in the service, rather women liked it or not, they went to the front lines and fought with people. The only difference today is that they can finally earn recognition, while before they still had to fight in the front. It's not a matter of them being allowed in combat arms, but a matter of them having to fight because they had no choice. There had been women with more confirmed kills than men and they couldn't even get a blue cord like men. Now should women be forced to fight? No. Nobody should, not even men.

[overlord337645]

truthfully I love the idea of women getting to serve it shows that they love there country and nothing less it also allows us to realize that women are capable of everything men do even if some men and or women cannot accept that fact

[CalmUntilAbused]

That's not the point. There is actually a certain thing only women can are capable of that makes it rational not to put them at the frontlines - they are the only ones capable of bearing children once the war ends to replenish the nation's demographic potential.

[overlord337645]

@CalmUntilAbused from your perspective women are nothing more than sexual slaves to men and meant only to carry on life while not getting to do what they want to do

[CalmUntilAbused]

@overlord337645 That's Your misinterpretation. All I meant is that it's foolish to allow women to die. An unbiased person would say I want to protect women from dying (whatever my potential reasons for this might be), but it looks like You want to see the worst possible intention in everything.

[overlord337645]

@CalmUntilAbused no i just see that this world is not perfect and people are sick and degenerative towards others so i would not be suprised if someones meaning was that and if you wanna be an optomist great but gonna be honest its not always best to lead with that

[CalmUntilAbused]

In case of a war, it's not even about sex itself anymore - it's simply crucial to replenish the nation's demographic potential in expectation of a potential subsequent war, and to simply be able to rebuild the country. But I guess You can only see the darkest intentions in rational proposals. If I went the same way about You, I'd say You want people to die in horrible agony at the frontlines, bleeding out slowly before finally losing consciousness. You see... War is not a match of Call of Duty!

[overlord337645]

also if you did mean that you could have phrased it better just for future refrences

[CalmUntilAbused]

"I'd say You want women to die in horrible agony"*

[overlord337645]

@CalmUntilAbused honestly not gonna continue this but i want women to have the same freedom men do if they die they know what they are getting into when signing up and if not then there family will and thats not our call to make

[CalmUntilAbused]

@overlord337645 Well... It is true that I might have phrased my point in a better way, but seeing women as sex slaves is too far of a misinterpretation. Usually, You'd take sex slaves with You to the barracks for Your own pleasure, at the very least, since You would not really care about their lives, instead of leaving them safely at home and giving them the best protection You can muster, right?

On the other hand, I am not fine with leaving anything ambigous as to why I want the women protected better than men. I do not believe in protecting women just for the sake of it, that would be massive simping and I would be rightfully chewed out by the members of the wide manosphere for that. It's their very special role in the society that earns them the additional protection in case of war. If not for that role... Well, they are just as good as cannon fodder as men are.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Of course women should be allowed.

Aren't some of these pilled men complaining that they are the only ones that can get drafted for war and yet you have women willing to defend their country in combat positions, shoulder to shoulder, with their brothers in arms and now they are saying women shouldn't be allowed? It's like they can't make themselves the victim enough.

As for the excuse women can be raped, so can men. It's not exclusive to just women. Should nobody serve if that's what is holding them back?

[CalmUntilAbused]

It is still worse for women... and for the population at large if they are allowed at the frontlines. War depletes the nation's demographic potential significantly. Every woman who dies at the frontlines means less capacity to replenish the nation's demographic potential. Though I guess it's fine to send all the abortion-supporting women to the frontlines - they have no real capacity to replenish the nation's demographic potential to begin with. It's not that I'm hating on them - it's just that if they will not bear children anyway, there is no utilitarian need to protect them more than men.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

There will be plenty of women behind who will "help repopulate". Negating women from serving their country because they can bear children is a dumb reason in my opinion. I mean, by your reasoning, men shouldn't serve either because they are also needed to make children.

[CalmUntilAbused]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 Well... The problem is, a woman can only bear one pregnancy per 9 months, and if we actually care about the woman's well-being, it should be more than that, like 12 months at least, with the equilibrium around 15 months, perhaps. As for men... Well, in case of an extreme emergency, one man can make several women pregnant. That's even apparently the reason why polygamy was allowed in Islam - so many men died in the first few wars to spread Islam that a lot of women became widows or simply lonely. Therefore, as long as a man could afford to support more than one wife (and pay the government a certain premium for this right), he was allowed to have more than one wife. In an after-war scenario, every single woman's life matters, while men are more disposable in this particular context. Therefore, while women should not be strictly forbidden from enlisting the army, they should be heavily discouraged from doing so and mostly put in rear echelon positions in they are dedicated enough to join anyway.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

As I said, there will be plenty of women back home to repopulate. Let those women who want to serve in the front lines, do so.

[CalmUntilAbused]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 If they really wish to... But a few roadblocks in order to make sure they really know what they are up to would be nice.

[CalmUntilAbused]

Also... No there will not be enough women in any society to repopulate the given society in case of a global war. Not even if not a single woman dies during the war, it will still be barely enough.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

No roadblocks other than basic training and then any specialized training of they are going to be special forces. They go through the same kind of training men do and that's it.

[petitedollbabee]

Accidentally clicked the wrong option and said “yes” when I meant to say “no” 🫠

[NaultD]

I don't think over half of men are qualified for the front lines. It's almost like 7 to 1 ratio non combat roles to ready a combat role.

We should probably redo the public imagine of the military of what it actually does 80% of the time.

[TheStaleMarshmellow]

Just dont lower the standards just to have more women wanting to serve...

A bullet won't care! Be prepared! Tax money is being spent aswell.

[DrPepper12]

Women can and should serve in any capacity that they desire without artificial roadblocks from the brass.

[BradleyScheff]

No they shouldn't. They hold the men back, they aren't as strong and whatnot. Also, you don't want them to be war captives and be raped.

[TheStaleMarshmellow]

They signed up for it in the end like everyone else in peace time.

[Gwendoline]

Wasn't Tulsi Gabbard a soldier?

[RedInnocent69]

Sure, they’re sneaky enough

[KrakenAttackin]

Absolutely not.