Women in combat

[gimmepie]

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.

Perhaps, but the extent of the problem can't be accurately measured because of the lack of reports made when it comes to sexual assault against men.

 

[Kanzler]

Perhaps, but the extent of the problem can't be accurately measured because of the lack of reports made when it comes to sexual assault against men.

Be that as it may, the perception still exists that women need to be protected from rape. As for men, they supposedly better equipped to just "deal with it". Even if both occurrences were equal, I'd wager any amount of money that society would be in a greater uproar if it were found out that a female soldier was raped by the enemy than a male soldier.

 

[gimmepie]

Be that as it may, the perception still exists that women need to be protected from rape. As for men, they supposedly better equipped to just "deal with it". Even if both occurrences were equal, I'd wager any amount of money that society would be in a greater uproar if it were found out that a female soldier was raped by the enemy than a male soldier.

Society's perception still adds absolutely no relevance to the argument when simple logic says otherwise.

 

[Kanzler]

Society's perception still adds absolutely no relevance to the argument when simple logic says otherwise.

Really, society's perception adds absolutely no relevance? So the fact that society treats female rape with greater gravity is no mitigating factor for allowing women to serve on the front lines? How would do you expect society to respond if there was a female soldier captured and raped because she was on the front lines? Do you just shrug and suggest they logic harder?

We have to deal with the world as it is, and as long as society is so fearful of the rape of women, then that is a relevant factor in any decision that might put women in harm's way.

 

[Dusty]

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.

If that were the case, then even fewer females would get into the military, simply because females don't have the same amount of physical strength based on their genetics. There have been dozens of studies that have looked at the physical capabilities of both men and women, and men are statistically stronger. Sure, there are exceptions to that, but the general trend supports that men are stronger. Having the same scale to judge both by would only limit the number of females allowed into the military. Its like Albert Einstein was once quoted, "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing its stupid."

Not that I don't support females in the military, I just think that there are different roles that both men and women could fill based on their physical capabilities. For example, Navy Seals are some of the toughest people in the military, and becoming one requires intense training going through both physical and mental strength. If a women could pass the physical and mental tests to become part of the Seals, then fine. But that will still statistically be a predominantly male branch of the military as men genetically are stronger. However, women's brains are wired differently to be better at multitasking then men's, and other parts of the military would suit that sort of thing better. Like an Apache pilot for example, which I read in a book once to be compared to, "Playing a grandmaster chess player while on a roller coaster with one hand and playing a video game with the other." (Not an exact quote, I can quite remember it)

I'm not saying that a woman or man should be shunted into a particular position based on their sex, but I do believe that the military should use all of the strengths and weaknesses available, including those of their personnel.

 

[pokecole]

If that were the case, then even fewer females would get into the military, simply because females don't have the same amount of physical strength based on their genetics. There have been dozens of studies that have looked at the physical capabilities of both men and women, and men are statistically stronger. Sure, there are exceptions to that, but the general trend supports that men are stronger. Having the same scale to judge both by would only limit the number of females allowed into the military. Its like Albert Einstein was once quoted, "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing its stupid."

Women are generally (from what I generally see) less physically adept than men precisely because of the way they're treated in society. When men want their wife to be girly and stay at home there isn't much reason for them to bench press every other day, is there? It's just sexism that's in our society. This sexism shouldn't be a reason for them not to get into wherever they want to be in the military.

If you're giving people different scales then you are specifically acknowledging that women as supposed to be weaker than men. Do you think they should be? I personally believe we should be trying to abolish this type of sexism and prejudice. It's the same reasoning one would use to say that African Americans should be having more difficult training to get into the military because our society used them as slaves and had them do physical labor for a long while and therefore they're stronger. No, I'm not just comparing to slaves for shock factor, it's a legitimate comparison.

Prejudice based upon race or gender is something we should be weeding out, not enabling.

 

[Dusty]

Women are generally (from what I generally see) less physically adept than men precisely because of the way they're treated in society. When men want their wife to be girly and stay at home there isn't much reason for them to bench press every other day, is there? It's just sexism that's in our society. This sexism shouldn't be a reason for them not to get into wherever they want to be in the military.

If you're giving people different scales then you are specifically acknowledging that women as supposed to be weaker than men. Do you think they should be? I personally believe we should be trying to abolish this type of sexism and prejudice. It's the same reasoning one would use to say that African Americans should be having more difficult training to get into the military because our society used them as slaves and had them do physical labor for a long while and therefore they're stronger. No, I'm not just comparing to slaves for shock factor, it's a legitimate comparison.

Prejudice based upon race or gender is something we should be weeding out, not enabling.

Alright, perhaps the Einstein quote was poorly used there. And I'm not saying that women are supposed to be weaker than men, simply that genetically, they are. Its fine if a woman wants to go to the gym every day and work out for a few hours, and seeing as how I don't work out, I'm sure that there are plenty of women much stronger than I am. However our genetics dictate that men are by nature stronger than women. A good example is athletics. For the most part, you see segregation within sports, and I don't see most people up in arms about this. Even those who spend their whole lives training for sports are still segregated by gender when it comes to competitions.

I'm not saying that women should not be allowed into the military, I was just pointing out that there are differences between the two when it comes to natural physical abilities.

 

[pokecole]

Alright, perhaps the Einstein quote was poorly used there. And I'm not saying that women are supposed to be weaker than men, simply that genetically, they are. Its fine if a woman wants to go to the gym every day and work out for a few hours, and seeing as how I don't work out, I'm sure that there are plenty of women much stronger than I am. However our genetics dictate that men are by nature stronger than women. A good example is athletics. For the most part, you see segregation within sports, and I don't see most people up in arms about this. Even those who spend their whole lives training for sports are still segregated by gender when it comes to competitions.

I'm not saying that women should not be allowed into the military, I was just pointing out that there are differences between the two when it comes to natural physical abilities.

The athletics example is a pretty good point. I still believe that 99% of the reason women are generally less capable physically than men is purely from what role they play in society. Of course women are going to be weaker when for a long time they weren't supposed to work, aren't supposed to go to the gym, need to be protected etc. There's no reason to get stronger physically. I just wish that line between men and women was a little thinner, and military is a great way to start it.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Women are generally (from what I generally see) less physically adept than men precisely because of the way they're treated in society. When men want their wife to be girly and stay at home there isn't much reason for them to bench press every other day, is there? It's just sexism that's in our society. This sexism shouldn't be a reason for them not to get into wherever they want to be in the military.

lolwut

It's simple biology. Not because of how women are treated. Sure, there are examples of some exceptions, but there aren't many and I guarantee they aren't as strong as men who have went through physical training in the military. It isn't because of how men treat women.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Actually the physical difference isn't that great between men and wome, at least when it comes to running (controlled for kinds of training) is what I've heard. If true then obviously society's expectations of women as being weaker has become a self fulfilling prophecy. Besides, men are said to biologically have weaker lower bodies than women, so...women can do stuff we men can't with their legs.

I think that women should be treated equal to men, with military matters being an important step in that direction. It's unfair that only we men are expected to risk our lives for the country and it's optional for women to do so (well more so in times of drafts).

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Actually the physical difference isn't that great between men and wome, at least when it comes to running (controlled for kinds of training) is what I've heard. If true then obviously society's expectations of women as being weaker has become a self fulfilling prophecy. Besides, men are said to biologically have weaker lower bodies than women, so...women can do stuff we men can't with their legs.

I think that women should be treated equal to men, with military matters being an important step in that direction. It's unfair that only we men are expected to risk our lives for the country and it's optional for women to do so (well more so in times of drafts).

By chance, do you have any citations for the physical differences with lower body? It'd be interesting to see.

Anyways, regarding the military, I do believe they should be treated equal. If they can undergo the training, they should be able to be a soldier, a SEAL, ETC.

 

[Kanzler]

Actually the physical difference isn't that great between men and women, at least when it comes to running (controlled for kinds of training) is what I've heard. If true then obviously society's expectations of women as being weaker has become a self fulfilling prophecy. Besides, men are said to biologically have weaker lower bodies than women, so...women can do stuff we men can't with their legs.

No. Soldiers in combat don't simply run, they have to run with kit. Every soldier carries their own kit. Women are not capable of using the same amount of oxygen as men, so running with the same weight feels heavier for women than for men even though a woman's lower body weight tends to compensate for her reduced use of oxygen when she's running without a pack.

Relative to women, men have stronger upper bodies than lower bodies, but that doesn't mean that on average male lower bodies are weaker than female ones. Men are stronger than women for every part of the body. This is because for most of our lives, men produce a multiple of the quantity of testosterone that a woman produces. If you ever look at bodybuilding, a female bodybuilder would need to take steroids to achieve what a male bodybuilder can achieve naturally. This hormonal difference contributes to more muscle growth in men, whether he is exercising or not.

 

[gimmepie]

Really, society's perception adds absolutely no relevance? So the fact that society treats female rape with greater gravity is no mitigating factor for allowing women to serve on the front lines? How would do you expect society to respond if there was a female soldier captured and raped because she was on the front lines? Do you just shrug and suggest they logic harder?

We have to deal with the world as it is, and as long as society is so fearful of the rape of women, then that is a relevant factor in any decision that might put women in harm's way.

We don't "have to deal with the world as it is". We can stop following the stupid, twisted logic that's been haunting us since the dark ages, stop acting as though double standards are an acceptable part of society and actually look at the world with a perspective based on logic not on foolishness.

If a woman was captured on the front lines and raped, I would be horrified and I expect most of our society would feel similarly. I would feel the exact same way if the same happened to a man and I would hope that we as a society would not invalidate the suffering of a person simply because they happen to have a penis.

If that were the case, then even fewer females would get into the military, simply because females don't have the same amount of physical strength based on their genetics. There have been dozens of studies that have looked at the physical capabilities of both men and women, and men are statistically stronger. Sure, there are exceptions to that, but the general trend supports that men are stronger. Having the same scale to judge both by would only limit the number of females allowed into the military. Its like Albert Einstein was once quoted, "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing its stupid."

Not that I don't support females in the military, I just think that there are different roles that both men and women could fill based on their physical capabilities. For example, Navy Seals are some of the toughest people in the military, and becoming one requires intense training going through both physical and mental strength. If a women could pass the physical and mental tests to become part of the Seals, then fine. But that will still statistically be a predominantly male branch of the military as men genetically are stronger. However, women's brains are wired differently to be better at multitasking then men's, and other parts of the military would suit that sort of thing better. Like an Apache pilot for example, which I read in a book once to be compared to, "Playing a grandmaster chess player while on a roller coaster with one hand and playing a video game with the other." (Not an exact quote, I can quite remember it)

I'm not saying that a woman or man should be shunted into a particular position based on their sex, but I do believe that the military should use all of the strengths and weaknesses available, including those of their personnel.

You're confusing my stance. I don't want more women in the military as such, I want them to be measured by the same standards as men and have the same opportunities in all workforces - the military included - as men do.

I'll say it again, one's place in a profession should be determined only by aptitude.

 

[Dusty]

You're confusing my stance. I don't want more women in the military as such, I want them to be measured by the same standards as men and have the same opportunities in all workforces - the military included - as men do.

I'll say it again, one's place in a profession should be determined only by aptitude.

Alright, so let me try to understand then. If you are saying what I think you are saying, then you believe that men and women should have the same standard, even if that means fewer women in the military? I think I understand, sort of the weakest link type thing, that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So letting women into the military based on lower standards lowers the overall strength and aptitude of the military as a whole?

If that is what you are saying, then I guess I would agree with you.

 

[gimmepie]

Alright, so let me try to understand then. If you are saying what I think you are saying, then you believe that men and women should have the same standard, even if that means fewer women in the military? I think I understand, sort of the weakest link type thing, that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So letting women into the military based on lower standards lowers the overall strength and aptitude of the military as a whole?

If that is what you are saying, then I guess I would agree with you.

I'm saying that anyone who can reach high standards male or female should be able to get in and that the standards expected should be the same regardless of gender.

 

[Crizzle]

If a woman is good enough(qualified) and willing, she should get her shot. Standards shouldn't dropped for the sake of political correctness though.

 

[gimmepie]

If women were in widespread combat roles in the first world war we would have lost the second. One male survivor can easily impregnate 10 females waiting at home, the other way does not work so well. Men are and always will be more disposable than women because sperm is plentiful, eggs and a womb are valuable commodities.

Women in combat when not as a last resort is population replenishment suicide.

I seriously do not see that becoming an issue, especially considering how vastly overpopulated the Earth is already.

 

[Keiran]

I'm failing to see how biological sex has any relation to someones ability to sit in a tank or pilot a drone.

 

[Somewhere_]

I seriously do not see that becoming an issue, especially considering how vastly overpopulated the Earth is already.

I agree with you, reproduction really isn't the issue here. But the earth is not as overpopulated as you think it is. Overpopulation would mean there are not enough supplies to support everyone, or the living conditions are very low because everyone but a select few live in extremely tight quarters. While I am not denying this occurs in many places around the world, the earth can provide enough space and room for a lot more people (if I'm not mistaken, you can fit the world's population in the state of Texas).

Anyways, that is a bit off topic. I also agree with you on aptitude. Both genders should be judged on the same exact scale, and not lowered for women. Either one can handle the pressures of war, or they can't. As for the draft, I do not think anyone, regardless of gender, should be required to join the military.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

I'm failing to see how biological sex has any relation to someones ability to sit in a tank or pilot a drone.

Yes, because our army and marine corps are totally filled with tanks and drones, totally! There's absolutely no need for infantry at all! Those kind of soldiers are so trivial; we should get with the times!

No. There is a reason why people are concerned about this; it's mainly regarding infantry roles and that's because of biological differences with strength between both sexes. Add some sprinkled in potential PoW problems and potential moral panics and/or instincts with males, and you see the argument regarding not allowing women in combat roles.