Dunno if it'd be a net good/detriment. Treatment of women by their fellow male soldiers has obviously been pretty bad in a fair % of cases and women are often targetted for sexual violence by soldiers (civilians I mean). Don't know if a force with a large % of female soldiers working together in a very supportive fashion would be a net good, maybe it'd help counter male sexual abuse of existing female soldiers who are greatly outnumbered and often poorly supported. Don't know if it'd bruise male egos and reduce chances of surrender or perhaps increase the chance of negotiations working. So many unknowns. Plus, as women are the only half of the population able to bear children, that's an argument against overuse of them as soldiers during times of war that aren't an existential threat to the country who they soldier for - ie not many wars are an existential threat to the USA thanks to relative isolation due to the seas and other factors.
Treatment of women by their fellow male soldiers has obviously been pretty bad in a fair % of cases [...] Plus, as women are the only half of the population able to bear children, that's an argument against overuse of them as soldiers
So, you're basically saying women should not be soldiers because their male comrades-in-arms can't help but act like sexist beasts towards them - and because women are supposed to be baby-making machines, anyway?
*Sigh*.
I'm still for women soldiers myself. But I'm starting to wonder why any woman would WANT to risk her life defending this society...
Treatment of women by their fellow male soldiers has obviously been pretty bad in a fair % of cases and women are often targetted for sexual violence by soldiers (civilians I mean). Don't know if a force with a large % of female soldiers working together in a very supportive fashion would be a net good, maybe it'd help counter male sexual abuse of existing female soldiers who are greatly outnumbered and often poorly supported.
Increasing number of female soldiers is likely to reduce that. It's recognised that police forces generally deal with female rape victims better when there are female officers involved. The US military has had some serious problems with the way it deals with sexual assault in the military come to light recently, including a number of the people responsible for dealing with the problem sexually assaulting female personnel.
EclipseoftheDarkSun said:
Plus, as women are the only half of the population able to bear children, that's an argument against overuse of them as soldiers during times of war that aren't an existential threat to the country who they soldier for - ie not many wars are an existential threat to the USA thanks to relative isolation due to the seas and other factors.
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.
This right here, end thread, you got it right there, hit the nail on the head.
Why should a capable woman, be denied the ability to fight for her country if she's proven that she can do it?
Hint: There's no reason she shouldn't be allowed to.
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.
Meh, I know its not the most reliable method but it was more out of interest than anything else, I think I might snip a copy of the poll or a couple of these comments into my documentary for a passing mention, its only for a (almost) final piece at high school. The topic is just interesting to me because I'm an Aussie male dead set for going into a career in the Royal Australian Air Force, every time the topic comes up there seems to be a few interesting opinions on it. Its good to see a plethora of arguments from all sides being brought up here.
It is a very interesting topic. I thought for a moment that you were doing graduate/undergraduate level research like this. Most of my highschool teachers would have been happy to see me do any research at all lol. Good luck in your endeavors sir.
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.
1. yes they should if capable enough. if not capable for task x, assign for another group/task.
yeast:
You wont get yeast infection by not showering. our vaginas are really really capable of self cleaning, that's a big part of the flora there-this a orifice so the body needs protection-and it has a very well working one (usually-there are always exceptions, sadly)
To the contrary: using ANY kind of soap on the inside is actually harmful and might lead to mycosis because it destroys the p.H of the vaginal mucus. Its best just to use warm water and nothing more. Soap maybe a bit on the outside but NEVER inside. Too much hygiene just kills the acidic protection there.
you can live a month without showering.(I am sure even more but I just "tried" it one month-involuntarily) women lived long enough before the invention of showers. What killed them was more that doctors didn't washed their hands before working on e.g pregnant women. But well, a full on pregnant women in active duty is rather unrealistic, I´d say.
you get mycosis if you use antibiotics (even then it doesn't have to be) or if you don't know how to wipe yourself after pissing. not hard really(and even that more likely leads to inflammation of urethra with Escherichia coli.)
@period: there is something like hormonal contraception-you can take the stuff like forever and wont get your period.
you get it if you make a pause in your pill cycle, but there are enough pills who can be taken long enough and you wont have this bloody nuisance. Pills for one year don't take up much space but if they will, you can get
an implant(3 years) or use shots who last 3 month. there you might bleed, but a lot of women get amenorrhoea.
And only a part of women has problems with cramps or pain(and sport and moving around often helps against that)
If you don't know about periods first hand (because you have them) dont try to solve and imagined "problems" about stuff you dont have experience with.
Also, what do some user(s) think? Srs, I am really pissed. Not into the army because of periods? WTF? I love it how people who dont have body part X or body-function y talk about that and want to regulate people whose body's can do that..
Its like these darn a*holes who make hundreds of laws which controls the female reproduction and the body and are people who dont have there body's-so talk, control, judge and rule about stuff they don't know shit about. (and there are no laws which control male* body's the same way)
So what do you think, that we are too dumb to know ourselves? If I had a period who would incapacitate me for days, I wouldn't apply for armed forces(if I would consider such stuff) you know, people with a body and a certain age tend to knwo the body and its limitation and suggesting that women are incapable of doing so is not very decent. its like "I know your problems better that you and have to save our armed forces from your incapability to know and judge your bodily functions".. wtf? that's misogynistic and paternalistic.
we don't need people who never had a period to ponder on whether we are capable of knowing how severe our periods are and which effect that has on us. you sound like some salafya-fanactic-derp who use the same bullcrap to forbid women to work-because our period is sooo hard that incapacitates us physical and if not that then on a emotional level so we we cant work hard and do "brain- work"(except homework of course, because that's nothing, apparently)-so, if you don't bleed, don't judge. Also even if you would-you would be ONE individual and saying that its the same for all menstruation persons because it affects you harshly is..well. i dont have to say it, right?
in case of period:
@tampons:
ever heard of a menstruation cup?
great thing. put it in, wear it for 8 up to 10,12 hours (better only 8 but sometimes it cant be helped, eg if hiking.), then empty it on the ground or wherever and put it back in-you can use special wipes to clean them but that is not necessary and if you are in for a long walk, you will very well survive 1 or 2 day without really washing that thing. Or just use one paper tissue.
The stuff is out of your body and its sealed(Tampons are far worse because they are open and soak themselves-e.g through the string), so there are only your native bacteria.(which help against any harmful bacteria and yeast)
So if you can, use a bit hot water (boiled water should be available-I mean, you will work in countries where you cant use any water from the grounds because of risk of diarrhoea. Or tissue or special aseptic wipes(which are made for that for people who are hyper-hygienic)
so, take out, empty, wipe out with toilet-paper and if you have give a bit water in, pour out and back in. If you are used to that, this needs max. 3 minutes.
so no need for supplies-the females could be trained to use that stuff. if you are in the army, a bit blood should not disturb you, you are trained to be a killer. also its your own.
You can use them up to 5 years, medical silicone, so boil-able. one could take 2 with her* and change them so that one cup is washed and the other in. they weight nothing and are small. next problem solved.
next:emotional problems of menz?
If some men in the forces cant cope with women working in the army* they have to change. I mean, you cant say if the men cant behave, take the women out.. then you can say the women, we shouldn't leave the house because "the men" cant behave (we know now that we should never drink because people might betray our trust-and because the people who rape are in 3/4 of all cases people we know-so the effective rule would be:never drink if men are around. you get how sick this logic is? also, how will you change stuff if you just acknowledge the problem but dont solve it?
*(and women ALWAYS have fought, whether you want to believe that or not-just because some people cant believe it and cant acknowledge(and document it) doesn't mean there are no women in the armies and there were never..
(but this is the problem that gender roles lead to less women in armies and the women who fought over the history often get ignored because of gender roles-so the documentaries which overlooked women are taken as a kind of proof that women-free.-forces are the natural state (which is bs.)Historians look into stuff now and sometimes up to 40% of fighters were women (often in revolutions) so our idea of an all-male army or partisan-force is just not correct.
and well in 1800 there were no proper hygiene. it worked.
When's the last time you saw a handicap ramp to access a tank or helicopter? Why are blind and deaf people not allowed to serve? Why are color blind people not allowed in specific job fields regardless of gender?
Contrary to what you seem to believe, being a woman is not a disability - and should not be treated as such. A woman should have the same right as any man to fight for her country. If the military infrastructure needs to change, so be it. If you need to put a lot of "soldiers" who are beasts in human guise - who betray and rape their female comrades - up against a wall, so be it. The nation, and any official or military position in it - belongs as much to women as it does men.
You simply do not have the right to bar half the population from crucial national positions, simply because "convenient". It needs to top.
that's all i WANTED to do when i was in the navy... instead i got shoved in the engine room... though that had more to do with my IQ then my gender... but its not like they even offer special forces or combat to women straight up even though 'supposedly' we 'can'... i haven't seen it in reality -.-
excuse me i had dreams as a little girl to be fucking Janeway or Carter or (now) Fem!Shepard... reality sucks... its rather irritating to walk into a marine recruiting place and all the guys there look at you like you're lost... i thought we were supposed to be over this BS, given the right training women are just as physically capable and wanna know who in my boot camp/schools scored top on gun quals? the girls, not the boys -.- SCREW THIS SEXISM!!!
sure, i can make a million point on why it'd be 'smarter' to not and just stick with guys, but fuck that, we should have the same choices and given the same respect for them, not shoved in a goddamn engine room... i wanted combat medic, they threw me in the engine room, thank you Uncle Sam *flips the bird* -.-
that's all i WANTED to do when i was in the navy... instead i got shoved in the engine room... though that had more to do with my IQ then my gender... but its not like they even offer special forces or combat to women straight up even though 'supposedly' we 'can'... i haven't seen it in reality -.-
excuse me i had dreams as a little girl to be fucking Janeway or Carter or (now) Fem!Shepard... reality sucks... its rather irritating to walk into a marine recruiting place and all the guys there look at you like you're lost... i thought we were supposed to be over this BS, given the right training women are just as physically capable and wanna know who in my boot camp/schools scored top on gun quals? the girls, not the boys -.- SCREW THIS SEXISM!!!
sure, i can make a million point on why it'd be 'smarter' to not and just stick with guys, but fuck that, we should have the same choices and given the same respect for them, not shoved in a goddamn engine room... i wanted combat medic, they threw me in the engine room, thank you Uncle Sam *flips the bird* -.-
that's all i WANTED to do when i was in the navy... instead i got shoved in the engine room... though that had more to do with my IQ then my gender... but its not like they even offer special forces or combat to women straight up even though 'supposedly' we 'can'... i haven't seen it in reality -.-
excuse me i had dreams as a little girl to be fucking Janeway or Carter or (now) Fem!Shepard... reality sucks... its rather irritating to walk into a marine recruiting place and all the guys there look at you like you're lost... i thought we were supposed to be over this BS, given the right training women are just as physically capable and wanna know who in my boot camp/schools scored top on gun quals? the girls, not the boys -.- SCREW THIS SEXISM!!!
sure, i can make a million point on why it'd be 'smarter' to not and just stick with guys, but fuck that, we should have the same choices and given the same respect for them, not shoved in a goddamn engine room... i wanted combat medic, they threw me in the engine room, thank you Uncle Sam *flips the bird* -.-
i know army's got something similar, but i'm from a navy family/town, so my choices were marines (which i WANTED!! but they only offered me secretary or 'drive a truck' -.-) or Navy, and since it was blatantly obvious they wouldn't let me do anything remotely holding a gun i wanted combat medic because all i ever wanted to do was go in with the marines and be a badass (ALIENS was my favorite movie growing up... i liked Dietrich) i could pass all the physical requirements, they just kept shuffling me around and i didn't have time to be pussy footing around... there's really no reason they should have been so pissy... but feh, guys and it was in indiana -.- ugh... but whatever, i don't have to deal with that now, i just hope my daughter has less of this bullshit, cause if she's anything like me she's gonna want to hold a gun, shoot the bad guys, keep her party safe and run with the boys being a badass too
its really jarring going from growing up thinking everything's 'fine' and open to you and there's no difference cause there shouldn't be, only to have it pretty much slap you in the face... hrm...
that's all i WANTED to do when i was in the navy... instead i got shoved in the engine room... though that had more to do with my IQ then my gender... but its not like they even offer special forces or combat to women straight up even though 'supposedly' we 'can'... i haven't seen it in reality -.-
excuse me i had dreams as a little girl to be fucking Janeway or Carter or (now) Fem!Shepard... reality sucks... its rather irritating to walk into a marine recruiting place and all the guys there look at you like you're lost... i thought we were supposed to be over this BS, given the right training women are just as physically capable and wanna know who in my boot camp/schools scored top on gun quals? the girls, not the boys -.- SCREW THIS SEXISM!!!
sure, i can make a million point on why it'd be 'smarter' to not and just stick with guys, but fuck that, we should have the same choices and given the same respect for them, not shoved in a goddamn engine room... i wanted combat medic, they threw me in the engine room, thank you Uncle Sam *flips the bird* -.-
i know army's got something similar, but i'm from a navy family/town, so my choices were marines (which i WANTED!! but they only offered me secretary or 'drive a truck' -.-) or Navy, and since it was blatantly obvious they wouldn't let me do anything remotely holding a gun i wanted combat medic because all i ever wanted to do was go in with the marines and be a badass (ALIENS was my favorite movie growing up... i liked Dietrich) i could pass all the physical requirements, they just kept shuffling me around and i didn't have time to be pussy footing around... there's really no reason they should have been so pissy... but feh, guys and it was in indiana -.- ugh... but whatever, i don't have to deal with that now, i just hope my daughter has less of this bullshit, cause if she's anything like me she's gonna want to hold a gun, shoot the bad guys, keep her party safe and run with the boys being a badass too
its really jarring going from growing up thinking everything's 'fine' and open to you and there's no difference cause there shouldn't be, only to have it pretty much slap you in the face... hrm...
I didn't THINK you could get a yeast infection that way, but honestly it isn't something I've looked deeply in to (since they fucking suck).
Um... not sure why you addressed the reply to me, though - I'm fully in agreement with you that "yeast infection" is a terrible excuse (and even if a yeast infection was possible, one of those hard-core prescription suppositories will take care of it).
You might want to send something to the people who argued that point in the first place, since you've just done an excellent job of pointing out why they're full of crap.
so let me guess, if a guy said that it'd be all honky-dory, but because i say it in a a bit of sarcasm and through the eyes of a childish dream its bad? is that what i'm reading?
fine, i'll be 100 percent serious; i wanted to serve my country to the best of my ability, i wanted to give everything i had and find out the limits of my capabilities, i wanted to be on the front lines and save people's lives... it should not make a difference what my gender is and that should not be considered, AT ALL, in the process, i can shoot as well as any guy, i can do all the physical and mental requirements of the job just as any guy, there is no reason a woman can't do what a guy can, we should be offered the same positions not sugar coated and shoved off to the side to where its 'safe' or we're 'out of the way'...
what's the point in giving us heroines and dreams and the thought that possibly we can do such things when reality is we can't, and for what? the fact i have more genetic information the the guy sitting next to me? i have a higher pain tolerance then him? my reproductive organs are on the inside leaving me without an obvious external weakness? i know have to work harder physically but i can do the same thing...
i could go into detail about how i worked harder then the guys i worked with, how i HAD to work harder then them because i was treated as 'the girl' instead of an equal, but what would be the point... its fine for a guy to play black ops and get it in his head that shooting the bad guys is 'cool' and 'okay' and he can go join the marines with dreamy eyes and do that with nothing behind his actions but selfishness, but hey, if a girl says the same thing, hold up missy, you have overies, off to the office or sonar or some other sitting job for you, you're too delicate with those developed mammeries, plus they're distracting, go on and let the boys do the 'real' work *shoos*
And contrary to your belief, instead of putting a bunch of "beasts in human guise" up against a wall as you put it; I'd rather keep them but keep women away so they don't get victimized.
Yes, and while we're at it why don't we institute a curfew for women so that they have to be home before dark, in order to prevent stranger-rape? And why don't we make it illegal for women to be drunk around others--that'll stop a lot of drunken rapes, amirite?
I do not, but as others have said, in a situation where there are people within the military who are willing to rape fellow soldiers, it's a bit frightening the way you want to solve this problem is to take the women away. I mean, if they're willing to do that to female soldiers, God only knows what they're willing to do to female civilians. Those are not the kind of people worth anyone's defense, and they are not the kind of people we should be trusting with our defense.
I do not, but as others have said, in a situation where there are people within the military who are willing to rape fellow soldiers, it's a bit frightening the way you want to solve this problem is to take the women away. I mean, if they're willing to do that to female soldiers, God only knows what they're willing to do to female civilians. Those are not the kind of people worth anyone's defense, and they are not the kind of people we should be trusting with our defense.
Then start putting females into combat/infantry roles AFTER a solution to the rape/sexual harassment is found, not the other way around. But that that still wouldn't change women having drastically higher PTSD and fatigue/stress-related injuries (a ton of factual evidence has been put into this thread so far regarding that) putting them out of order faster than males. I would still be against putting women in such environments.
They are free to apply for support roles or any role where they won't face combat, but let men do what men do best and leave them to it...there is a critical job to be done, and the success of that job takes absolute priority over anything else like gender politics. This isn't a matter of equality/rights, it's a matter of life/death & national security.
I continue to believe that the overwhelming majority of people screaming about "gendery equality" when it comes to women in combat/infantry roles have absolutely no clue of the full implications, they live in some kind of ideological dream-world where men and women are 100% equal at everything.
There is SO much more to it than simply meeting the same fitness requirements. So much more...
if a girl says the same thing, hold up missy, you have overies, off to the office or sonar or some other sitting job for you, you're too delicate with those developed mammeries, plus they're distracting, go on and let the boys do the 'real' work *shoos*
I'm with you. Certain parts of society is still stuck in the 50's - but at least they act as a good reminder of why women fought themselves free of such things. And in the end - with time - these chauvinist bastions will fall as well - it just sucks like **** for women in the meantime.
Hopefully our daughters, or at least grand-daughters, will be able to apply for bad-ass positions with no gender-BS given.
Women can fight. During WWII, there were quite a few women soldiers (hundreds of thousands of them at the very least) fighting for the Russians. They went into some of the fiercest battles like the Battle of Kursk or the Battle of Berlin. The Russian women proved that women could drive tanks, use sniper rifles effectively, use AAA guns and perform admirably well as combat medics. There are too many stories of russian women running onto fields, picking up wounded men and literally hauling them back to the field hospital for these stories to have been made up. Women are capable - but they're often told that they aren't.
This is the single best argument in favor of women in front line combat. Anyone who thinks they somehow can't do it, you're wrong. The russians have been doing it for nearly a century. Perhaps the best example is Lyudmila Pavlichenko, both one of the single most successful snipers in WW2, and the woman with the highest confirmed kill count in history at 309. Think about that. Most men in Iraq never achieve more than 100 confirmed kills today. This lady scored 309 kills, mostly with a freaking SVT-40, which was nowhere near as accurate at range as the Mosin Nagants typical of Soviet Snipers in WW2.
If the Russians saw the value of female combat troops in WW2, what does it say about America and western Europe that most of us want to keep them off Submarines and such, 70+ years later?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
