Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?
- Thread starter Wedgetail122
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nope. Because studies have shown is a bad idea. See, I am a feminist, and in no way am I saying that women lack the ability to be brutal psychotic killers. They are at least as apt in cold hearted murder as men. However, this comes down to biology. And no, I am not saying women are not as strong or anything, they can pass the same tests as men. However, the reason we (The Brits) don't let women serve on the front lines is men get stupid around women. A man will take a dumber risk to save a woman then he would to save another man, this can compromise the unit and cause greater casualties.
However, women in the airforce, dropping bombs on people? Women flying around in choppers, slaughtering people with giant guns? Yeah, No problem with that. At all. Doesn't cause the same issues, apparently.
On that note, the power of veto needs to be removed from the UN security council. Although, amusingly, any attempt to have said power removed would get vetoed. It should just go down to "Do two thirds of the security council believe in this thing? Let us do this thing". But that is totally an utterly off topic.
Also, there are some... Interesting issues that arise. Levels of rape of female personnel, shit like that. That is less of a reason to keep them out of the forces, more a sign that the forces need to change.
Let me be clear, there are British female front-line personnel, but we do try and keep things functional. Or I could be basing my knowledge on now outdated logic. We have a lot of support personnel that will get shot at and will return fire etc. A 10 second google search revealed that less than 10% of soldiers serving in Iraq/Afghanistan were female. Of those killed we have medics and bomb disposal units.
However, women in the airforce, dropping bombs on people? Women flying around in choppers, slaughtering people with giant guns? Yeah, No problem with that. At all. Doesn't cause the same issues, apparently.
Or this, that would be good... In an ideal world. But sadly, that aint the world we live in. Well, It sorta is. I mean, if England were to scrap its entire armed forces, bar the navy and airforce, jack shit would happen. We are an island surrounded in friendly nations. No "Unfriendly" nation has the capacity to strike us at home and the combined Navy/Airforce would allow us to project power when we need to. I firmly believe that all the armed force of the "Civilised" world should be handed over to the UN and the UN charter should be changed (Kinda like they are trialing against the M23. The UN needs much broader ability to intervene. I mean, this whole "Peacekeepers who can only fire in self defense" shit needs to stop cause it is pants on head retarded.) unless an actual threat occurs. That way the worlds most powerful militaries are controlled by the UN security council.Maiev Shadowsong said:
On that note, the power of veto needs to be removed from the UN security council. Although, amusingly, any attempt to have said power removed would get vetoed. It should just go down to "Do two thirds of the security council believe in this thing? Let us do this thing". But that is totally an utterly off topic.
Also, there are some... Interesting issues that arise. Levels of rape of female personnel, shit like that. That is less of a reason to keep them out of the forces, more a sign that the forces need to change.
Let me be clear, there are British female front-line personnel, but we do try and keep things functional. Or I could be basing my knowledge on now outdated logic. We have a lot of support personnel that will get shot at and will return fire etc. A 10 second google search revealed that less than 10% of soldiers serving in Iraq/Afghanistan were female. Of those killed we have medics and bomb disposal units.
I could see it complicating things in the team dynamics of a squad, female members, even if they are just as qualified as their male counterparts, could be treated differently because they're female. Like SimpleThunda' it could cause tension within a group when they're supposed to unified and equal.
Disturbingly, I've also heard that there's a large rape culture in the US military, or at least some parts of it, which sadly has gone very unreported in the media. Apparently it's so bad that statistically a female servicemember is more likely to be sexually assaulted by a colleage than killed by enemy fire.
And then of course there's the possibility of pregnancy, whether through rape or otherwise, which REALLY complicates things.
Disturbingly, I've also heard that there's a large rape culture in the US military, or at least some parts of it, which sadly has gone very unreported in the media. Apparently it's so bad that statistically a female servicemember is more likely to be sexually assaulted by a colleage than killed by enemy fire.
And then of course there's the possibility of pregnancy, whether through rape or otherwise, which REALLY complicates things.
I'd agree to this, it seems like it avoids all the real issues that could arise. In a perfect world men and women should be able to serve side by side, but then if this was a perfect world we wouldn't need these jobs to begin with would we?blackrave said:
Want to hear something funny?the clockmaker said:
The Bundeswehr has a quota of 50/50, but they found that there aren't enough women to fill the ranks of all departments, so they decided to opt instead for a 60/40 quota for the medics, which resulted in absolutely every woman that applies for it being recruited, no matter their physical fitness, even if there are prevalent medical problems that prevent them from ever performing adequately in the field, ensuring that, if they are ever actually sent onto a battlefield to aid the injured, everyone on the battlefield is gonna be shit out of luck.
Aren't quotas fun?
(No, this does not apply to every female soldier, there are perfectly healthy, fit female soldiers who would probably run circles around me, beat me in a push-up contest and manage to do more pull-ups than I could ever dream of, but at the same time, it is fact that the physical requirements for female soldiers are much much lower than those pertaining to male soldiers. As far as anecdotal evidence goes: There are obese female recruits, there are recruits with heriditary conditions (e.g. requiring nigh constant medical attention due to problems with their blood production) and a female recruit who can't even stand for prolonged periods of time, AKA "the bread and butter of any soldier" due to an insufficency of her veinous system.)
My opinion:
Of course women should be allowed on the battlefield, if they meet the same requirements as their male counterparts.
No group of people is really unified and equal in their abilities, temperament, etc. But gender is just one aspect that influences that. Women and men already serve together in many situations. There are issues, but it does seem to work.OlasDAlmighty said:
Yes. Abuse within the military has to be stopped.
Like any other job, the service person would have to go on maternity leave.
The military does have this "We own your body" thing going on, which might be beneficial if it extended to reproduction though. I mean, if you've made the decision to join the military, choosing to alter your body so you suddenly cannot serve in the middle of your tour is irresponsible.
Separate but equal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal], eh?
No. If they can serve in the military, then they can serve in the military.
Cheers!
If you have the capacity to withstand combat, use a weapon, and take life, by all means use it to defend what you believe in, no matter your gender or any other physical attribute you may possess.
Ours is a world of conflict and we all have roles to play within it. Just make damn sure that those who volunteer for or have roles assigned to them can perform when the time comes to act. We know enough about combat now, in theaters of every shade and stripe, to gauge whether or not someone will be able to carry out a task or assignment in pretty much any situation. We can also figure out what will happen to those who live through the experience.
Do not sugarcoat these standards or the consequences of being in those situations. Because folks like me are the ones that will be helping those who survive to live with themselves afterwards.
Ours is a world of conflict and we all have roles to play within it. Just make damn sure that those who volunteer for or have roles assigned to them can perform when the time comes to act. We know enough about combat now, in theaters of every shade and stripe, to gauge whether or not someone will be able to carry out a task or assignment in pretty much any situation. We can also figure out what will happen to those who live through the experience.
Do not sugarcoat these standards or the consequences of being in those situations. Because folks like me are the ones that will be helping those who survive to live with themselves afterwards.
Well as someone who is a male and served with women in the same unit that I was in I can shed a little light on things. While my unit was not a front line combat unit we did get exposed to many of the same dangers. I was a Military Policeman in the US Air Force. We were trained and expected to be able to do many of the same things that Army units do. I went through a modified Infantry program, I was a heavy Weapons specialist and we went through combat training. We were responsible for protecting our Air Base and ground installations as well as performing convoy operations and other missions that the Army performs. Our unit was mixed we had male and female members and we trained and lived as an integrated unit once we were deployed. Women were expected to carry the same equipment and perform the same functions as males. 85-90% of them were able to pull their own weight and do their jobs. The others were a strain on the unit cohesion and ability to function. I am 6'1 and about 200pds. I was a machine gunner so I carried a 23 pound M60 machine gun and about 30pds of ammo and other kit in addition to my normal combat equipment such as a helmet, flak vest, bullet proof vest and a back up pistol with ammo. So about 120pds plus of gear. My assistant gunner was a 5'1 female who weighed maybe 100 pds. She was supposed to also carry about 30-40 pounds of gear related to the machine gun such as spare ammo,a tripod, pintle and spare barrel. In addition she was carrying her normal gear, an M16 and ammo for it so about 90pds of gear. She was not able to carry all of that so I had to not only carry all my gear but all of her gear related to the machine gun and some of her personal gear as well. She was assigned as my assistant in order to satisfy the spreading out of women to all the roles in the unit. She was not the only female to require help doing their duties. The physical requirements for women were not as high as men in physical fitness so there was a lot of disparity. Many males in the unit did resent that women were treated differently and especially when it was time for a unit to rotate out to a field assignment a lot of women "accidentally" became pregnant and couldn't be sent out. There was a lot of complaints that while our unit was 30% female about 90% of the office staff were female.
My personal opinion is as long as the woman can do the job then she should be allowed to do it. However they should be held to the same level of standards as males in order to prevent fraying of the camaraderie and unit cohesion I witnessed due to the different ways that women were treated. Some of it was guys that couldn't handle fighting next to a woman or being commanded by a woman. But a lot of it was the way that the sexes were treated by the commanders.
My personal opinion is as long as the woman can do the job then she should be allowed to do it. However they should be held to the same level of standards as males in order to prevent fraying of the camaraderie and unit cohesion I witnessed due to the different ways that women were treated. Some of it was guys that couldn't handle fighting next to a woman or being commanded by a woman. But a lot of it was the way that the sexes were treated by the commanders.
Surely then women should be restricted from working with men in business or any other organisation because they'd cause social ructions? Having worked with many women in different roles I can confirm that they're no more or less susceptible to melodramatic nonsense than men are.OlasDAlmighty said:
As for the rape culture and other stuff, well... don't you think that's a seperate issue that needs to be resolved irrespective of anyone's views on women in the military? I mean; it's a bit like saying black people shouldn't be allowed to serve because they might get racially abused.
SimpleThunda said:
Yes but by that logic gays should also be banned from military service. This kind of behavior happens in high risk job environments all the time, whether sexual tensions are present or not.
I don't see a problem at all with female combat personnel, I see a problem with Male combatant's instinctive reactions to female combat personnel.
Maybe, instead of focusing on a female's combat ability, military topics should focus on unit effectiveness and the benefits of certain attaché.
Having female soldiers manning patrol posts or checkpoints along with male soldiers can be a very good means for searching civilians under cultural divide, female searching female, that sort of thing. As well as taking into account local culture's attitudes towards women. Articles linked in this thread is very good information.
What is most important though, is giving the opportunity to female soldiers to make as much of a difference as men, along with men, in a combat situation, which can stretch beyond mere combat ability.
Maybe, instead of focusing on a female's combat ability, military topics should focus on unit effectiveness and the benefits of certain attaché.
Having female soldiers manning patrol posts or checkpoints along with male soldiers can be a very good means for searching civilians under cultural divide, female searching female, that sort of thing. As well as taking into account local culture's attitudes towards women. Articles linked in this thread is very good information.
What is most important though, is giving the opportunity to female soldiers to make as much of a difference as men, along with men, in a combat situation, which can stretch beyond mere combat ability.
Of course they should be allowed, if they meet all requirements. And for people defending a different set of requirements for women: this isn't PE class. This is about life and death. Everyone needs to reach a certain standard, no matter who they are. Lives are on the line here.
My country still had a mandatory draft a few years ago, and one of the largest sentiments here was "either completely get rid of it, or include women in that draft" because honestly, it was a horrible thing not to. (And you were always able to avoid military draft and instead go into a social facility to help out). It meant that men lost quite a bit of time in their life (for a good cause, sure), whereas women didn't.
My country still had a mandatory draft a few years ago, and one of the largest sentiments here was "either completely get rid of it, or include women in that draft" because honestly, it was a horrible thing not to. (And you were always able to avoid military draft and instead go into a social facility to help out). It meant that men lost quite a bit of time in their life (for a good cause, sure), whereas women didn't.
Clockmaker, I'll take Shadowsong's hope over your arrogance any day of the week. Shadowsong at least has the courage to stand up and express disapproval of combat in a respectful manner. You cut down anyone who hasn't served in the military as being unable to express an opinion because such an opinion cannot possibly be an informed one.the clockmaker said:
We play video games, Clockmaker. Conflict and combat are our playground. To suggest that none of us except those who have served in an armed force have a valid opinion regarding combat is mean-spirited and ignorant.
I've never been raped, but I have some pretty strong opinions on it. I've never been to the Middle East, but I have very strong opinions about the horrors committed there.
I have never fired a gun. I hope I never have to. I respect those who can and do. But I dream of a day when nobody has to.
As long as they meet the requirements and no double standard or affirmative action is enforced I'm fine with it, we're well past the point where the deaths of female soldiers could endanger the continuation of our species.
Many of the other concerns are more about the quality of the individual soldier than the fact that they are female or act differently around female soldiers (if male).
Many of the other concerns are more about the quality of the individual soldier than the fact that they are female or act differently around female soldiers (if male).
I have never laughed as loud as I have when you claimed that playing video games gives you insight into combat. That is... I mean... look at it, look at your post and then tell me you don't think that that is a rediculous thing to say.Living Contradiction said:
Courage is not posting in a forum, it is just not, there is no risk, nothing to lose, no real reason to be afraid and thus no courage.
People can have valid opinions from outside of the military, it happens all the time, but when you create an echo-chamber like this where people who wear uniforms are by far in the minority, it leads to laughable statements like 'women and men in the military need to be segregated' 'women cannot serve in submarines' 'no one should be in the military' 'I understand combat because I PLAY VIDEOGAMES' (seriously dude, come on)
Besides, she did not say 'I hope for a time that the military is not nessecary' or 'I regret the inherent nature of the world that leads to conflict' she said 'no one should be allowed to join the military' and if she had meant something else, she should have said something else.
The thing is mate, rape is a binary moral position, raping someone is bad, not raping someone is good. The middle east, again is a moral position. I have no problems with people saying things like 'Women should be in the military because the social contract applies to all' or 'women should not be in the military because...' Actually I do have a problem with people saying that second thing, but that is purely from a moral standpoint.
Where all this falls apart is that people can't resist jumping into the technical side of how to implement and work things within the military 'Oh, this is the sections and squads they can and cannot work in' 'oh, here is some stuff about military culture that I totally understand' 'oh, here is some stuff that I understand about day to day uniformed work and life'. that's where it all falls apart. Now I'm not trying to tell everyone to shut up, and no one would listen to me if I did, but all I am saying is that people, when it comes to the military, think they know more than they do.
A few people have mentioned women being brutalized more well, brutally, as captives than men as a reason why they ought not be put at risk of capture, and therefore limited to support roles. If you read the material amnesty international has online on the subject you can see that while women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual torture men are vastly more likely to recieve what was referred to as common torture (interrogation) and sadistic torture (disfigurement and crippling. So both genders face the possibility of extremely traumatic treatment at the hands of the enemy, and as long as the inherent risks that accompany being taken alive is deemed acceptable (read necessary) for men than it ought to be for women too.
Set requirements, whoever meets them goes in.
Only reserve i would have is for that fact that roughly 1/3 of women have really harsh periods which reduce their physical capabilities during first 2-3 days of ovulation. But I will leave that to others and people who would be in combat with them.
In push comes to shove, i would like to have reliable people by my side, no matter which sex, nationality, religion or whatever they are.
Only reserve i would have is for that fact that roughly 1/3 of women have really harsh periods which reduce their physical capabilities during first 2-3 days of ovulation. But I will leave that to others and people who would be in combat with them.
In push comes to shove, i would like to have reliable people by my side, no matter which sex, nationality, religion or whatever they are.
Yes, if they can meet the same standards as men.
There are two fundamental reasons why historically women were for the most part kept out of combat:
1. Physical strength - not quite as big of an issue as before. We're not swinging axes around anymore. A bullet is a bullet, no matter who fires it. Overall physical fitness is more of a factor now, and there is less of a disparity between the sexes in that regard, as opposed to raw, brute force. However, what should NOT be done is instituting separate standards for women. This isn't sports, it's not about fair play. If it comes to war, the other side isn't likely to go easy on them because they are female.
2. Replenishing numbers - put simply, women were too valuable a commodity to risk in wars since losing them meant a lower capacity to replenish your numbers between conflicts. A hyperbole to illustrate: a village of 200 people, all in their 20ies, 50/50 male/female split. If they send 100 women out to fight and only 10 come back alive, they can pop out 10 kids a year, meaning it would take them 9 years to reach the previous population levels. If they send out 100 men and 10 come back alive, some polygamy ensues and you're getting 100 kids a year, reaching old population levels in a year. Considering the whole overpopulation thing we're starting to have to deal with, I don't think this is much of a concern anymore...
There are two fundamental reasons why historically women were for the most part kept out of combat:
1. Physical strength - not quite as big of an issue as before. We're not swinging axes around anymore. A bullet is a bullet, no matter who fires it. Overall physical fitness is more of a factor now, and there is less of a disparity between the sexes in that regard, as opposed to raw, brute force. However, what should NOT be done is instituting separate standards for women. This isn't sports, it's not about fair play. If it comes to war, the other side isn't likely to go easy on them because they are female.
2. Replenishing numbers - put simply, women were too valuable a commodity to risk in wars since losing them meant a lower capacity to replenish your numbers between conflicts. A hyperbole to illustrate: a village of 200 people, all in their 20ies, 50/50 male/female split. If they send 100 women out to fight and only 10 come back alive, they can pop out 10 kids a year, meaning it would take them 9 years to reach the previous population levels. If they send out 100 men and 10 come back alive, some polygamy ensues and you're getting 100 kids a year, reaching old population levels in a year. Considering the whole overpopulation thing we're starting to have to deal with, I don't think this is much of a concern anymore...