isnt there an israeli report that stated that combat unit with men and female, the casualty rate of men where higher that those of same sex combat unit? due to the men instinct of protection towards womans
Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?
- Thread starter Wedgetail122
- Start date
There's no reasonable argument against it. Most of them boil down to either:
A. Women are "less capable" then men. Which has been repeatedly proven to be absolute bullshit. I'm not trying to deny gender dimorphism exists, but the simple fact is the days of the victor being the person who can hit the other person with a big ass club the hardest are over. If anything, gender dimorphism favours female soldiers, as women tend to be more naturally dexterous, which directly translates into marksmanship.
B. It'd be "awkward" for male soldiers. One can equally say the same about homosexual soldiers, should we start kicking them out the military?
C. Women would receive inhumane treatment from Islamic militants, were they captured. No shit. But you know what? During the second world war, "Lesser races" received inhumane treatment from the Nazis when they were captured. The idea that we should extend some kind of professional curtsey to the absolute worst examples of humanity that exist is plain ludicrous.
A. Women are "less capable" then men. Which has been repeatedly proven to be absolute bullshit. I'm not trying to deny gender dimorphism exists, but the simple fact is the days of the victor being the person who can hit the other person with a big ass club the hardest are over. If anything, gender dimorphism favours female soldiers, as women tend to be more naturally dexterous, which directly translates into marksmanship.
B. It'd be "awkward" for male soldiers. One can equally say the same about homosexual soldiers, should we start kicking them out the military?
C. Women would receive inhumane treatment from Islamic militants, were they captured. No shit. But you know what? During the second world war, "Lesser races" received inhumane treatment from the Nazis when they were captured. The idea that we should extend some kind of professional curtsey to the absolute worst examples of humanity that exist is plain ludicrous.
I agree with your central point, but you're dead wrong here, as has already been mentioned in the thread. The equipment a soldier carries into combat can weigh up to around 100 lbs. That means carrying everything around in an extremely hot environment for the entire day. Marksmanship is very important, but even more so is being able to haul your ass into position whenever the fighting starts. There are females that can do it, but gender dimorphism works more against them than it helps.Daverson said:
Actually Daverson, I'm pretty sure none of those 3 arguments were legitimately made here on this thread, if you look through the few posts that actually don't support it.
Also, your argument against "less capable" is incorrect. On the "less capable" front, it has nothing to do with marksmanship or dexterity. Those are great, but for an infantryman, brute strength and stamina are still more important. Dexterity doesn't help you lug an 80lb ruck around with 8 to 20lbs of weapon and another 15lbs of direct gear. All the dexterity in the world doesn't make that better.
The awkward argument I haven't seen played yet. It has been played many times in the past with the homosexual soldiers thing and there is some validity to it, but it's one of those "time to grow up and move on" type situations.
The less humane argument is valid, but it's not the way you attempted to trivialize it. If a woman wants to volunteer for a situation that could result solely in her being brutalized, then that's her call. It's more that her brutalization or the threat of, could be used as a weapon against other, male, soldiers and that should be a very real concern.
There are quite a few reasonable arguments against it. Whether they are reasonable enough for women to remain restricted from infantry duty in some countries remains to be seen, but there are very valid concerns. Dismissing them doesn't make them go away or be less valid.
Also, your argument against "less capable" is incorrect. On the "less capable" front, it has nothing to do with marksmanship or dexterity. Those are great, but for an infantryman, brute strength and stamina are still more important. Dexterity doesn't help you lug an 80lb ruck around with 8 to 20lbs of weapon and another 15lbs of direct gear. All the dexterity in the world doesn't make that better.
The awkward argument I haven't seen played yet. It has been played many times in the past with the homosexual soldiers thing and there is some validity to it, but it's one of those "time to grow up and move on" type situations.
The less humane argument is valid, but it's not the way you attempted to trivialize it. If a woman wants to volunteer for a situation that could result solely in her being brutalized, then that's her call. It's more that her brutalization or the threat of, could be used as a weapon against other, male, soldiers and that should be a very real concern.
There are quite a few reasonable arguments against it. Whether they are reasonable enough for women to remain restricted from infantry duty in some countries remains to be seen, but there are very valid concerns. Dismissing them doesn't make them go away or be less valid.
As if separation by gender isn't something we already do in many organizations, both government, private, commercial, and otherwise across the United States. We segregate prisons by gender, schools and colleges can be all male/female, as well as groups like the Boyscouts and Girlscouts of America.oreso said:
Trying to draw a comparison from what I'm describing to pre-civil rights racial discrimination is just plain silly. Do I even need to explain why?
Although I can't personally account for any of this myself, I'd imagine it's slightly different when you're working overseas away from family and friends for years at a time possibly in life/death scenarios with people that you spend 24/7 with. Again, I don't know what it's like personally, but I doubt serving in the military is just like any other job back at home. So I don't think it makes sense applying the exact same logic to both.Bertylicious said:
Ideally yes, and I know lots of people are trying to solve it. But issues like this rarely just get resolved, especially when they're this prevalent and widespread. I tend to be an idealist, believe it or not, so I'd hope you're right. I was merely exploring reasons putting women in combat COULD be problematic.Bertylicious said:
First of all, I didn't say women shouldn't be allowed to serve.Bertylicious said:
Why is everyone try to compare this to racism? Whereas racism tends to be predominately cultural, rape in the military probably stems largely from a dark side of human nature. From what I'm aware there isn't an epidemic of racism/racial abuse in the military.
Ok, fine, lets say everyone who thinks the same way as you do gets together, and gets everyone else to agree not to defend them. Lets put this new country over in, say, mideast Africa, so you don't even get protection by proximity to a friendly military.Maiev Shadowsong said:
Not too long after that, you are all dead, and the kind of people who would kill others without a second thought are more numerous, better supplied and much stronger because of your sacrifice. Other communities are put at risk because of it.
I can understand the concept that death is not necessarily a bad thing, I actually agree on that point. But what exactly have you accomplished in the above scenario? All I can see is more death, more destruction, and more misery.
There's an old quote of disputed origin "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". If you convince the good people of the world to stand by without acting, by and large there will be no good people left.
Pfft. If you want to risk getting your ass shot at and killed, go right ahead, regardless of your gender. You've got a right to your state-sponsored death wish.
Oh. Huh. I didn't realize that was a thing (I've only ever gotten yeast infections after taking antibiotics). Then again, I really like baths and showers (they're relaxing) so I've never gone without for very long.kingpocky said:
Anyway...
Don't soldiers carry personal first aid kits? Throw in a couple of those hard-core anti-fungal suppositories - those will kill the yeast infection.
Also, wouldn't male soldiers get fungus growing on their junk after that long? I guess I assumed there was jock-itch cream in those first aid kits for that.
NOTE: I'm going to copy/paste this reply into my original post so that the person I originally replied to sees it.
Using medication to fight a condition brought on by poor hygiene without doing anything about the hygiene itself isn't a very good strategy. It's a problem for male soldiers too, which is why you do everything you can to keep yourself as clean as reasonably possible, it just doesn't happen as quickly as it does to females in similar conditions. That doesn't mean that women shouldn't be in combat roles, it's just that it's a consideration that has to be taken if a mission like that is being planned.Bara_no_Hime said:
Like I said, I have literally no experience on that front. I keep that area of my body clean enough to eat a meal off of. Because... well, I think that's clear enough.kingpocky said:
Fair enough. Although, again, some moist towelettes could help with cleaning the area. I carry around half a dozen in a little snack-sized ziplock for my own personal use and they hardly take up any space.kingpocky said:
My point was that the military spent millions so that submarine captains could smoke on subs (which is kind of a bad idea, but I digress). It wouldn't take nearly that much to modify equipment load-outs to accommodate some female needs. For that matter, I imagine the men would probably like some moist towelettes to help with their own fungal issues.
Also, there are militaries who have experience with this. How does Israel deal with yeast infections? (Having typed that sentence, I am momentarily stunned by what a strange question that is out of context.)
As with any other role ever, I think if a person can do it, they should be allowed to.Wedgetail122 said:
Also women in combats are hot.
It doesn't prevent them from doing the job; however, the associated problems of not properly dealing with this issue simply mean that a female soldier is vulnerable to a host of maladies men are not from a simple problem of hygiene. This is not an insurmountable problem by any means but, again, the issue largely isn't about resolvability of various minor issues; it is if the measures that would be necessary to solve the problem are worth the effort.Bara_no_Hime said:
For each of the problems you might list, there is a solution. The higher incidence rate of failure to meet standards means you'd simply need to start with more trainees to get the desired end result. Of course, this comes at a cost - those who fail still get paid for the attempt, money is still spent on the materiel for training, and many who fail will draw some amount of disability payment for the rest of their lives as a result. As such the obvious solution absolutely represents an increase in cost to field a single female soldier. I'm not going to speak to what the cost difference might be because, again, this is an issue that I've simply never seen a study on - it's far to incendiary an issue to actually take up with any seriousness.
The issue of hygiene is likewise solved by simply increasing the logistical effort devoted to a unit that includes women but, here again, you see a problem. Supplying an army in the field with the basic necessities of rations and ammunition is incredibly difficult especially when your supply lines are thousands of miles long. While the necessary supplies to greatly mitigate hygene related health issues (and, truth told, we aren't talking about much more than baby wipes and tampons) are comparatively minor it again represents a consideration you can overlook in a dire situation.
There are absolutely women in the world who could fight in the infantry to great effect. There are absolutely women who could even serve in various Special Operational roles. The problem is that recognizing they exist and actually making that happen are two wildly different things. There are very real issues with females serving in those roles in general but, more importantly, there are a host of social barriers that stand in the way as much as anything.
As I pointed out before the thing that really gets in the way are things like questions about the effects on unit cohesion and combat effectiveness when soldiers are sleeping together (a thing that absolutely will happen) and this long held distaste we in the west have with involving women directly in combat. That many can broadly recognize that women are just as capable of being shot at as men is a remarkably different and easier to make realization than accepting that it's okay to send them to be shot and maimed and killed as a key part of their job description.
That, more than anything else, is what keeps women out of direct combat roles today. Those jobs may well involve being shot at and even call upon them to defend themselves and their unit but such action is not expected. To put them into a direct combat role would be to say that we, as a society, are fine with sending women to die for a cause. That is a line few nations have been willing to cross.