Women in combat

[Kanzler]

What role, if any, do women have on the battlefield?

 

[gimmepie]

What role, if any, do women have on the battlefield?

Whatever role each individual fits the best in. I think a soldier's tasks should depend on aptitude, not gender.

 

[Somewhere_]

Whatever role each individual fits the best in. I think a soldier's tasks should depend on aptitude, not gender.

I agree. Despite the obvious biological differences between the genders, women can still be just as fit to fight as a man. Basically, if one can do it, they should get the job. As for mandatory draft, whether or not they should include men and women, I disagree with mandatory drafts anyways.

 

[Caite-chan]

If you can fight you can join the battle...it shouldn't matter what gender, race or religion you are.

 

[Sir Codin]

Same role as men on the battlefield:

To kick ass and chew bubblegum.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

This still doesn't include them to be able to go on submarines, right? My ROTC instructor did mention that last year if I could remember correctly. They should be able to go into those. Regarding combat, I have my worries for women in combat. Especially with our current conflicts in the Middle East, they could be in deep **** with terrorist groups such as ISIS if they become a PoW. But I doubt that would be common. The men trying to protect the woman at all costs would probably be more common.

As long as there's no draft for the both genders, it'll be fine. As long as they can do it, they should be able to.

 

[Kanzler]

Apparently men are hardwired to protect women. Until feminism gets rid of that, it'll be an unsettling dynamic on the battlefield.

 

[Sir Codin]

Apparently men are hardwired to protect women. Until feminism gets rid of that, it'll be an unsettling dynamic on the battlefield.

Uh, forgive me Kanz, but why would that be a bad thing and why should feminism get rid of it?

If anything, that increased desire to protect women can aid in limiting casualties on the battlefield.

 

[King Elizabello]

I think both gender are equal in my opinion so if the duty calls they will fight being either men or women i know it sounds harsh/strange but i don't think gender will matter when it comes to a battlefield speaking about real life and not anime world ofc :)

 

[Kanzler]

Uh, forgive me Kanz, but why would that be a bad thing and why should feminism get rid of it?

If anything, that increased desire to protect women can aid in limiting casualties on the battlefield.

People say that the desire to protect would upset the need to finish the mission. There's already a balance between completing the mission vs. saving your friends, and I don't think the military is interested in changing that balance.

Also because if that's true, men and women wouldn't be truly equal on the battlefield, and that's a bad thing. You don't want to be adding liabilities.

 

[Psychic]

Uh, forgive me Kanz, but why would that be a bad thing and why should feminism get rid of it?

If anything, that increased desire to protect women can aid in limiting casualties on the battlefield.

Because treating women differently from men is sexist and unnecessary. The "need" for men to protect women comes from the idea that women are more frail and more valuable than men, which is frankly insulting to all genders. It's 2015, and women can take care of themselves. If protecting one group is your top priority, other needs can fall by the wayside, which can be very dangerous in some situations.

As others have said, everyone should take on whatever role suits them best, the point of this being that everyone is adept at the tasks they've been given and so don't need special help.

~Psychic

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Because treating women differently from men is sexist and unnecessary. The "need" for men to protect women comes from the idea that women are more frail and more valuable than men, which is frankly insulting to all genders. It's 2015, and women can take care of themselves. If protecting one group is your top priority, other needs can fall by the wayside, which can be very dangerous in some situations.

As others have said, everyone should take on whatever role suits them best, the point of this being that everyone is adept at the tasks they've been given and so don't need special help.

~Psychic

Actually, it comes from instincts. You can't just change instincts within a thousand years, it will take millions. You want to know why it's instinct? Because of the fact that for the past thousands of years, humanity evolved with families. Men, being biologically stronger than women in most circumstances, would most likely evolve to defend children and women. The only way this would probably not be instinctive is to that of a psychopath; one who has no empathy or sympathy. A hollow shell of a human, if you will.

 

[Psychic]

Actually, it comes from instincts. You can't just change instincts within a thousand years, it will take millions. You want to know why it's instinct? Because of the fact that for the past thousands of years, humanity evolved with families. Men, being biologically stronger than women in most circumstances, would most likely evolve to defend children and women. The only way this would probably not be instinctive is to that of a psychopath; one who has no empathy or sympathy. A hollow shell of a human, if you will.

1) Protecting women isn't an instinct, it's a behaviour that has historically been seen as culturally acceptable. It is not ingrained, but learned.

2) Regardless of whether it's an instinct or a learned behaviour, human beings are perfectly able to adapt and change the way we think and act. We keep hearing about how men "instinctively" want sex all the time, yet we do not accept men going around raping all the time (mostly). We have to challenge our own ideas and behaviours, and when we know better, we work to make changes. There is also no reason that women are more valuable than men, and that is a weird thing to say.

It's 2015, and we don't live in a society where women need protecting, and the notion that we do is outdated and sexist. Frankly, we are tired of it. Again, everyone should have the role suits them best, the point of this being that everyone is adept at the tasks they've been given and so don't need special attention.

~Psychic

 

[Thepowaofhax]

1) Protecting women isn't an instinct, it's a behaviour that has historically been seen as culturally acceptable. It is not ingrained, but learned.

2) Regardless of whether it's an instinct or a learned behaviour, human beings are perfectly able to adapt and change the way we think and act. We keep hearing about how men "instinctively" want sex all the time, yet we do not accept men going around raping all the time (mostly). We have to challenge our own ideas and behaviours, and when we know better, we work to make changes. There is also no reason that women are more valuable than men, and that is a weird thing to say.

It's 2015, and we don't live in a society where women need protecting, and the notion that we do is outdated and sexist. Frankly, we are tired of it. Again, everyone should have the role suits them best, the point of this being that everyone is adept at the tasks they've been given and so don't need special attention.

1). It is INDEED instinctive. It is an instinctive behavior that has evolved into us due to our surroundings; just like other animals. We come from apes, which have had a formed similar societal behaviors. What do you think will happen if someone tried attacking a female in one of those societies? You're going to but beaten probably to death/

2). So you're going to try and force these changes on instinct? Because you're not going to do anything without making it illegal. So why make it illegal to protect someone from another person attacking them? That in itself is illogical. The only other way is indoctrination which is a **** way. Indoctrination will always lead to something negative, such as a chance of revolution and other **** of the like.

 

[Psychic]

1). It is INDEED instinctive. It is an instinctive behavior that has evolved into us due to our surroundings; just like other animals. We come from apes, which have had a formed similar societal behaviors. What do you think will happen if someone tried attacking a female in one of those societies? You're going to but beaten probably to death/

2). So you're going to try and force these changes on instinct? Because you're not going to do anything without making it illegal. So why make it illegal to protect someone from another person attacking them? That in itself is illogical. The only other way is indoctrination which is a **** way. Indoctrination will always lead to something negative, such as a chance of revolution and other **** of the like.

1) Nope, that's been entirely cultural. We have lived in cultures where physical strength was very valued, that's true, but that hasn't been the case in a long time. We have, however, lived in sexist cultures where women were treated as second-class citizens, and it's taken people a long time to get used to treated women (and black people, and gay people) as equals. Yet, we're still doing significantly better than we were before. Additionally, I'm pretty sure that if you attacked any member of a primate society you would get attacked in return, whether the victim was a male, female or child, unless you can prove otherwise. Also, humans did not evolve from apes.

2) So you're just going to allow men to go around raping women, because we can't change that instinct without indoctrination? As I said, whether or not something is "instinctive" doesn't mean it cannot be changed through education and time. Frankly, I don't know anyone who thinks women need to be protected, so either they have overcome their "instinct" or it was never a problem for them in the first place.

Sexism is stupid, and I cannot imagine why anyone tolerates it in any form.

~Psychic

 

[Sir Codin]

I don't know. I do get where you are coming from, Psych, it's just that it seems a little bizarre to me that wanting to utilize male desires to protect women as a way of limiting casualties on the battlefield can be considered "sexist."

I know the term for that is "positive sexism," but it's still unfortunate that in the context of "complete the mission and don't let emotions get in the way," that boils down the equality of sexes within the military meaning "both sexes are equally disposable."

However, I'm not against women in the military in any form. Have any of you people seen those videos of Kurdish female soldiers? Those ladies have bigger balls than me.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

1) Nope, that's been entirely cultural. We have lived in cultures where physical strength was very valued, that's true, but that hasn't been the case in a long time. We have, however, lived in sexist cultures where women were treated as second-class citizens *Cough cough* Sparta *Cough Cough*, and it's taken people a long time to get used to treated women (and black people, and gay people) as equals. Yet, we're still doing significantly better than we were before. Additionally, I'm pretty sure that if you attacked any member of a primate society you would get attacked in return, whether the victim was a male, female or child, unless you can prove otherwise. Also, humans did not evolve from apes. So you're going to deny evolution? Last time I checked, we evolved from apes who are related to chimps and orangutans. In Ape society, the male would most likely retaliate but if it's another male, they won't attack. They would think one is fighting for dominance.

2) So you're just going to allow men to go around raping women, because we can't change that instinct without indoctrination? I never implied that, I only implied that we cannot change an instinct like this by law because we should be able to defend ourselves. Please come again As I said, whether or not something is "instinctive" doesn't mean it cannot be changed through education and time. Frankly, I don't know anyone who thinks women need to be protected, so either they have overcome their "instinct" or it was never a problem for them in the first place. I don't think they need to, but I do think that it is most likely instinctive.

Sexism is stupid, and I cannot imagine why anyone tolerates it in any form.

~Psychic

Now, a scenario. Two in fact.
1). There are a few men and a woman in combat. Going by current relations, let's say it was an invasion on territory claimed by ISIS. The men don't protect the woman and that woman is captured and is tortured and raped to death by the extremists.
2). This time, the men die except one who will be emotionally scared in combat but they all die and the woman is taken PoW. The same thing happens as #1 to the woman.

Now, what would your opinions be on #1 and 2?

Edit: I should clarify, sorry for that. #2 is where the men protect the women and still die.

 

[Kanzler]

I don't know. I do get where you are coming from, Psych, it's just that it seems a little bizarre to me that wanting to utilize male desires to protect women as a way of limiting casualties on the battlefield can be considered "sexist."

I know the term for that is "positive sexism," but it's still unfortunate that in the context of "complete the mission and don't let emotions get in the way," that boils down the equality of sexes within the military meaning "both sexes are equally disposable."

However, I'm not against women in the military in any form. Have any of you people seen those videos of Kurdish female soldiers? Those ladies have bigger balls than me.

Both sexes should be easily disposable. But you can't unlearn that kind of behaviour for the short term, so I see this issue as a factor against allowing women in combat roles.

 

[Sir Codin]

Both sexes should be easily disposable. But you can't unlearn that kind of behaviour for the short term, so I see this issue as a factor against allowing women in combat roles.

True.

What I'm trying to say though, is that I'd rather neither sex be easily disposable in the military. These aren't pawns in a game; these men and women are people with lives and a person's life is something that shouldn't be viewed as "easily disposable" no matter what sex a person is.

 

[Psychic]

I don't know. I do get where you are coming from, Psych, it's just that it seems a little bizarre to me that wanting to utilize male desires to protect women as a way of limiting casualties on the battlefield can be considered "sexist."

I know the term for that is "positive sexism," but it's still unfortunate that in the context of "complete the mission and don't let emotions get in the way," that boils down the equality of sexes within the military meaning "both sexes are equally disposable."

However, I'm not against women in the military in any form. Have any of you people seen those videos of Kurdish female soldiers? Those ladies have bigger balls than me.

It's commendable not to want people to be seen as disposable, but I'm not sure how realistic it is in a military context. The solution, however, is to ensure that nobody is seen as disposable, rather than "men are disposable, but women are not." Ideally, nobody should be treated as disposable, and all lives should be valued equally. To me, whether the military views people as disposable or not, women should receive the same treatment as men.

So you're going to deny evolution? Last time I checked, we evolved from apes who are related to chimps and orangutans. In Ape society, the male would most likely retaliate but if it's another male, they won't attack. They would think one is fighting for dominance.

What? When did I deny evolution? We did not evolve directly from apes, but we have common ancestors.

Can you provide proof to back up your claim?

I never implied that, I only implied that we cannot change an instinct like this by law because we should be able to defend ourselves.

I do not know what you mean about "defending ourselves," as that has never once been brought up. Still you can argue that rape is "instinctive" for men, yet we still don't excuse it the way you're excusing sexism here.

I don't think they need to, but I do think that it is most likely instinctive.

I have made the point that either this instinct does not exist, or people can overcome it. If you have proof showing otherwise, now's the time to show it.

Now, a scenario. Two in fact.
1). There are a few men and a woman in combat. Going by current relations, let's say it was an invasion on territory claimed by ISIS. The men don't protect the woman and that woman is captured and is tortured and raped to death by the extremists.
2). This time, the men die except one who will be emotionally scared in combat but they all die and the woman is taken PoW. The same thing happens as #1 to the woman.

Now, what would your opinions be on #1 and 2?

I do not understand what you are trying to illustrate. People being killed and captured is bad and should be prevented, and soldiers know the risks. We should always do our best to minimize casualties, but gender should not factor into it. If the victim's gender influences their fate that might be worth discussing.

~Psychic