Do you agree female soldiers fight together with male soldiers at front line?

If they want to and they're capable of, why not?

@hydratedfubuki6:

Yes but I'm asking you agree or disagree.

I agree by allowing them.

Sure. Not sure why anyone would really want to, but I see no reason to discriminate on the basis of gender.

Depends on the role they're assigned to.

@rhubarb:

Combat.

@hkesupermantis:

What corp?

Put them right up front

I don't think so.

@universenumber1:

Reason?

@hkesupermantis: I don't even think females should be soldiers at all. It doesn't sound right for them to fight, let alone lead.

Raze would be proud of this comment. It's all there. A vague sense of entitlement, chauvinism, sexism.

@wolverinebatmanftw: And what is the problem? That's now what females are supposed to do.

Why not?

Imagine a female soldier when captured, the men would have a field day

Yes, gender means shit in battlefield, everyone have to fight.

I don't agree. Sure, most women' nature is to be empathetic and be less aggressive, but there are women out there tougher than the toughest guys

@darkthunder: So, in general, you agree? Sure, acting tougher than some women is their choice, but that's not what they should be doing.

You've got to let go of that anger you have for Raze, and by extension, me. Not everything is black and white. And even then, there's nothing wrong with thinking women shouldn't be doing certain things that are primarily acted out by men; I agree that women shouldn't do lots of things men do, but that doesn't mean I'm entitled, chauvinistic, or sexist.

not what they should be doing? Elucidate pleae

@darkthunder: Women's GIVE life, not TAKE life. Who do you think their children's are gonna miss the presence more, their mom or dad? I'm sure it's the one who gave them birth and shared pain with them.
Women's should take a job that has no risk for them and their families. This is mainly men's job.

and men help give life. You think man's purpose is to take life? Children can miss their father more too, you can't come to conclusions like that..

THAT is sexist, what UN1 said.

Modern soldiers almost never engage in H2H combat, so the general strength difference between the sexes wouldn't matter. Women are capable of attaining the level of physical fitness required for all necessary activities, so there is no reason to prevent them, if willing.

@darkthunder: Yes, but it's not the same as the mother. I'm not making concuslions, it's how it is. I never said men's only job is to take life, you got me wrong.

Depends on how they got there.

I'm curious about what you mean by want to and why not.

Let see how many of you feel that way when your injured and need a female soldier to help carry you from a hostile area.

I agree 100% that women should be allowed to serve frontline: just look at Israel vs their enemies.

No. Not in roles that involve carrying heavy gear, at least.

This (link) is a report the Marine Corps conducted. I'll highlight some of the key points.

To recap: Men were on average larger and had less body fat. They had greater upper and lower body strength. They had better cardio. They were faster. They could carry more weight. They were less likely to be injured during training. They could throw their gear and traverse obstacles without assistance. They were better shots. The bottom line is that all male troops performed better than ones with female integration, and therein lies our answer. Troops should always maximize their chances for success. Social justice theories be damned.