Women in combat, bad/good idea?

[OldLordPlumm]

Re: OLP

My problem is that you started a thread, rather controversial one, and have yet to really explain yourself. When asked, you answered yes and no, and gave no further explanation. It's like talking to a wet blanket. You're not simply wanting to hear what others have to say. If that were the case, you wouldn't even mention where you stand. The reality is that you stated your opinion (women should not be allowed in these combat positions). You simply refused to elaborate on that opinion, or to offer any argument to support that opinion.

If you state a piece of opinion, then be prepared to be asked to support it. Don't run and hide behind "oh I just wanted to hear what everyone else has to say on this" when challenged.

To put it more bluntly: Put up, or shut up.

Gee how nasty. Was not being confrontational or beating my chest really deserving of that? "Put up or shut up". Also accussing me of hiding and of being "a wet blanket".

I personally didn't think it to be that controversial, most women here are big girls who deal with these matters alot in society. Seems to me you think don't like my politics or something and are on the attack. So when I won't be drawn into being confrontational (like many threads around here tend to get over unneccessary things) you get all puffed up and pull this shit.

Taken I simply could state "I don't like women in frontline combat roles like light infantry because...." Wowwww soooo sorrrrrryyyy. Didn't think it would be so hard to draw conclusions as to what I was getting at. But already there's starting to be a discussion as to the comment re israeli soldiers being dated and so forth, so it seems what I had to say is going somewhere.

I'll just bite the rest of my tongue for now on you Terra.

[Serious Callers Only]

The actual reason is that military planners know soldier (male group) mentality and are terrified of the publicity of their army pows being raped. They are not worried about this for males because the default group dynamic for (male group) armies for gays is (dismissal, objectification, violence, negation, punishment), so the question doesn't even arise - the group self-regulates. Its also one of the reasons they are resistant to gays in the army.

[Shryke]

Re: Tempra

If we suppose that captured soldiers will be treated differently based on sex, then might we not also employ the "men go light on women" trope and figure that women will be less likely than men to receive harsh physical torture? I mean, we're talking about violating Geneva Convention, so rape and torture are on the table. If women are more prone to being raped, are they also less prone to being tortured?

Jesus man, he didn't even say that it mattered when it comes to the question of women serving in the military. Lay off him.

[Tempra]

Re: Tempra

If we suppose that captured soldiers will be treated differently based on sex, then might we not also employ the "men go light on women" trope and figure that women will be less likely than men to receive harsh physical torture? I mean, we're talking about violating Geneva Convention, so rape and torture are on the table. If women are more prone to being raped, are they also less prone to being tortured?

If taking pictures of people naked is 'torture', then rape unequivocally qualifies as torture.

And we don't have to suppose that women will be treated differently than men on the basis of sex, it is a fact. Here is one example of what captured women face during wartime:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Bosnian_War

Like I said above, I don't think this should be a reason to prevent women from participating in combat roles, but it is something that women should consider before accepting such a role. I assume all soldiers are taught the consequences of being captured (think SERE tactics), but rape is an added burden that women face in much greater proportion than men.

[Lord O' Bones]

Let me guess.

1. Women are not physically fit enough to fulfill the requirement for these units. (Variation: In order to allow women to serve in these units, the standards will have to be lowered, and that will reduce effectiveness of these units.)

Like so many others have said, as long as requirements are met and unchanged for any reason related to a new all-inclusive policy, fucking go for it.

2. Women, as fetus incubators, are too precious to be killed in dangerous front-line operations; unlike men, who, as sperm carriers, are more disposable.

Negative. Though I'm sure that belief is still out there.

3. Allowing women to serve in those units with very little personal space and a lot of tension will make all the male soldiers wanna fight to access those vaginas, and that'd be bad for unit morale.

This was true for the integrated Navy when I left it. No idea how it's working out now. But you have to start somewhere, if we're ever going to get to the point of near parity in the future when this would cease to be a problem (if it hasn't already.)

4. Women will get raped in those units, literally. So it's for their own protection to not let them serve.

Sadly, this happens now. Since the Army can't seem to get a handle on it by itself, maybe if there were more women around, a few of them trained killers, some of this bullshit would stop?

Since we've had women KIA over the last decade, have there been reports of the effects on their male comrades? Not after the fact, in the moment.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

The actual reason is that military planners know soldier (male group) mentality and are terrified of the publicity of their army pows being raped. They are not worried about this for males because the default group dynamic for (male group) armies for gays is (dismissal, objectification, violence, negation, punishment), so the question doesn't even arise - the group self-regulates. Its also one of the reasons they are resistant to gays in the army.

First time I've encountered this argument. Source/support/evidence, por favor?

As a counterpoint, I'd note that in prisons the default group dynamic for gays is dismissal, objectification, violence, negation, punishment, but there sure are a lot of men raping men all the same.

[fitheach]

First time I've encountered this argument. Source/support/evidence, por favor?

As a counterpoint, I'd note that in prisons the default group dynamic for gays is dismissal, objectification, violence, negation, punishment, but there sure are a lot of men raping men all the same.

Exactly. I wonder how many male POW's are raped and don't report it after they're freed... Women are much more likely to report a rape then men, doesn't mean they're raped much more. When it comes down to it, torture is torture. A soldier, male or female, knows what can happen if caught (despite the Geneva accord). In the States we have a decision to be a soldier or not. In many countries a citizen doesn't have a choice, its a part of being a citizen of where they live, and they have to serve...

If a woman chooses to be a soldier on the front lines, and she knows the dangers and passes the criteria- let it be.

[Noontidal]

So we are talking special forces here, right? The military is not and never has been an equal oppurtunity employer, although they have made faux attempts to become one. Personally, I believe if a person can make it, pass all standards and competently do the job they should probably be accepted on their individual merits as long as those can be enforced and there is no cheating/softening things. There are exceptions such as in an individual having asthma, sicle cell and a host of other conditions that put that individual's and others lives into increased risk in certain situations.

The best way to make a legitimate argument at this point would be to gather a group of women, and run them through a full-on equivalant of a special forces training course to provide documented proof that women can handle the task and it would hence be in the military's best interests to open the field to them. Provided a reasonable success factor and a good method of selecting individuals for access into the programs the opposition and remaining 'issues' would likely fade away for most.

[OldLordPlumm]

Exactly. I wonder how many male POW's are raped and don't report it after they're freed... Women are much more likely to report a rape then men, doesn't mean they're raped much more. When it comes down to it, torture is torture. A soldier, male or female, knows what can happen if caught (despite the Geneva accord). In the States we have a decision to be a soldier or not. In many countries a citizen doesn't have a choice, its a part of being a citizen of where they live, and they have to serve...

If a woman chooses to be a soldier on the front lines, and she knows the dangers and passes the criteria- let it be.

That's a fair point and I've thought as much on previous occassions. However consider if the female is raped and abused in front of the male POW's. I can't say for sure what affect that would have if any, but it's an extra dynamic.

Interestingly torture is torture is what I remember one former POW (first gulf war) Rhonda Corum said, "It's just one more thing they can do to you."

[fitheach]

That's a fair point and I've thought as much on previous occasions. However consider if the female is raped and abused in front of the male POW's. I can't say for sure what affect that would have if any, but it's an extra dynamic.

Interestingly torture is torture is what I remember one former POW (first gulf war) Rhonda Corum said, "It's just one more thing they can do to you."

And if they rape a man in front of the male POW's? Is that lesser in some way? Rape is horrific any way you put it, and it's not just one more thing that can happen to women, tell that to men raped in prison. Its used as torture to both and as a way of mentally crippling a prisoner. Female or Male.

Your rape argument is weak.

[Serious Callers Only]

Nooo, i didn't mean the other prisioners. The publicity bit was aimed at the CNN's of this world, that's what the planners are terrified of.

As for sources. Nada. Zilch, Nothing. It just seems obvious. Like the aroma of a pervasive taboo. Not talked about but there.

Or maybe i'm crazy.

I need shrug emotiocon.

[The Progressive]

The Australian

Bad idea IMO. Great that more roles have been opened up to women than ever before, it's just too far.

My reasoning is what Viggo says to Demi in the showers in GI Jane "The Israelis tried it."

*slow claps for brilliant use of unorthodox supporting evidences to bolster thesis*

This is probably the reason why the IDF has been doing so terribly against Hamas and Hezbollah. Serve them right for letting women bear arms. :angry:

[OldLordPlumm]

And if they rape a man in front of the male POW's? Is that lesser in some way? Rape is horrific any way you put it, and it's not just one more thing that can happen to women, tell that to men raped in prison. Its used as torture to both and as a way of mentally crippling a prisoner. Female or Male.

Your rape argument is weak.

What argument? Not sure what you're arguing about now, but you may have got the wrong idea.

For clarity,

My point about one more thing was Rhonda Corums point she said quote "It's just one more thing they can do to you". By that she means they can do all sorts of terrible things and she views rape as yet another thing. So the way she came across in the interview was that it didn't seem like the most earth shattering thing considering they can still burn you, break your bones etc etc. That's her view.

Rape is bad to a guy who gets it and equally bad to a female who gets it. But then there's the people who have to watch it. I would have a hard time watching either a male or female colleague getting raped. I wouldn't know for sure unless I were actually in that situation as to which I found worse. However at the moment some part of me feels I'd have a harder time watching a female get violated (don't think I deserve to get slammed for that - share your own feeling if you wish). The other point here is that many men regardless of culture have an aversion to raping another man (they could make up for it in other horrific ways), less so the case with a female so if there's a female in the group that problem is solved for them.

*slow claps for brilliant use of unorthodox supporting evidences to bolster thesis*

This is probably the reason why the IDF has been doing so terribly against Hamas and Hezbollah. Serve them right for letting women bear arms.

Why be so sarcastic Pax and use an angry face emoticon instead of pointing out what you feel to be incorrect and point out what is instead? Do you feel like a big man because you can't speak like that to people's faces?

Some people have already pointed out that Canada has female infantry personnel and others have pointed out there is an Israeli female infantry soldier here. Why can't you just do that? I'm not going to get shitty if someone tell me something new. Might not change my POV but I'm sure I'd find it interesting.

[Merentha]

Taken I simply could state "I don't like women in frontline combat roles like light infantry because...." Wowwww soooo sorrrrrryyyy. Didn't think it would be so hard to draw conclusions as to what I was getting at. But already there's starting to be a discussion as to the comment re israeli soldiers being dated and so forth, so it seems what I had to say is going somewhere.

Except nowhere did you say the "because" part, even when asked.

[Young Wolf]

If the women were able to meet the physical requirements that the men are forced to meet...I dont see the issue. That's always been the kicker for me. I suppose there are some mental obstacles as well, but if they want to do it and can...let em.

[mcbigski]

Let me guess.

1. Women are not physically fit enough to fulfill the requirement for these units. (Variation: In order to allow women to serve in these units, the standards will have to be lowered, and that will reduce effectiveness of these units.)

2. Women, as fetus incubators, are too precious to be killed in dangerous front-line operations; unlike men, who, as sperm carriers, are more disposable.

3. Allowing women to serve in those units with very little personal space and a lot of tension will make all the male soldiers wanna fight to access those vaginas, and that'd be bad for unit morale.

4. Women will get raped in those units, literally. So it's for their own protection to not let them serve.

5. All of the above.

1 mostly. While a small percentage of women could meet the physical standards for special forces, they will almost certainly have to reduce standards in order to get anything resembling gender parity. Why have an army at all if you're going to intentionally engineer it to be less than optimally effective?

2. Is no big deal - as long as abortion and birth control are common and legal, then logically killing a few wombs will just be a drop in the bucket for birthrates anyway,

3. Is presumably already going on in mixed gender branches and specialties. I'd assume that commandos and SAS units are still on bases with mixed gender units, even if they aren't always deployed together, so really no big deal.

4. I have to wonder if the rate of rapes is higher or lower in the military compared to civilian life, all things considered. Discipline and unit cohesion are hugely important and constantly stressed. I really doubt this is an issue that's specific to the military.

In short, if they open it up to women without reducing standards, I don't see a problem.

[Stego]

Despite your ignorant condescension, Billy, all of the above. Also:

-It is more psychologically damaging to see women wounded. Far more, in my experience.

-Women can not lift enough weight. Not a one on planet earth. Show me one who can lift all their gear, and a 200lb man and all his gear and run with them and I will reconsider.

ETA: Also, women trend towards horrible shots.

[Relic]

-It is more psychologically damaging to see women wounded. Far more, in my experience.

For you.

And people with Mom complexes.

And most men.

Show me one who can lift all their gear, and a 200lb man and all his gear and run with them and I will reconsider.

I'm pretty sure i can't do that either. At least the run part.

[Serious Callers Only]

But the military* make a *man* out of you.

*slaps chest*

*draft dodger

[Stego]

I'm pretty sure i can't do that either. At least the run part.

Yep, and I'm pretty sure you could not be in a front line unit, hippie.