Women in combat, bad/good idea?

[TheKassi]

I'm 99% certain the conversation has transcended that. The thread title strongly implies a general discussion at the least.

You are probably right. Perhaps it would be more correct to say I was talking about the article in question.

No it isn't. If anyone does it and has success it's more difficult to discredit. And using "how conservative Americans respond to arguments that start with: 'Well in Europe...'" is beneath your previously evidenced debating skills.

I do not claim it is a clever or particular insightful argument, it does however work. Take a look at the current pathetic state of the health care debate. 'It isn't American' is considered a viable argument by large segments of the population. As is 'I don't want my country turning into Russia.'

I am not pleased it is an effective argument, but ignoring practical realities simply because they are distasteful doesn't get anyone anywhere. Remember, I was talking about dispelling preconceived notions, which is a polite way of saying prejudice or sexism.

Hard data, assuming that data is positive, will convince most if not all of the people who were hesitant to place women in combat because of the potential hazards. When that is done, you are left with the sexists.

And one of the problems with people who have irrational prejudices is that their argument do not tend to be limited to rationality. Because catchy irrational arguments tend to take wing in large segments of the population (Death panels will kill your Nana!) wise plans set out to mitigate their effectiveness from day one.

And in case I am raising anyone's hackles out there, I do not argue that everyone opposed to women in combat is sexist. When talking about things that will effect thousands of our men and women on a battlefield, caution and suspicion are flat out necessities, and qualities I would praise.

That however doesn't mean lots of people won't reject positive data simply because 'a battlefield is no place for a woman.'

[delete this account pls]

I haven't read a single coherent post in this thread that argued against the ability of qualifying women to serve without relying on misogynistic chauvinism.

I'm still surprised and dissapointed that there hasn't been a good curbstomping yet. If Commodore had said some of the stuff other posters have in this thread, we'd need bleach to clean away the blood.

[OldLordPlumm]

I haven't read a single coherent post in this thread that argued against the ability of qualifying women to serve without relying on misogynistic chauvinism.

Might have said something before reagrding my issue with the psychology of men soldiers withnessing female soldiers blown apart, or the issue of female POWs being raped and the impact on the women or men captives. Problem was I was too fucking busy having to repsond to fucking insults. What a waste.

Anyway at the very least I learned about the Canadian experiment with female infantry. Something I hadn't known so at least I got something out of starting my own thread.

Kassi,

your posts are good and something I had hoped would be more of a feature.

And in case I am raising anyone's hackles out there, I do not argue that everyone opposed to women in combat is sexist. When talking about things that will effect thousands of our men and women on a battlefield, caution and suspicion are flat out necessities, and qualities I would praise.

I appreciate you at least recognise that not anyone who raises a point is a sexist whatever pig. Unfortunately you're in the minority here.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I think I'm seeing the disconnect here. DVD ROTS didn't slam anyone, in my opinion, but if you read it that way I can see why you feel attacked by everyone.

On the other hand, people have disagreed with you and stated why, and you have yet to actually support your own argument, from what I've read. Not at the start (referencing GI Jane doesn't actually count), not when you were asked, not when counter points were raised. The longer you avoid that, the more you are likely to get frustration-filled posts, and the more it looks like you did raise the topic to simply declaim your position, rather than actually discuss it (or even debate it).

For my opinion, I've changed over the years. I used to think that there ought to be a double level of qualification. For example, and all values are just stand-in, "You must be able to carry double (your weight + gear weight) OR 400 lbs, whichever is greater, over a distance of 1.5 miles in a time of 20 minutes." That way you always have a minimum standard met, which might have been lower than the current qualification standard, but you can also measure as a percentage of an individual's maximum. In theory.

Now, to simplify, I think that anyone who meets the current* qualification standards ought to be able to serve where they choose**. I understand that there will be attitudes to adjust on all sides, and major difficulties, but I don't think there's any "easy" way to get around to accepting women in combat. I also don't see any reason to exclude all women from these roles, so that does mean there will be conflict whenever the decision's made to integrate, and if it will happen whenever it's done, why not do it now and start getting over it?

Oops, forgot my stars.

* As LOB says, standards may change over time. That's understandable, even changing standards soon after attempting to integrate women into combat roles, as long as they're not done in such a way as to invoke cries of "quota filling" or "making it easier for the women".

** As much as any military personnel choose where they'll serve.

[mormont]

[mod] I've had to delete a few posts in this thread already, I would prefer not to have to do it again. Make your points without personal attacks. Thanks. [/mod]

[Lord O' Bones]

I haven't read a single coherent post in this thread that argued against the ability of qualifying women to serve without relying on misogynistic chauvinism.

That is correct Ser. However, when it comes to winning wars and defensive readiness, when do you ignore the fact that many of our best soldiers believe this and force them to toss it out?

I see that Mormont is swinging his Claymore at this thread now. Apologies Mormie if I've quoted anything deleted.

edit - not now you haven't. m ;)

[OldLordPlumm]

I think I'm seeing the disconnect here. DVD ROTS didn't slam anyone, in my opinion, but if you read it that way I can see why you feel attacked by everyone.

On the other hand, people have disagreed with you and stated why, and you have yet to actually support your own argument, from what I've read. Not at the start (referencing GI Jane doesn't actually count), not when you were asked, not when counter points were raised. The longer you avoid that, the more you are likely to get frustration-filled posts, and the more it looks like you did raise the topic to simply declaim your position, rather than actually discuss it (or even debate it).

For my opinion, I've changed over the years. I used to think that there ought to be a double level of qualification. For example, and all values are just stand-in, "You must be able to carry double (your weight + gear weight) OR 400 lbs, whichever is greater, over a distance of 1.5 miles in a time of 20 minutes." That way you always have a minimum standard met, which might have been lower than the current qualification standard, but you can also measure as a percentage of an individual's maximum. In theory.

Now, to simplify, I think that anyone who meets the current* qualification standards ought to be able to serve where they choose**. I understand that there will be attitudes to adjust on all sides, and major difficulties, but I don't think there's any "easy" way to get around to accepting women in combat. I also don't see any reason to exclude all women from these roles, so that does mean there will be conflict whenever the decision's made to integrate, and if it will happen whenever it's done, why not do it now and start getting over it?

Oops, forgot my stars.

* As LOB says, standards may change over time. That's understandable, even changing standards soon after attempting to integrate women into combat roles, as long as they're not done in such a way as to invoke cries of "quota filling" or "making it easier for the women".

** As much as any military personnel choose where they'll serve.

ROTS didn't slam me man, I just disagree that he sees more wrong with my post than with people hurling sarcasm and insults (and no I don't consider that a justifiable result of 'frustration'). These guy layed into me because they think I'm a chauvanist plain and simple because I share a view different from theirs, doesn't matter why I do, as far as they're concerned I just do and need to be cut down.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

I dunno. I disagree with you overall, but I can't tell if you're a chauvinist. For that matter, I can't tell why you support your position, not really. I saw some movie references, a few conjectures on "maybe" this or "what about" that, but nothing concrete. I'll ask explicitly: why do you think - with support - that women should be excluded from combat roles? What do you think about the points that others have already made supporting women in combat roles? [F'rex, take a look at LOB's latest point -- and it's a good one -- that yes there's chauvinism restricting women in the military, but it's not something that can be handwaved away, or ignored. It's a real concern, so what do those of us who support women in combat want to see (constructively) done about it?]

I don't think you deserve insults for it, since I don't think you started out doing that deliberately, but neither are you changing your behaviour after having it pointed out to you. After a certain point, I think you can't be surprised you get sarcasm, at least. Especially not on this board, and especially - as it was pointed out to you early on - this isn't the first time this debate has come up.

[Datepalm]

Argh. Fuck. Am hiking in desert.(armed, fwiw) back tmrow. Expect lengthiness. B good.

[Lord O' Bones]

I do not claim it is a clever or particular insightful argument, it does however work. Take a look at the current pathetic state of the health care debate. 'It isn't American' is considered a viable argument by large segments of the population. As is 'I don't want my country turning into Russia.'

If we're acknowledging that this has become a global (or least 'first world' discussion, then it doesn't work. Large segments of my countries' population does is not near as significant globally.

I am not pleased it is an effective argument, but ignoring practical realities simply because they are distasteful doesn't get anyone anywhere. Remember, I was talking about dispelling preconceived notions, which is a polite way of saying prejudice or sexism.

I do appreciate your sentiment, however, you can simplistically say that this is an argument about prejudice and sexism versus reality and pragmatism, but without hard data, it's impossible to prove disprove either way.

Hard data, assuming that data is positive, will convince most if not all of the people who were hesitant to place women in combat because of the potential hazards. When that is done, you are left with the sexists.

And here's the problem in short: What situation is serious enough to require soldiers to maybe or maybe not kick serious ass and let green trainees (women infantry) do it, but would require 'no shit we need to kick some serious ass or we're fucked' (male soldiers with experience for the most part,) as a realistic and 'hard data' test? Even your Amazon company idea eventually runs up against this.

And one of the problems with people who have irrational prejudices is that their argument do not tend to be limited to rationality. Because catchy irrational arguments tend to take wing in large segments of the population (Death panels will kill your Nana!) wise plans set out to mitigate their effectiveness from day one.

And in case I am raising anyone's hackles out there, I do not argue that everyone opposed to women in combat is sexist. When talking about things that will effect thousands of our men and women on a battlefield, caution and suspicion are flat out necessities, and qualities I would praise.

That however doesn't mean lots of people won't reject positive data simply because 'a battlefield is no place for a woman.'

1st and 2nd paragragh seem to disagree. 3rd I understand, but believe to be temporary.

I also don't see any reason to exclude all women from these roles, so that does mean there will be conflict whenever the decision's made to integrate, and if it will happen whenever it's done, why not do it now and start getting over it?

I understand why this might not happen in my lifetime, yet fully expect that it will. If not now, when? As soon as we die off at the absolute latest I'm guessing.

[Skyrazer]

Heh, this very topic is being shown on the 7:30 Report right now...

[Galactus]

ROTS didn't slam me man, I just disagree that he sees more wrong with my post than with people hurling sarcasm and insults (and no I don't consider that a justifiable result of 'frustration'). These guy layed into me because they think I'm a chauvanist plain and simple because I share a view different from theirs, doesn't matter why I do, as far as they're concerned I just do and need to be cut down.

Dude, Plumm, if your opinions are chauvinist that makes you a chauvinist. That's what the word *means*.

[Chaldanya]

The chances of captured women being raped is likely higher than the rate at which captured men are raped.

I've got a longer post in me but I've seen this twice and I've only been reading the thread 5 minutes and frankly I can't let it go without comment.

With this statement you are acting like women aren't in danger of being raped in their own countries, their own cities,even their own homes/bedrooms/cars/workplaces. We live with the shadow of possible rape and sexual assault every day of our lives so why would it be any different in the military?

If you're so fucking concerned with women being raped then do something positive about the sexual and rape culture women live in every day of their lives.

N

[Galactus]

I've also seen some really horrible stats concerning women who do serve in the US military, and the rates of sexual assault and rape they are subject to from their own side.

[Lord O' Bones]

With this statement you are acting like women aren't in danger of being raped in their own countries, their own cities,even their own homes/bedrooms/cars/workplaces. We live with the shadow of possible rape and sexual assault every day of our lives so why would it be any different in the military?

Indeed, lest this go by the wayside, currently (in the US Army at least, and I strongly suspect elsewhere) these soldiers are in serious danger of this by their own brethren.

[Isis]

I'm gonna go old school Stego on this topic and say show me your fucking car. If you ain't got one, you don't fucking rate an opinion.

Did some people actually have to use google to take the meaning of this? I interpreted it as 'if you don't have actual experience of what you're talking about STFU'. I worked this out without the aid of google - I used my common sense. I seriously despair of a generation that can't figure anything out without using fucking google. A lot of use you're going to be when the shit hits the fan. /tangent

[zollo]

Did some people actually have to use google to take the meaning of this? I interpreted it as 'if you don't have actual experience of what you're talking about STFU'. I worked this out without the aid of google - I used my common sense. I seriously despair of a generation that can't figure anything out without using fucking google. A lot of use you're going to be when the shit hits the fan. /tangent

:rofl:

That just made my day.

[Chaldanya]

I'm gonna go old school Stego on this topic and say show me your fucking car. If you ain't got one, you don't fucking rate an opinion.

Ah, so only those who have been in the military can speak on this topic? Glad that Stego is around to tell us where and when we can post...

N

[Lyanna Stark]

I agree with Chaldanya. The rape issue (such as it is) is really a non issue. Women KNOW they can be raped. Men can be raped too. I'd hazard a guess and say it would be equally distressing to see somebody raped or tortured in front of you, regardless of gender.

But, isn't that a risk you are aware of when you apply for the job? Why prevent women from fighting and dying for their country if that is their wish?

Sure, like others, if there are physical standards that need to be followed, then apply it across the board (Eefa makes some great points above).

For the sake of comparison, 30 years ago most of the Eventing riders were men and it was generally considered a too tough sport for women to really be competitive (and it also used to be a sport for military men). You need some pretty crazy endurance, bravery and just all around no fear of death to be successful. The rate of accidents (sometimes fatal) are high. Today, most of the top riders are women.

Not saying it's exactly the same, but without putting a number of women in these new (tough) situations over a period of time, you can't know they won't manage, physically and mentally.

Somebody also mentioned innovation in this, which I think is important. I am by no means an expert, but I'll coldly assume warfare now is different from say, 40-50 years ago.

[TheKassi]

If we're acknowledging that this has become a global (or least 'first world' discussion, then it doesn't work. Large segments of my countries' population does is not near as significant globally.

There is no such thing as a global or first world discussion, which I think is where this disconnect might be taking place. The world didn't abolish slavery as one. The world didn't integrate their armed forces as one. The world does not define human rights the same way. The world doesn't define the proper role of government the same way. The first world hasn't even completely rejected the idea of a Monarchy yet.

The world isn't going to decide the issue of women in combat as one. At best most modern industrialized nations are going to decide something similar over the next fifty years or so, with many hold outs, slackers, and progressives coloring the mix.

And here's the problem in short: What situation is serious enough to require soldiers to maybe or maybe not kick serious ass and let green trainees (women infantry) do it, but would require 'no shit we need to kick some serious ass or we're fucked' (male soldiers with experience for the most part,) as a realistic and 'hard data' test? Even your Amazon company idea eventually runs up against this.

I am not quite sure I understand what you are getting at so I am going to say some stuff that I kind of figure may address some of your concerns.

First: There are actually a lot of women out there with a lot of training in live fire situations, perhaps not active front line combat, but women have taken people into situations where bullets fly. Thus a newly established unit wouldn't require totally green officers.

Second: There is a lot of low level combat in the world you can place units into to generate a more experienced pool of officers and Veterans. Australia isn't currently faced with an invasion, they have more then enough time to test new military doctrine in situations that have a very low chance of turning into a cluster hump.

Three: I am quite willing to bet that if Australia went to war today, most of it's military would be extremely green. Australia isn't known for sending hundreds of thousands of it's boys and girls around the globe to engage in battle every five to ten years.

Has there been a hundred thousand Australian soldiers engaged in battle since World War Two?

If the answer is no (I honestly do not know.) then such actions would quickly mean that the Amazon elements of Australia's armed forces would quickly become some of their most experienced soldiers.

1st and 2nd paragragh seem to disagree.

They do not. You can be unsure about women in combat without being sexist. I would personally argue that women should be in the air, and part of tank crews, and so on and so forth, but I myself am unsure if women should be in the infantry because of a lack of hard data.

I think that there is an extremely high probability that there are enough women that pack the gear to not only hack it, but prove a truly valuable resource, I do not however think the issue is decided. Thus I can respect caution that isn't grounded in outright sexism. I.E women can't shoot and their period will make them unreliable.

Women are different then men. This debate isn't like the fools who wanted to keep African Americans out of war. There is a high probability that challenges will need to be overcome. I personally think women can do not only do it, but the methods they come up with will provide useful innovation, the way overcoming the challenges inherent with the moon landing provided useful innovation, only less dramatic as the scale is far smaller.

Thinking something however is not enough, thus I figure the best solution would be a chance to prove it. Let the gutsy and hard among Australia's female population volunteer to show them all what for.