Women in combat

[gimmepie]

As for the draft, I do not think anyone, regardless of gender, should be required to join the military.

Seconded.

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!

Keiran's response shouldn't really be scoffed at. It won't be long before war truly is all but completely automated and it will be interesting to see if people still try to argue against women in the military then.

 

[Keiran]

Seconded.



Keiran's response shouldn't really be scoffed at. It won't be long before war truly is all but completely automated and it will be interesting to see if people still try to argue against women in the military then.

Its pretty much like that already. War has changed a lot over the past decade. (Well it hasn't been war much as it has been occupation.) Outside of raids to capture certain people (most of the time found via drone), when do you ever hear about first person combat anymore where a persons physical limits and 'instincts with males' played a role in success or failure?

 

[Thepowaofhax]

'instincts with males' played a role in success or failure?

Just saying, but it would be impossible because in most modern militaries, there have been no women in infantry roles. Part of the argument is that some people believe that the man has an instinctual behavior wired to protect women and children.

Seconded.



Keiran's response shouldn't really be scoffed at. It won't be long before war truly is all but completely automated and it will be interesting to see if people still try to argue against women in the military then.

A fully automated war is ludicrous. Machinery cannot do what infantry can do and it will be expensive to wage war with state-of-the-art tanks and **** similar to that. as your entire army/marine corp.

 

[Psychic]

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.

"Gender relations" and sexism do not change on their own. We also should not wait for them to change. The only way these things improve is through treating all genders equally, including in situations like this. Change happens when we stop treating women like precious flowers that must be protected. And once again, most of us believe that female soldiers should have to meet the same criteria as male soldiers to serve in physical roles.

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.

First off, only helping someone because of their gender is sexist. It's not a good thing, and it's not something to brag about. I help people regardless of their gender, and it's sad to see that other people don't do the same. Second, just because someone is likely to only help someone because of their gender doesn't make it right - that's something you should learn to stop doing. Third, the whole point of military training is breaking you down and building you back up to be a soldier. Part of that will include be trained to treat all of your fellow soldiers equally, so if you did treat your female counterparts differently before, that instinct will likely be kicked out of you.

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.

Holy cow, are we actually having a conversation about whether it's worse for men or women to be raped? What the heck. It's one thing to talk about the likelihood of one group being raped versus another, but having a conversation about which is "worse" is really messed up.

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.

This is also ridiculous. We know that we have a huge problem in society where male rape survivors aren't taken as seriously as female survivors, but we acknowledge that that is a bad thing that needs to change. Perpetuating that idea or even just accepting it is incredibly backwards. I can't believe that even needs to be said.

~Psychic

 

[Kanzler]

"Gender relations" and sexism do not change on their own. We also should not wait for them to change. The only way these things improve is through treating all genders equally, including in situations like this. Change happens when we stop treating women like precious flowers that must be protected. And once again, most of us believe that female soldiers should have to meet the same criteria as male soldiers to serve in physical roles.

I don't disagree with you. But I don't know if the US is ready for such a thing.

Holy cow, are we actually having a conversation about whether it's worse for men or women to be raped? What the hell. It's one thing to talk about the likelihood of one group being raped versus another, but to act like one is "worse" is really messed up.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying what's worse for men or women, but what's worse for society. In fact, my argument presupposes that rape is equally abhorrent for men and women. If male rape and female rape are equally abhorrent, then wouldn't the one that occurs more frequently be considered a greater problem?

This is also ridiculous. We know that we have a huge problem in society where male rape survivors aren't taken as seriously as female survivors, but we acknowledge that that is a bad thing that needs to change. Perpetuating that idea or even just accepting it is incredibly backwards. I can't believe that even needs to be said.

~Psychic

You're missing the point. I don't know why you're accusing me of perpetuating certain gender relations when I'm simply describing the reality. Yes, I fully believe that society thinks female rape is the more significant problem when so much more is done to draw awareness and address it. You can criticize me on that if you can honestly tell me that male and female rape are given the same weight in society and both are given the same concern that they deserve, because it is only then that you disagree with me.

 

[Psychic]

I don't disagree with you. But I don't know if the US is ready for such a thing.

If the US isn't ready now, when will it be ready? How will we know it's ready? Do we just sit around and twiddle our thumbs until things change on our own, or do we do something about the issues of sexism we face?

This sounds way too much like "we shouldn't allow black people into colleges because I don't know if the US is ready." Change does not happen by itself.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying what's worse for men or women, but what's worse for society. In fact, my argument presupposes that rape is equally abhorrent for men and women. If male rape and female rape are equally abhorrent, then wouldn't the one that occurs more frequently be considered a greater problem?

I don't see how one or the other can be worse for society. I don't see the how the frequency of rape rates for one group is worse for society. We should seek to lower these numbers for everyone, and while I agree that we should focus on the populations who are most at risk (such as women, LGBTQ folks and men in prisons) I just don't know what point you're trying to make.

You're missing the point. I don't know why you're accusing me of perpetuating certain gender relations when I'm simply describing the reality. Yes, I fully believe that society thinks female rape is the more significant problem when so much more is done to draw awareness and address it. You can criticize me on that if you can honestly tell me that male and female rape are given the same weight in society and both are given the same concern that they deserve, because it is only then that you disagree with me.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I haven't seen you suggest that this is a bad thing that needs to be changed. We should not just accept the status quo or use it as a reason to ignore something.

~Psychic

 

[gimmepie]

Just saying, but it would be impossible because in most modern militaries, there have been no women in infantry roles. Part of the argument is that some people believe that the man has an instinctual behavior wired to protect women and children.


A fully automated war is ludicrous. Machinery cannot do what infantry can do and it will be expensive to wage war with state-of-the-art tanks and **** similar to that. as your entire army/marine corp.

It's not even remotely ludicrous, just take a look in the direction it's already heading. Look at the progress being made with unmanned vehicles and remotely controlled robotics. War is already highly automised and will only become more so in the future.

 

[ProfChaos]

First off, only helping someone because of their gender is sexist. It's not a good thing, and it's not something to brag about. I help people regardless of their gender, and it's sad to see that other people don't do the same. Second, just because someone is likely to only help someone because of their gender doesn't make it right - that's something you should learn to stop doing. Third, the whole point of military training is breaking you down and building you back up to be a soldier. Part of that will include be trained to treat all of your fellow soldiers equally, so if you did treat your female counterparts differently before, that instinct will likely be kicked out of you.

~Psychic

at no point did i say it was just, righteous, moral or anything close to that. Chivalry is just a concept of human nature. Most societies treat genders differently in many situations. Weather you personally like that fact is moot.

Also i LOL'd at the bold part... regardless of training, values isn't something you can be tought unless you willfully make that change. Most soldier's (particularly ones that haven't been in for a long time,) fake a certain level of discipline or respect just to avoid drama. behind the scenes they are as obnoxious and jack*** as they get.

Also by them barraging us with very frequent sexual harassment briefs, i for one am paranoid to ever even be alone with a female most of the time in uniform. let alone treat them as equals.

 

[MckinkyMcormic]

Honestly there is no issue culturaly or psychologically that should hinder women from the battlefield, but the issues come in where there's biological differences such as:

Time of the Month
Pregnancy and Maternal Leave
Sexual Misconduct (mostly assault)
and hormonal swings (i'm talking about serious ones, and in the case of religious objection to contraceptives)

I mean, if you're willing to fight and protect knock yourself out.

 

[Evening]

Thing is, women themselves aren't the problem, it's those factors surrounding them.

 

[gimmepie]

Thing is, women themselves aren't the problem, it's those factors surrounding them.

You mean the same factors that have already been reasoned about, or is there something we're missing? You might want to add a bit more detail to your post so there's something for us to discuss.

 

[Psychic]

-Drones flown from California fine, but tanks do not all have autoloaders, lifting 120mm shells is hard work. What if it's a CBRN circumstance and a tank crew have to remain buttoned up for over a week, how will women feel about living in, changing tampons next to stinky, sexually deprived men?

-As the poster above me said, pregnancy. Do you know what happens when a woman gets pregnant right before a deployment? She gets shipped back home, put on office duty then gets maternity leave or a medical discharge, no punishment. It's a get out of obligations free card, why should any unit let alone a combat one put up with that liability? What a waste of training and potentially danger to the lives of others through under-staffing, fallopian tubes tied or gtfo.

Seriously, nobody has anything to say in response to the last point? Oy vey.

Regarding the first point, what does changing tampons have to do with sexually deprived men? I thought men found periods icky. Are you implying that men would try to have sex with or rape their female counterparts in the tiny space of a tank right next to their fellow soldiers? ProfChaos said he is "paranoid to ever even be alone with a female most of the time in uniform," and considering soldiers would be more focused on surviving than getting some sex, I'm not too worried. They know the risks going into those situations.

As for the last point...do you actually know how pregnancy works? If we're talking about carrying the fetus to term (as you imply by mentioning maternity leave), then you are talking about dedicating 9 months, plus another 18 years, plus the majority of your money, to raising a child. Additionally, if the father is a fellow soldier, unless he gets paternity leave (if only) or quits, the mother would be responsible for raising it by herself. That is literally the opposite of a "get out of obligations free card." Nobody gets pregnant just to get out of a job, because raising a child is way more of a responsibility and commitment than any job. Anyone who actually does this is obviously unbalanced, and not the kind of person you'd want on the battlefield anyway.

This is honestly a ridiculous point, and makes me question if you know anything about women or pregnancy.

~Psychic

 

[Chicken Fingers]

tl;dr most of that.

Just going to give my thoughts on it.



OVERALL, I believe that men typically belong on the battlefield more than women. This is due to men typically being better in that setting than women.

Please note, there is an EXCEPTION TO EVERY RULE. There are women out there who can do just as well, if not better than a man on the battlefield.

One thing that I believe, is that for PT and Bar Tests for military and such, women should not have lower physical standards than men. If they want to perform a historically male job, they MUST be able to perform just as well.

I share this belief with women being police officers and such as well.


As far as sexism, I'd like to make a point about that as well.

Every single time somebody has a title of "The first women to..." will keep us from avoiding sexism. By having and giving the title, is categorizing women. If people would like for women to be treated equally to men, this is something that gets me right off the back.

-As the poster above me said, pregnancy. Do you know what happens when a woman gets pregnant right before a deployment? She gets shipped back home, put on office duty then gets maternity leave or a medical discharge, no punishment. It's a get out of obligations free card, why should any unit let alone a combat one put up with that liability? What a waste of training and potentially danger to the lives of others through under-staffing, fallopian tubes tied or gtfo.[/QUOTE

As sad as it is, this cannot be denied.

I have more than one relative who has done this. And how one took advantage of the system is insane.

However, the one who took advantage of it has absolutely no business on the battle field. She was not fit, wasn't exactly the brightest, and in all reality would have better served off the battlefield.

I guess something else I believe, is that every human being should server where they serve best. Most people serve best, doing what they love.

If you are a woman and can 100% honestly say that you believe you are best on the battlefield, so be it. If you are better at singing, go sing and change the world that way. (this applies to men as well)

There are other ways to serve other than being on the battlefield. There are also other ways to gain respect.

I know I forgot like 12 things I wanted to say lol.

 

[Electricbluewolf]

OVERALL, I believe that men typically belong on the battlefield more than women. This is due to men typically being better in that setting than women.

Have you got any evidence to prove this? That is a very wild claim to make. By battlefield do you mean front line infantry as well, as woman have been on the field for a while. The reason why it may appear that men are better at being on front line is because that is all there has been.

One thing that I believe, is that for PT and Bar Tests for military and such, women should not have lower physical standards than men. If they want to perform a historically male job, they MUST be able to perform just as well.

I agree with that. A standard has been issued that is for any human being, regardless of gender.

Every single time somebody has a title of "The first women to..." will keep us from avoiding sexism. By having and giving the title, is categorizing women. If people would like for women to be treated equally to men, this is something that gets me right off the back.

To an extent they need to be remembered. The first women to do things often do not get remembered at all. Even the women contributing to the first discoveries, the first perfect scores, the first anything get. Maybe the "first person to" if not a role which is gender-heavy, but I would think it's important for both genders to have the first man, first women etc as a proud achievement in their lifetime. Having things for different genders isn't necessarily sexist.

In my opinion women should be allowed in the battlefield. I have a few friends who have had a long military history and would love nothing more than to carry on the front line tradition. As long as they have the stamina and physical/emotional as the standard then why not? Men shouldn't feel the need to protect women just because they are a women, I think not only does this class the women as less of a person but also makes men believe they have to macho and manly, which is not the case.

 

[LordGrizz]

Have you got any evidence to prove this? That is a very wild claim to make. By battlefield do you mean front line infantry as well, as woman have been on the field for a while. The reason why it may appear that men are better at being on front line is because that is all there has been.

It's all about genetics. On average men are larger than females. This means more muscle which ties into strength. Women can perform manual labor jobs however I do feel that on average a male can be better suited. Humans began as hunter/gatherer nomads and was quite often the case the men hunted and protected while women gathered and reared young. The problem in todays society is while in ancient times both roles were equally important that case is not true now. Everyone has kids and raising them is easier than it was in the days where you had to protect them from everything trying to kill them. Men are also faster because they were designed slightly different in the hips again tied to birthing children. Now all of this considered as a soldier (from B.C. era onward) strength and speed are two very critical components to a well rounded soldier ( along with other things like quick thinking, resourcefulness to name a few others). All of this is not to say women shouldn't be allowed to do these activities but should be scaled alongside men equally. If you as a female can't meet baselines that a male should have to meet why should you be allowed to participate, as of course you already stated.

 

[Judge Mandolore Shepard]

When it comes to my thoughts about women in combat roles, I don't think of anything wrong with it since it is not exactly new. After all take a look back at World War II where there were women as combat pilots in the Russian (then Soviet Union) air force.

 

[Psychic]

My first point is that all privacy and hygiene matters in our society are sex segregated. You can see this now with the whole transgender bathroom debacles, people do NOT want penises near vaginas communally, the military isn't any different. If the military can't even integrate sleeping quarters and hygiene facilities on a base or in training how will it work in the field?

First of all, plenty of people actually don't find it a big deal to share bathrooms with transgender people. We've been sharing bathrooms with trans people for decades, really. Also, a lot of transgender people get bottom surgery, so that point doesn't entirely make sense. But the "bathroom debate" is another story; homophobic and transphobic people will always exist, so using their existence to make a point seems silly to me.

With that out of the way, living on base isn't the same thing as being out in the field. If you're in the field, you're often too occupied to think about having sex, plus going out and acting on it. Still, I'm still not really sure what this proves.

Yes.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...sailors-at-higher-risk-of-sexual-assault.html

Ahahaha! Does the rape of Nanking, Berlin, R&R in Saigon or General Hookers army mean anything to you? Women around battle weary men separated from their wives are used for sex, whether that's consensual, civilian, comrade or prostitute matters little.

There are huge differences between raping civilians, buying prostitutes, and having sex with fellow soldiers. Just because it's all "men having sex with women in a military context" does not make it all the same. That you'd equate them boggles my mind.

That said, I have no idea what any of this is in response to. Did I ever say that sexual assault isn't a huge problem in the military? Did I ever say that women in the military don't get a lot of sexual attention from men? You're building straw men out of nothing.

What happened is you gave a very weird example of men and women being stuck in a tank together and implied that men would be turned on by seeing women change their tampons and there'd be a ton of sex as a result. Which is still ridiculous for the reasons I already stated.

Being deployed is not a normal "job" though. Especially in a combat role there is a large risk of dying or returning permanently disabled. Even men get cold feet at this terrifying prospect and desert. If I had to choose between possibly being wiped out of existence forever or raising a child in a safe homeland with no punishment (prison or execution for male deserters though) I would choose the latter.

Okay, so can you provide me with proof that women can and do get pregnant in order to get out of military service? Otherwise you're just saying that because you would abandon ship, female soldiers probably would too, and it's a shame that you think that way.

No, please educate me more, at least then your women's studies degree won't be completely useless.

I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to what you consider to be insults. The implication that I have a women's studies degree, and that this is a bad thing, is a very interesting thing to bring up out of the blue. Whatever makes you feel better, I guess.


~Psychic

 

[gimmepie]

Just a friendly reminder to everyone in this thread that whilst this is a heated topic, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please continue.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Well, as a United States Marine (thank you much, I was yelled at for a few months and I'm on leave) I think I am a fair position to give my opinion. Women and men belong on the field equally, albeit in selected groups. By that, I mean to say certain skill sets belong together as well as ability.

For example: I weigh 200 pounds. I can fire-man carry about 220 and under with little difficulty.

Now I've seen some Marines that can't possibly hope to carry me or my gear if they're put in that situation simply because their frame cannot hold that weight. I've heard the main arguments that women can't lift as much as men or aren't as fit. Garbage. I've seen shitbag Marines struggle with 45 pounds in an ammo can.

Women have been on the field since before the Vikings were about, never forget that. Now it's even easier to have anyone on the battlefield! The young and the old alike (child soldiers count for around 300k of the world's pop.) are capable of holding rifles.

My opinion: Those that aren't in any position to be placed on the field need to step away from this topic. If you aren't willing to step up and hold a rifle and saying women don't belong on the battlefield you're really saying this: "Women don't belong on the battlefield, and neither do I"

Stop being foolish. Bullets do not care who you are, neither do terrorists (I hate bringing them up, but they're there). If you think there aren't any female terrorists you're wrong. They use them all the time and in some cases they're preferably used over male agents.

Women can go wherever they damn well please. This topic is offensive to true soldiers. Leave the war talk to the warriors, hm? You look silly.

 

[Lipstick Vogue]

I believe the US army did conduct some tests where mixed gender and all male units had to complete tasks in which they were scored on a number of different attributes. Male teams blitzed them at pretty much everything and the top ranked female soldiers were only as good as the lower end of the male ones.

If they're good enough and aren't going to lower the standard of the teams [getting people killed in the process] then sure, girls can go fight in illegal wars too.