Women in combat

[Thepowaofhax]

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 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 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.


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

You just said quite clearly earlier that "Also, humans did not evolve from apes". Afropithecus is an ape. Humanity evolved from that single ape slowly into different species until we became Homo Sapiens and you deny it, for what exactly? After all, we are still classified as apes and thus it would only make sense that we evolved from apes.

Now, regarding you belief that instinct does not exist, it does. Otherwise duck chicks wouldn't follow whatever they see first and think it's their mother. There are other examples to this. If you want to have people overcome their instincts, you either make it illegal or indoctrinate them into doing that. Indoctrination is horrible and sometimes inhumane.

For the scenarios, I was only trying to see if you would be hypocritical to your claims.

 

[Sir Codin]

Now, regarding you belief that instinct does not exist, it does. Otherwise duck chicks wouldn't follow whatever they see first and think it's their mother. There are other examples to this. If you want to have people overcome their instincts, you either make it illegal or indoctrinate them into doing that. Indoctrination is horrible and sometimes inhumane.

She did not say that instinct does not exist; she said that it's likely that the specific instinct that human men have to protect women does not exist or if it does, it can be overcome, which is not entirely impossible. Difficult in the face of thousands of years of cultural and possibly biological evolution? Yes. But impossible? Maybe not.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

She did not say that instinct does not exist; she said that it's likely that the specific instinct that human men have to protect women does not exist or if it does, it can be overcome, which is not entirely impossible. Difficult in the face of thousands of years of cultural and possibly biological evolution? Yes. But impossible? Maybe not.

That depends. If we evolve it quite quickly, then it may not be a problem. But I doubt it could happen that quickly. Indoctrination would be the other way if we don't outlaw it.

 

[Psychic]

For those who don't believe women should serve in combat roles, is there any concrete evidence of issues arising in instances where women fought alongside men? Were those women given special treatment? Did the overall performance of the platoon suffer? How were these issues overcome?

You just said quite clearly earlier that "Also, humans did not evolve from apes". Afropithecus is an ape. Humanity evolved from that single ape slowly into different species until we became Homo Sapiens and you deny it, for what exactly? After all, we are still classified as apes and thus it would only make sense that we evolved from apes.

So you're going to focus on one sentence and not provide any proof about behaviour in primate society?

Now, regarding you belief that instinct does not exist, it does. Otherwise duck chicks wouldn't follow whatever they see first and think it's their mother. There are other examples to this. If you want to have people overcome their instincts, you either make it illegal or indoctrinate them into doing that. Indoctrination is horrible and sometimes inhumane.

As CarcharOdin said, I never said animal instinct does not exist, please stop building strawmen. I do not believe it is an instinct for men to protect women, even though protecting women has been an aspect of many cultures. You say "I doubt [change] could happen that quickly," but I pointed out that I don't know people who think or act that way. If you can prove that it is instinctive, now is the time to do so.

For the scenarios, I was only trying to see if you would be hypocritical to your claims.

Okay, can you please respond to my points, now?

~Psychic

 

[Sir Codin]

As CarcharOdin said, I never said animal instinct does not exist, please stop building strawmen. I do not believe it is an instinct for men to protect women, even though protecting women has been an aspect of many cultures. You say "I doubt [change] could happen that quickly," but I pointed out that I don't know people who think or act that way. If you can prove that it is instinctive, now is the time to do so.

~Psychic

The big issue of this burden of proof, though, is that everyone's experiences are different.

I honestly cannot say whether or not I have a natural inclination to protect women because I can't really recall ever being put into a situation where protecting a woman (or anyone for that matter) was an option. Sure, when you look at headline stories, it's easy to say "oh, I would've done this if I was there" but that's the problem: you weren't there. So you have no guarantee that you would actually act like how you claim you'd act.

****, idk, I really hope that made some sense.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

For those who don't believe women should serve in combat roles, is there any concrete evidence of issues arising in instances where women fought alongside men? Were those women given special treatment? Did the overall performance of the platoon suffer? How were these issues overcome?



So you're going to focus on one sentence and not provide any proof about behaviour in primate society?


As CarcharOdin said, I never said animal instinct does not exist, please stop building strawmen. I do not believe it is an instinct for men to protect women, even though protecting women has been an aspect of many cultures. You say "I doubt [change] could happen that quickly," but I pointed out that I don't know people who think or act that way. If you can prove that it is instinctive, now is the time to do so.


Okay, can you please respond to my points, now?

~Psychic

You can just ask people if they think so it or not. This is the definitions of instinct:

1: a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <had an instinct for the right word>

2a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason.
2b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level
Source.

If it is impulsive behavior or tendency, we would need an example of it. Now, I took a look at a few papers I could use. This is it.

This is what it said:
"Female association with particular, protective males appears to be the most common mammalian strategy to reduce vulnerability to male sexual aggression and infanticide."
Now, this makes sense. Perhaps this could've evolved that instinct, but w/e.

Also, thanks for pointing out the strawman. I probably would've sounded more like an idiot if I kept building it.

 

[Kanzler]

We don't have to be technical about whether it's instinct or not instinct - the fact of the matter is that the norm is ingrained in many cultures and I would say that a lot of men would act instinctively, to use the word in the way that fits this context, at the behest of that norm, giving the military pause when they consider the impact of having women in combat roles.

 

[Psychic]

If it is impulsive behavior or tendency, we would need an example of it. Now, I took a look at a few papers I could use. This is it.

This is what it said:
"Female association with particular, protective males appears to be the most common mammalian strategy to reduce vulnerability to male sexual aggression and infanticide."
Now, this makes sense. Perhaps this could've evolved that instinct, but w/e.

Also, thanks for pointing out the strawman. I probably would've sounded more like an idiot if I kept building it.

Females associating themselves with males to protect themselves and their families is real, but I don't think it proves anything in regards to this conversation. It is likely a learned behaviour regardless, which means it can be unlearned.

We don't have to be technical about whether it's instinct or not instinct - the fact of the matter is that the norm is ingrained in many cultures and I would say that a lot of men would act instinctively, to use the word in the way that fits this context, at the behest of that norm, giving the military pause when they consider the impact of having women in combat roles.

I think a lot of people forget how rigorous military training is. The point of it is to break you down and build you back up again to be the perfect soldier who takes and executes orders without question. Part of that training includes how to treat fellow soldiers, be they vulnerable or injured. If you're in a high-stress situation, then you will generally react the way you were trained to react. In those moments, the gender of your fellow soldiers likely will not factor into your decision-making, but their strengths and abilities might, because that's what counts in those situations.

Again, this goes back to learned behaviours. You can argue that we learn to treat women a certain way in society, but if you enter the military those behaviours are changed.

An acquaintance of mine once said this when discussing gay men in the military: "Imagine you're a gay male solder, and suddenly a bomb goes off, and you jump onto a fellow male soldier to take cover. If you liked him, maybe you'd get aroused, and be unable to react to the situation." When I told this to my friend in the military, he basically said: "if you were a civilian, maybe that would happen, though it's unlikely considering that your adrenaline would be pumping and you'd be too preoccupied with panic to be aroused. But if you're a trained soldier, that's when your training would kick in, and you would react accordingly." Pretty sure he has a point.

~Psychic

 

[Kanzler]

I think a lot of people forget how rigorous military training is. The point of it is to break you down and build you back up again to be the perfect soldier who takes and executes orders without question. Part of that training includes how to treat fellow soldiers, be they vulnerable or injured. If you're in a high-stress situation, then you will generally react the way you were trained to react. In those moments, the gender of your fellow soldiers likely will not factor into your decision-making, but their strengths and abilities might, because that's what counts in those situations.

Again, this goes back to learned behaviours. You can argue that we learn to treat women a certain way in society, but if you enter the military those behaviours are changed.

An acquaintance of mine once said this when discussing gay men in the military: "Imagine you're a gay male solder, and suddenly a bomb goes off, and you jump onto a fellow male soldier to take cover. If you liked him, maybe you'd get aroused, and be unable to react to the situation." When I told this to my friend in the military, he basically said: "if you were a civilian, maybe that would happen, though it's unlikely considering that your adrenaline would be pumping and you'd be too preoccupied with panic to be aroused. But if you're a trained soldier, that's when your training would kick in, and you would react accordingly." Pretty sure he has a point.

That might be true, but then again I can imagine that instinctive behaviours might fly in spite of this.

In general, I don't believe we as a society are ready for women in combat. Gender relations are simply not equal enough. With that being said, I don't think that women in combat would impact much in practical terms, since I think that most women would be incapable of meeting the physical standards required for combat roles. The ones that do are going to be as professional and driven as they get.

 

[«Chuckles»]

As long as they meet the requirements and standards and those standards are not lowered for a group or sex than I don't have many problems with it. However the kind of treatment they might receive as a PoW or such is an issue that I would never want to be responsible for letting them go to serve in the first place due to the burden of it on my conscience and the kind of backlash over it.

 

[gimmepie]

For those who are saying "female soldiers will get raped in PoW camps" can we all remember that homosexuality is a thing (ignoring the fact that women can be rapists too, that's another issue entirely). I don't think it's a viable argument against women in the military simply because the same could easily happen to male soldiers.

 

[Kanzler]

For those who are saying "female soldiers will get raped in PoW camps" can we all remember that homosexuality is a thing (ignoring the fact that women can be rapists too, that's another issue entirely). I don't think it's a viable argument against women in the military simply because the same could easily happen to male soldiers.

I disagree. Male rape is more or less expendable. Female rape definitely isn't. Also, I believe that female rape is a lot more endemic as a weapon of war. Male rape is more of an exception than the rule.

 

[gimmepie]

I disagree. Male rape is more or less expendable. Female rape definitely isn't. Also, I believe that female rape is a lot more endemic as a weapon of war. Male rape is more of an exception than the rule.

What do you mean expendable? That doesn't make any sense.

Regardless of which happens more, both can and do happen. It's seems silly to me that one should outweigh the other as an issue and honestly I find it a bit unsettling.

 

[Kanzler]

Society cares more about female rape than male rape, also female rape occurs more often. I've heard of rape being routinely used as a tactic of intimidation against women, but not so much against men which is why I say one is more endemic than the other. The societal reaction as well as the frequency of female rape outweighs that of male rape in war.

 

[ProfChaos]

This could cause issue because men are more inclined to protect women than other men...just how we are wired. Women on the battlefield means they will be working alongside infantrymen. I know for a fact (at least in the army) that infantry live very deprived lifestyles. And a good majority of them are pretty immature anyway. We already have kind of an issue with sexual harassment and this would only ignite it. not only that but i'm pretty certain if i saw a girl on the field (i may perhaps be attracted to) complaining of a paper cut and a dude somewhere hemorrhaging to death, i'd actually be conflicted there and be more inclined to help the woman than the guy. lol just being extremely honest and i'm certain i'm not the only guy that thinks that way.

Then there's physical aptitude.. i don't think civilians realize how wide the gap is. i know i didn't before i joined. Women really do have a much harder time doing the same things men do training for combat. Strength, speed, endurance... easily 80% of the one's i've encountered vastly lack in each of those areas and will most likely be killed long before they do anything effective. That's not me being sexists this is pure observation and honest opinion. When i meet a girl that isn't in tears at around 20 push-ups (with horrible form) i'll let you know and adjust accordingly. I'm all for fairness and what not but war isn't fair... take in as many women as possible. I don't care. But there will be lots of issues to come along with it.

 

[gimmepie]

Society cares more about female rape than male rape, also female rape occurs more often. I've heard of rape being routinely used as a tactic of intimidation against women, but not so much against men which is why I say one is more endemic than the other. The societal reaction as well as the frequency of female rape outweighs that of male rape in war.

Society has been trained to care more about female rape, this doesn't make it any more or less of a problem than male rape. Value you should not be determined by the mindless masses, that sort of logic belongs in the same era as slavery.

This could cause issue because men are more inclined to protect women than other men...just how we are wired. Women on the battlefield means they will be working alongside infantrymen. I know for a fact (at least in the army) that infantry live very deprived lifestyles. And a good majority of them are pretty immature anyway. We already have kind of an issue with sexual harassment and this would only ignite it. not only that but i'm pretty certain if i saw a girl on the field (i may perhaps be attracted to) complaining of a paper cut and a dude somewhere hemorrhaging to death, i'd actually be conflicted there and be more inclined to help the woman than the guy. lol just being extremely honest and i'm certain i'm not the only guy that thinks that way.

Then there's physical aptitude.. i don't think civilians realize how wide the gap is. i know i didn't before i joined. Women really do have a much harder time doing the same things men do training for combat. Strength, speed, endurance... easily 80% of the one's i've encountered vastly lack in each of those areas and will most likely be killed long before they do anything effective. That's not me being sexists this is pure observation and honest opinion. When i meet a girl that isn't in tears at around 20 push-ups (with horrible form) i'll let you know and adjust accordingly. I'm all for fairness and what not but war isn't fair... take in as many women as possible. I don't care. But there will be lots of issues to come along with it.

I think that you generalise a lot in this post, not to mention that you project your own views onto others which doesn't always lead to the most realistic perception of things. For example, I know plenty of women who could quite easily perform twenty push-ups with better form and endurance than a lot of the men I know - and that's not those who are prepared in any way for rigorous military life they're merely athletes and dancers. If those women are able to do it, I'm pretty sure women wanting to be soldiers can.

As for your last remark, I'm no feminist, but I'm pretty sure the most prominent issue would be foolish men who either over or under value their female counterparts. That's a mindset that those in the military should work on changing, not a reason to limit the role of women in the military (so long as they are capable of the same levels of physicality).

 

[ProfChaos]

Society has been trained to care more about female rape, this doesn't make it any more or less of a problem than male rape. Value you should not be determined by the mindless masses, that sort of logic belongs in the same era as slavery.



I think that you generalise a lot in this post, not to mention that you project your own views onto others which doesn't always lead to the most realistic perception of things. For example, I know plenty of women who could quite easily perform twenty push-ups with better form and endurance than a lot of the men I know - and that's not those who are prepared in any way for rigorous military life they're merely athletes and dancers. If those women are able to do it, I'm pretty sure women wanting to be soldiers can.

Not saying they don't exist. I'm completely certain there are plenty of women far more fit than i am. But out of the dozens i've seen during my army training, 2/10 at best were physically competent.. That's not even judging on the same scale by the way. Women have a much lower standard for qualification in the army. So... idk if i went at a bad time or joined with awkward units but these women you speak of were nowhere in sight. if you found them and got them to join, i'd be less concerned.

 

[ProfChaos]

If someone is on the side of a freeway clearly having car trouble, who's most likely going to pull over to assist that person? (aside from cops)
A Male to help another Male?
A Woman to help another Woman?
A Woman to help a Male?
A Male to help a Woman?

I Think i'd like to initiate this experiment just to see if my assumption is mostly generalization or educated guess.

 

[gimmepie]

Not saying they don't exist. I'm completely certain there are plenty of women far more fit than i am. But out of the dozens i've seen during my army training, 2/10 at best were physically competent.. That's not even judging on the same scale by the way. Women have a much lower standard for qualification in the army. So... idk if i went at a bad time or joined with awkward units but these women you speak of were nowhere in sight. if you found them and got them to join, i'd be less concerned.

Personally I'd like to see them judged by the same scale. I don't think it's fair for different scales to be used for anyone when it comes to seeking employment.

 

[Kanzler]

Society has been trained to care more about female rape, this doesn't make it any more or less of a problem than male rape. Value you should not be determined by the mindless masses, that sort of logic belongs in the same era as slavery.

That's not how I'd like it, but it's how I believe the world is at this point. Actually, there is a point to be made that female rape is more of a problem than male rape. In a hypothetical world where 99% of males will get raped sometimes in their lives vs 1% of females, I don't think you'd have a hard time saying that male rape is the bigger problem. It's not the politically correct thing to say, but it needs to be said that the extensiveness of the problem reflects the magnitude of the problem.