Women in combat, bad/good idea?

[Week]

What is it about gender issues in the military that should exempt it from this general expectation of professionalism? If the biases of men against women are putting lives in danger, should it not be even more imperative that we ensure these male soldiers are trained to avoid committing this error, rather than enabling them in continuing their sexist practices?

This. I realize that I, too, feel that I would have a stronger response to a woman getting injured than another man...were I in a bar or on a street. However, I can imagine feeling differently in a combat situation due to a need for professionalism and the relationship I'd expect to have with the other men and women in my squad/platoon etc. It isn't like a man would leave another man wounded behind. They would risk their life for a wounded comrade of either sex, as would a woman in the same situation.

Ignoring the context shows a lack of critical thinking, which is very likely why King Nobody is getting (deservedly) snarky responses.

[Relic]

It cannot be helped. It's an innate response we inherited through evolution.

:rofl:

[Merentha]

My post was from experience as a guy, i know how we think.

No, you know how you think. Please don't lump me in with you.

[Datepalm]

KN - infantry life is a grinding sysiphean mess of sleeplessness, bad hygiene, exertion, mild dehydration, training routine and equipment maintenance and morale like an orange being squeezed for juice, punctuated by regular hours/days of taut nerves, brief chaos and anticlimax. (at least for me or for anyone of any gender that i've ever known. Then again, i'm sure the entire US army is a whirwind of honorable death defying adventure filled with poignant moments of aplatonic bonding and single tears of raw manliness)

Its not some seething telenovela of super special male bonding and sexual tension. Men and women, I swear, can work together perfectly well. Can have important friendships and co-operate effectively (even, like, while shooting guns and running and shit like that.) and trust eachother with their lives, and even, wait for it, be in ocassional romantic relashionships that somehow nevertheless don't lose us the war.

I'm going to really shock you now, and be careful when thinking about this - there are women who command men. Tell them what to do. Order them about. Decide the tactics and strategy these men have to follow. Yell at them in boot camp. Sometimes, these women make these men into better soldiers. I know its hard. But its ok - they aren't Real Men.

[Ran]

But Datepalm, surely these are Amazons that you're describing, 6'3" of solid muscle, able to spit further, piss longer, and kill more thoroughly than any man. They can't possibly be average female soldiers, because as we know, average people just aren't made to be soldiers.

[Datepalm]

But Datepalm, surely these are Amazons that you're describing, 6'3" of solid muscle, able to spit further, piss longer, and kill more thoroughly than any man. They can't possibly be average female soldiers, because as we know, average people just aren't made to be soldiers.

And every single one is a lesbian.

(I once got asked that, very politely and with a look of pure innocent hope like a child in an old disney cartoon, by a soldier who looked about 16 who had obviously taken a while to work up the courage to ask. I could only answer "yes, yes we are.")

[Annelise]

Wait, you guys are confusing me. Are you talking about Chicks 'n Chained Males?

[Xray the Enforcer]

:lol:

Datepalm, you rule so fiercely.

[S John]

Wait, Datepalm is a chick?

[TerraPrime]

Wait, Datepalm is a chick?

No, she's a lesbian.

(PS Look at mah new sig!!)

[JGP]

No, she's a lesbian.

(PS Look at mah new sig!!)

Wait wait, I happen to know quite a few guys who are lesbians...

[turinturambar]

Re: turinturambar

So, really, I think you're just missing the thread of conversation, even after I pointed it out to you. I'm not sure if you even have an argument to make here. You implied in #261 that there's a suggestion to ignore physical requirements in order to allow women to join, I pointed out in #264 that nobody had said that, and now you mentioned something about Tempra? What are you talking about?

My original post was a reply to a post of yours where you were implying that Tempra thought women SHOULDN'T be allowed on the front lines, which was in fact a contradiction to Tempra's original post very clearly stating that women SHOULD be allowed on the front lines.

You then went on to an argument about sexism which had really no valid reason to be aimed at Tempra.

I have in front of me "Biology (7th Ed.)" by Campbell and Reece, published by Pearson. It is the most widely used biology textbook for advanced high school and college introductory level class in the U.S. Perhaps you can direct me to the section in this textbook where I can find support for your statement? I know it's not in the Unit 3, "Genetics," Chapters 13 to 21, because I taught those chapters.

And I studied evolutionary anthropology for 3 years, I'm certainly not an expert on it, but I do know a lot. The only real consensus is that nobody particularly agrees on everything. Most do realize that evolution has an influence on personality, behavior, emotional response, etc, but disagree on what extent these factors are influenced through evolution. I happen to believe that our behavior is largely influenced through evolution. Certain behaviors are innate and important for species survival. This is why some organisms tend towards monagomy, because it's a trait that helped the species survive. This is why some species rove in packs with an alpha male/female. The lion knows it has to protect it's pride, even if it's not intelligent enough to reason why or why not it behaves in this way. Just because humans have evolved to a point where we can reason, does not mean we don't have instinctual urges, emotions, etc.

*Obviously, you use the term "protect" in a very narrow and limited sense, given the mountains of evidence on how men had visited cruelty and abuse on women throughout history, from female genital mutilation to forced sexual slavery, from the prohibition against women partaking in democracy to the high rate of sexual assaults on women. To the less forgiving eyes, your declaration that men are innately programmed to protect women reads more like an insultingly arrogant white-washing of past atrocities committed by men against women.

You're smarter than this Terra. Nothing is 100%, you know this. Millions of people are murdered every year, does that mean that people don't inherently think that killing = bad, except under rare circumstances? Even the most seasoned warriors generally live with guilt and depression for the killing they've done, even if the killing was justified. Yes, there are sick f*ckers out there who kill for pleasure, or have no remorse for their actions, but they are the minority, not the norm. Also, as I've said before, behavior isn't just a result of one thing. Many factors go into the behavior of a person.

What does that even mean?

On one hand, you're arguing the that denying women, on account that they are women, full access to duties in the armed services is not sexist because it is against men's nature to witness creates witness women being put in mortal danger. On the other hand, you're denying that you support the reasoning to exclude women on account of the discomfort that men would feel in seeing women suffering harm from their military duties.

I'm not arguing that denying women, on account of being a woman, isn't sexist. It IS sexist. I'm just stating that a man's more intense reaction to seeing a woman harmed is not sexist. Sexist would be allowing that emotion to influence your decision to not allow women to fight. I've maintained all along that women should be allowed to serve, and any psychological reaction by men should not be a valid excuse to deny women the right to serve. I'm just stating that the psychological feeling in itself is not sexist. As I said before, those men who are overly sensitive on the issue of women being harmed should not be allowed to serve. Psychological strength is just as important as physical strength on the battlefield.

Mormont,

The point is that you are positing inheritance of an extremely complex behaviour in (as Terra points out) a limited set of circumstances, not a simple instinct. The evidence for such behaviours being inherited is pretty much non-existent. (Which is why you won't find it in simple textbooks of anthropology, biology or psychology.)

It's not really an extremely complex behavior. And not every behavior or instinct is 100%. Not every turtle hatchling dashes straight for the water, sometimes raccoons eat their young, I could go on and on with examples. Just because not all men feel this way, doesn't mean that there isn't a prominent trait that's been passed down through evolution. Not all people are heterosexual, not all people seek out monogamy, not all people eat meat. Yet these are all tendencies which have been developed through long periods of evolution. And for what it's worth, most anthropology and psychology books to talk about this on many levels.

Date,

KN - infantry life is a grinding sysiphean mess of sleeplessness, bad hygiene, exertion, mild dehydration, training routine and equipment maintenance and morale like an orange being squeezed for juice, punctuated by regular hours/days of taut nerves, brief chaos and anticlimax. (at least for me or for anyone of any gender that i've ever known. Then again, i'm sure the entire US army is a whirwind of honorable death defying adventure filled with poignant moments of aplatonic bonding and single tears of raw manliness)

From what I understand, women are often usually better at activities requiring longer endurance. A preferable astronaut would be a woman. In the future, if/when we finally attempt Mars, I can imagine the crews might be dominated by women.

[Week]

I'm not arguing that denying women, on account of being a woman, isn't sexist. It IS sexist. I'm just stating that a man's more intense reaction to seeing a woman harmed is not sexist. Sexist would be allowing that emotion to influence your decision to not allow women to fight. I've maintained all along that women should be allowed to serve, and any psychological reaction by men should not be a valid excuse to deny women the right to serve. I'm just stating that the psychological feeling in itself is not sexist.

Sexism - n - behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

[Sis Who Swears]

I think this thread should be renamed 'Datepalm Rulz' :thumbsup:

[mormont]

It's not really an extremely complex behavior.

You're suggesting that a reaction to seeing a woman killed is an inherited instinct. But by any reasonable definition, that is not an instinct, it is a complex behaviour.

And for what it's worth, most anthropology and psychology books to talk about this on many levels.

I'm afraid they don't. They may mention something that you are attempting to conflate with this, but that's not the same thing at all. It is up to you to show some proof that this is an instinct.

Of course, first you will need to show some proof that this reaction even exists, because we can't explain any hypothetical behavioural phenomenon until we know that it is genuinely there to be explained. Despite this point being brought up repeatedly, you have not shown any hard evidence that this alleged reaction actually manifests in any reliable way.

Having shown this, you would then have to show that it was very widespread, and that it was reliably manifested across different social groups, ages, education levels, cultures, etc. to provide at least some prima facie evidence that it might be instinctual. You would then need some further argument as to why it might have proved evolutionarily useful, one slightly more developed than the rather lazy and partial one you've advanced above.

And even if you do all that, you still won't have a particularly good point. So I'm not really sure why you ever brought it up.

[turinturambar]

Sexism - n - behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

Which means, basically, that the innate feeling that one would rather not see a woman be harmed is not sexist. Using that feeling and being unable to cope with it and using it to force inequality on a gender IS sexist. The emotion is not sexist, and those who are able to cope with the emotion and keep up their integrity are not sexist. Those who use this emotion to form their attitude about women are sexist. The same way that a man who sees a beautiful woman and pictures her naked in his mind or fantasizes about sex with her(intentionally or not) is not truly a pervert nor are his thought abnormal. The man who dwells on such thoughts or urges and from them twist his value or attitude of women, is a pervert and a POS.

[King Nobody]

This point was addressed in the article that Ran linked to earlier. Go read that, and preferably the references it gives. That should satisfy your request that the other side 'back up' their claims.

Oh wow. The claims I asked him to "back up" was that there are women serving in the front lines alongside men, this article discredited his response.

Contrary to what many believe, only Canada has

succeeded at desegregating its infantry. When the

topic of military fighting women comes up, many

point to Israel as an example of a nation with a gen-

der-integrated ground combat force. But this is not

true. Israeli women have not served in combat roles

since Israel’s War of Independence in 1948, and

even then, most say they served because of des-

perate need.

Here's another quote from farther up the page.

For example, Canada, a nation with an armed force of about 65,000, currently has six women infantry soldiers.

I never claimed there was no women in the military, and that is not what i asked him to provide proof of.

So the one country with women serving on the front line, only has 6 of them, wow, that article sure did get me good.

Please don't speak "as a guy". We are not monolithic, and have many different opinions.

Fine, as a guy, I have formed these opinions based on the experiences that I have had, as a guy. You may be different, whatever, does that mean I'm not a guy?

Ah, so you are a mind-reader in addition to being the Speaker For All Men.

I don't need to read your mind when it's clear in your post. Three people, in a 17 page thread now have provided documents, and yet I am the ONLY person you felt like calling a troll, for not posting documents.

what's your answer to the presence of documentation on the reduction of effectiveness of units with mixed gender soldiers? Do you have them? Or not?

Like I said, I was posting from personal experience. I'm sure using google will find you numerous accounts of men making irrational decisions because of their attraction to women, and stories of men losing friendships, or even lives fighting over a girl. And no, I'm not saying every single girl in every single unit is going to spark hormonal jealous rage, but if it happens outside of the army, there is no reason to assume it won't happen in the army.

Also its pretty hard to find studies on something that barely exists. But I`ll get back to you when Canada does a study on how the 6 women they have serving on the front lines affect the men in their unit.

Three people. There are also multiple back-and-forth replies in discussing the material being posted. If none of that caught your attention, then it's time you owned up to not having read the thread carefully, imo.

And each person who went "back and forth" on an article then posted their own article in support of their claims, right?

[King Nobody]

I'm going to really shock you now, and be careful when thinking about this - there are women who command men. Tell them what to do. Order them about. Decide the tactics and strategy these men have to follow. Yell at them in boot camp. Sometimes, these women make these men into better soldiers. I know its hard. But its ok - they aren't Real Men.

And do you people really need to so defensive about it? Honestly, at least when I posted my opinion I wasn't a dick about it.

[Ran]

Was I asked to back up anything? My article had nothing to do with backing up anything, it was simply noting an Army infantry captain's arguments for why women should be intergrated.

Also, it's from 2002. The situation has changed in the intervening 7 years. First off, lots and lots of female American soldiers have been involved in combat situations in Iraq; they may not be front line troops, but they've been placed in extremely dangerous situations in which they've come under (and have returned) fire, and they've done so with as much distinction and courage and skill as any other soldier under similar circumstances. Furthermore, Israel does have a desegregated combat battalion -- and, if I'm understanding correctly, Datepalm is a member of it.

[King Nobody]

Was I asked to back up anything? My article had nothing to do with backing up anything, it was simply noting an Army infantry captain's arguments for why women should be intergrated.

That was directed at mormont. The "him" I was referring to was Terraprime.