Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?

[The Gnome King]

Hey ladies and gents, i'm conducting research for history on the topic of women in the armed forces. Whilst its not anything to do with gaming, I thought I might use all you wonderful mature people of the escapist to give me a pretty even snapshot into general opinion. Any Comments or thoughts on the topics would be most appreciated.

So Women in Combat Duties? Do you agree with it?

Absolutely. The Israeli army seems to be doing fine with female soldiers. Obviously there are biological strength differences but not every combat position in the army requires the ability to drag 300 pound bodies around the battlefield. My wife, for example, is a tiny thing but an expert sniper and sharpshooter. *shrug*

I actually think that in this day and age women should have to sign the draft card in the US just like men (well, selective service card) - the point isn't that there hasn't been a draft in a long while. The point is that it's a step towards full equality - realizing and recognizing that women can fight and die (and should fight and die) just like the sons of the US can in times of war.

 

[DrOswald]

Because of this, even people who are collectively devoted to peace must have some means to defend themselves, even if only by proxy.

Nope. Plenty of Buddhists are utterly passive.

The term "by proxy" was in there fairly deliberately. Buddhists tend to live in countries defended by various military and police forces. Most of them are completely devoted to peace, but they are defended by people who are not.

Might wanna mention that to he monks that talked to and tried to reason with the various militias that have slaughtered them over the centuries. China's done it a few times. Didn't fight back.

Thank you for proving my point.

I'm confused. What is your point? I don't meant that in a sarcastic way. This is what I've got so far: that passive people are protected by non-passive people, right? So I mentioned the times passive people were killed and not protected. How did I prove your point? You lost me.

My point is that without such protection, passive individuals are at the mercy of others.

Since a very large portion of the world are more than willing to take advantage of the weak and defenseless, a country that has no military defense and/or militaristic allies willing to defend them in turn like you suggested earlier will doom its citizens. Best case outcome for such a scenario is forceful occupation of the pacifist country by a more militaristic one. More likely however, the pacifist country's population just takes a steep decline as the hyenas tear out what they want.

To put it another way, pure pacifism just leads to a whole bunch of dead pacifists.

I believe it's worth trying. Of course others don't, so they are free not to. But me personally, I'd very much like it. We could be invaded. I don't think we would, but you are right, that is possible. If we die, so be it. I'll take peace and death over war and violence.

It has been tried, and it has failed miserably. for example, take the Moriori - a civilization that was actually dedicated to the position you advocate. They were almost completely exterminated when their islands were invaded in the 1830s. A quote from one of the few survivors: "[The Maori] commenced to kill us like sheep.... [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed - men, women and children indiscriminately." Within 30 years only about 5% of the population survived.

But if death is preferable to violence, that is fine. Only understand that by rolling over so easily a pacifist culture gives power to the violent cultures of the world - and likely allows for far greater violence to occur than ever would be committed by a defensive war. When a society is violently subjugated without significant resistance, either because they cannot or will not defend themselves, the aggressor gains power and can then threaten more peaceful societies.

Consider the start of World War II. Germany was not a powerful nation in the decades leading to the war. But the build up was remarkably quick. Germany built up military forces and strengthened their position by annexing weaker nations using political and eventually military strategies. By the time anyone with any real strength got to the point of opposing Nazi Germany their position had become so strong that a world war was the outcome. Now, understand that I am not criticizing any particular nation or people in this example; I do not pretend to be an expert of the period and I would never try to judge the actions of leaders in such a difficult time. But the fact remains that Nazi Germany was only the threat it grew to be because no one significant opposed them until it was too late.

One of the greatest risks of pure pacifism is that you give power to the violent. Don't imagine that by valiantly letting yourself get slaughtered you are preventing violence and war. You are just as likely contributing to it.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

Well, I can agree that you and I have a different perspective of death. It is certainly a part of life: the end of it.

I don't believe that there is anything waiting for us after we die. I don't believe that the things I do in this life are some training/judgement/whatever.

But I do believe in organ failure, blood loss and bullet wounds and, believe you me, they believe in you.

While I've never had to kill anyone in combat or war and I try to operate on a "do no harm" policy (if you cannot help someone, try not to hurt them) I have been on both ends of some of the horrific violence that humans can do to one another. I was stabbed in a bar trying to prevent an assault on a friend and I would do it again with the same level of hesitation: zero, but I would have killed that man if I could've.

We are everything we have done and learned and lived and experienced and shared with all the other people in our lives and I'll be damned if I'll lay down and die and let someone take it without a fight.

Captcha: charm offensive

Hmm...

 

[Knobody13]

Hey ladies and gents, i'm conducting research for history on the topic of women in the armed forces. Whilst its not anything to do with gaming, I thought I might use all you wonderful mature people of the escapist to give me a pretty even snapshot into general opinion. Any Comments or thoughts on the topics would be most appreciated.

So Women in Combat Duties? Do you agree with it?

Wow where did you learn how to sample for research?

 

[sonofliber]

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

 

[Hazy]

Women should be allowed into any unit where they meet the requirements. If they meet the requirements that are set for the men, then there's no reason whatsoever to keep them from whatever roles they want to fulfill.

Bingo. The common denominator should be completely static, not changing in the slightest. If you can pass that shit, welcome aboard.

 

[kingpocky]

2, they have hygiene requirements that men don't. We have often been without proper hygiene for weeks or even months at a time but males can handle that, whereas females need proper hygiene on a regular basis and being in combat that is not something that cam be provided right away. Support roles allow for this which is why women are in support roles.

I'm going to ignore 1 and 3 since they are absolutely absurd. Plenty of women are that physically capable and equally aggressive.

As to 2... are you really going to claim that women can't be in combat because of their periods? I'm not sure whether to be amused by the comic immaturity or shocked that you actually think a period is going to stop a female soldier from doing her job.

If you are purely concerned about the lack of tampons in combat zones, then might I suggest those birth control implants that reduce a woman to only four periods a year? And if that's not enough for you, I'm sure the military could come up with a reusable pad for use in the field. They designed ash-trays for submarines that break into three not-sharp pieces when smashed, I'm sure they can manage this.

It's not periods that's the problem. Yeast infections can get very nasty very quickly when a group of women go without showering for a couple weeks.

 

[Daverson]

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.

 

[kingpocky]

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.

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.

 

[Alarien]

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.

 

[Olas]

Snip

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!

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.

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?

Snip

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.

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.

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?

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.

I mean; it's a bit like saying black people shouldn't be allowed to serve because they might get racially abused.

First of all, I didn't say women shouldn't be allowed to serve.

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.

 

[Heronblade]

I believe it's worth trying. Of course others don't, so they are free not to. But me personally, I'd very much like it. We could be invaded. I don't think we would, but you are right, that is possible. If we die, so be it. I'll take peace and death over war and violence.

I'm sorry but I just cannot contemplate this line of thinking. How is allowing yourself and others to be killed by those who would do violence to you 'peace'?

Is your life so unimportant that you feel no need to defend it? Do your loved ones deserve no protection? Is your pacifism simply cowardice and apathy? I truly do not comprehend.

There will always be those who would do violence.
There will always be those who want what they do not have and are willing to use force to obtain it.
There are those who would kill you simply for being, because you are different and they don't understand or care to.

There should always be those who are willing to stand up to those people. Even for those who will not or cannot stand up for themselves.

Especially for those who cannot.

It's better to die in peace than contribute to war. To me anyway. I suspect you don't understand because you and I view death differently. Not that there;s anything wrong with that, of course. I don't know what death is, but I don't consider it a wholly bad thing. I think it's just another part of life. So I don't have much of a reason to contribute to death and war, if dying isn't a bad thing should it come to that.

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.

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.

 

[an annoyed writer]

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.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

It's not periods that's the problem. Yeast infections can get very nasty very quickly when a group of women go without showering for a couple weeks.

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.

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.

 

[Daverson]

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.

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.

True, but women aren't naturally incapable of doing it, which is my point. I'll admit, I could have phrased that better =\

 

[kingpocky]

It's not periods that's the problem. Yeast infections can get very nasty very quickly when a group of women go without showering for a couple weeks.

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.

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]

Using medication to fight a condition brought on by poor hygiene without doing anything about the hygiene itself isn't a very good strategy.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

 

[Knife]

It's not periods that's the problem. Yeast infections can get very nasty very quickly when a group of women go without showering for a couple weeks.

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.

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.

No, soldiers don't carry personal first aid kits (at least in my unit they haven't), medics do (1-2 medics per 100 or so soldiers).
And I can attest most men do get fungus. On their feet. Not on their junk.

 

[Kennetic]

I already know I'm going to have the unpopular opinion here but it needs to be said, no.

There are various reasons; the more noticeable are differences in physical capabilities and the mixing of gender doesn't make things better. I'm not going to try and give the same talk that two well read gentlemen have, so I'll just leave a link for a well thought out and written article.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/let-us-fight-you

... It wouldn't take nearly that much to modify equipment load-outs to accommodate some female needs...

The point of having the equipment the way it is, is to not lose combat efficiency. If you have to make loads lighter to accomodate a set of people, you're weakening your team. Base plates for mortars and other things are heavy and already come in pieces, if you divide the pieces up more to make them lighter it's for the detriment of the team. Actual combat isn't a place for social experiments and loosening of standards, it's for closing with and destroying the enemy; standards are there because they're what help keep people alive.

This is basically what I was trying to say in my post but I failed lol. War is war.

 

[Loop Stricken]

So Women in Combat Duties? Do you agree with it?

As with any other role ever, I think if a person can do it, they should be allowed to.
Also women in combats are hot.