Why have feminists never been bothered to 'fight' for the right to fight on the frontline?

Question

Is this proof that feminists only want the good qualities of being a man?

Answer 1

You've seriously have not performed any research. Many women (and some feminist) have been pushing for women to have the right to "fight on the front line". I know this for a fact, because when I was in the Navy there was a lot of controversy surrounding it (while in the gulf). But many men such as you and some of the other guys in here feel that women don't belong on the front line.

In my personal opinion, I wouldn't want to be on the front line. But while serving on board the ship I wouldn't have had a choice. If the ship took a hit, damage control was not going to stop so that all the women could exit the ship. So we all had to know the basic damage control skills needed to save a ship and its crew. A hostel action from an opposing country puts everyone in a unit, squadron, or platoon in a combative status (regardless of s*x). Like the many women who end up taking arms next too their male counterparts in Iraqi EVERY DAY! A lot of you guys don't understand that there are already women fighting behind enemy lines. There are women who're been placed in combative roles with out it being official on paper. We may not be able to sign up for infantry, but we're still trained to fight like we are. And when the time calls for it we do what’s needed in order to save our @$$es and the man or woman next too us. I have a number of female friends serving in the war right now that’ve had to fire weapons, been caught in ambushes, and injured by roadside bombs. So we do take up arms and fight, it's just not recognized by congress.

And can you please tell me what the good qualities of being a man are?

Answer 2

Well first of all you are wrong and many women do fight for just that.  But here's where your thinking becomes skewed.  You seem to believe that a "feminist" will line up and fight for any "right", simply because a man has it.  Men often have stupid ideas - fighting to join in the insanity doesn't make you a feminist, it just makes you equally insane.  Take the concept of war for example.  There's conflict.  How to solve from a man's perspective?  Let's amass armies and weapons and kill each other.  Who cares if we blow up the planet too?  At least we showed our enemies who's boss and with any luck we'll end up in a casket but hey at least we'll have a really cool medal and our parents and spouses and children will get a folded flag.  Why not flip a coin?  Why not play basketball?  How about an international law that says soldiers must be over the age of 60 - you'd be surprised how many men at that age realize that when all is said and done, nothing is really that important.  Instead "thinkers" of both sexes quietly go about the process of raising our children with truly radical ideas that challenge the "norm" - that conflict can be solved without bloodshed and bombs and death; that there exists the possibility that at some future point we can all exist peacefully and that there truly something wrong with any society that professes to love their children and then at the age of 18 sends them off to take a bullet.

Answer 3

Feminists have never wanted to BE men, they want the same rights as men...and if that means volunteering to be used as cannon fodder so that we can keep petrol below $150 a barrel, and the poppy fields of Afghanistan churning out the west's heroin well so be it, where do I sign up!?

Answer 4

Some of us do, thanks.

Answer 5

i used to think it was sexist that the only job wome aren't aloud in the british army is to be on the fromt line but then again they can do every other job whihc they could'nt have done 50 years ago.

also when you hear of all the many reasons, it's not becasue the army is sexist, it's in the best intrests of women and the country.  here are some of the reasons i have been told:

on the front line when you go to the toilet you need people to guard you, while a woman would need to cahnge period protection every 4-8 hours that is leaving th whole line voulnerable and weaker as people need to guard each other.

women if captured by the enemy would be more likely to be abused in a sexual way.

also in reproduction men are despensible, sorry but if half the men died in a battle there would still be enough men to fertelise enough women to keep the population ticking over but if half the women dided in a war, there would only be half the ammount of babies born.

so at the end of the day it is'nt sexist stopping women going on the front line, there has been lots of thought put into it and there are genuine reasons.

however some countries with big population like china do let women on the front line.

and i would just like to say i am a equalist, not a feminist, there are inequalities against men as well. if i ecpect the right to work and earn the same wage as a man i should excpect to pay half of the date, however women on average only earn 3/4 of the wage men do, but i'm going offon a tangent.

Answer 6

Whether women want to fight on the frontline or not is irrelevant.

Women have been in the armed forces for a very long time, often serving in very dangerous, and very brave roles.

But being on the front line is not a gender issue per se.

There are many medical, health and biological reasons why governments have refused to allow women to be combat soldiers. A women's bodily functions (particularly menstruation) make it impractical. Likewise, whether it is patronising or not, there is likely to be some kind of 'privacy' issue as well. To mix the genders creates all sorts of logistical problems in an already very difficult situation.

I expect that is why women are not expected to serve as combat soldiers in regular armies. It is not as that they don't want to (if you read your history you will see that women have always had a presence on the battlefield); I am a male, and I wouldn't be too keen on being shot at. It's just practicalities.

Answer 7

there are many women who have volunteered and the military has rejected the idea, not the feminists.

Answer 8

You haven't done your homework: feminists in the US have been bothering to fight for the right for women to fight on the front lines for over 30 years-because it's the right thing to do. So you have made an incorrect assumption about feminists-they are willing to accept responsibility for the tough tasks in our society-it's a sexist Congress and Supreme Court that won't support women in the military (but as a result of Executive orders of Bush and Clinton-women are now eligible for 80-90% of the US combat positions in the volunteer military):

1) 1990: NOW resolved to fight against the restrictions on women in the military: http://www.now.org/issues/military/polic...

2) 1980: NOW resolved to fight the draft and registration for both men and women; but if the draft and/or registration was instituted; they resolved to fight for both men and women the right to fight for their country. They also resolved to fight against s*x discimination in the volunteer armed forces.

http://www.now.org/issues/military/polic...

3) 1971: NOW condemned the sexist practices in the military and the sexist basis for compulsory military service.  

http://www.now.org/issues/military/polic...

Answer 9

They do.  Women in the military want to fight on the front lines.  It is the men who are against it.  The highest positions in the military require that kind of combat service.  By keeping women off the front lines, the military keeps women from rising to the highest ranks.

Answer 10

Because women already have that right to go into the army! We don't need to protest cuz its already happened!

Well, in the Uk anyway!

Are you talking about America?

Maybe they are against war on other countries?they just like making war on men!

Answer 11

just for attention

Answer 12

So far, we've fought for the right to work in trades, to have homebirths, to balance career and family, and to be in combat roles. None of these may seem particularly palatable to you, but you're free to do it if they ever do, and now, so are we.

Answer 13

A better question is, why weren't more women pushing for this right when war was more than just making pyramids out of naked Iraqis and pressing the occasional "blow up everyone" button?

No offence to anyone in the military, but the soldiers of today have it a heck of a lot easier than those of days gone by.

Answer 14

Because they would not be allowed to grow their nails long and faff about with their hair all day.

Answer 15

I would challenge the assertion that many women are in front line service, anywhere in the west, but in Russia, everyone was in the front lines, during world war two, for myself, having been there, ( no , not Russia, but in the front line), I would like to see this happen, perhaps, this would bring an end to the war we are going through,where women are doing the screaming and firing but men do not retaliate....

And bring back some perspective to the women who claim to be feminists, but do not accept that to be a true feminist, they should also be supporting men' s rights to be what we are, and stop trying to change us, they want the benefits, but not the responsibilities, or consequences, of our position, never mind allowing them, to join and serve, MAKE them join, and put up with, what we have had to, for a hundred thousand years, the song would not remain the same for long !

Sadly most feminists actually seem to have some of the men's qualities already, they are dishonest, bigoted, and childish in their reasoning, what good qualities they seek, I, for one, do not recognize, but I never heard a feminist say," I want the right to hurt, and die, just like a man"..... how odd ?......

As for the risk of rape, do you prefer it if a man is sodomised as some Russians were, with iron bars, before having his throat cut, by Germans, or do you believe that men are never, raped in a war zone ? or tortured , but this was common in the French campaigns, and women spies and resistance fighters in France, were raped repeatedly, as well as being tortured, they were aware of the risks, but accepted them, and men were not the cause of preventing them, going to an occupied zone, it would seem, that today's feminists are not half the women, their grandmothers were, if they were, perhaps there would be no feminist movement, or any need for one...........

Answer 16

I'll call your bluff on this. I've had men say this to me before, and I've astonished them by telling them that women SHOULD be required to register and should be on the front lines.

Then, they back away, grumbling that the front lines is no place for a woman, they'd get raped, yada, yada. It's anti-feminist hypocrisy at its FINEST.

It's the (male) military establishment that keeps women off the front lines, NOT feminists.

Answer 17

Actually, women have.

We do have women on the front lines, these days. Have you not read a paper since 2003?

Women still can't join the infantry, though women are still trying. I think they should be allowed if they can perform all the tasks the men can without special rules. There won't be many, but there will be some. Some women have already made it into the ranks of the Ranger.

So your premise is flawed from the beginning.

Answer 18

in the 1970s we WERE arguing for that.

Answer 19

If a woman decides to join the military then any job should be open to her. I, however, disagree that woman should be drafted because they can be raped. I believe  a woman should have a choice about putting her body at risk and should not be forced to. Women and men are equal, but equality doesn't always mean sameness.

Answer 20

Because women have been shown to be totally useless on the front line. An Israeli study into female soldiers found them way more likely to be killed or injured, and a British army study found them incapable of carrying the same kind of pack weight as men.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...