Gender equality

[Vault101]

I don't know about the UK, but of here in the US the driving reason for not allowing women to be involved in a combat MOS (Military Occupational Specialty...ie job) is rape. If a male is captured they will be tourtured and might be killed. If a woman is captured.... Well women are already looked at as second class citizens over there and we are looked apon as infidels by the terrorists. So my question becomes what would they NOT do to her? Then what happens if she is rescued and BAM she findes out she is pregnate? Her religion does not allow her to abort the pregnancy.

I can't even begin to think about how much physoclogical damage this incident would cause a woman.

I think trying to keep them out of the fight is the best option. Let them serve but not combat MOS.

Well I'm not a women so I can't speak for them obviously, but although the concern is valid, getting taken hostage and raped is a pretty specific scenario and one that I can't imagine would happen very often.

I'd use a set of stats to prove my point but I wouldn't know where to find them but I'm pretty sure the number of times a soldier was taken hostage per mission is less than the chance of getting raped after a night in a particularly seedy bar.

And rape doesn't necessarily = the end of the world (though I can imagine many would disagree). Torture is bad enough if it's going to be that extreme.

Some women have a lot of skill that can be brought to the battlefield. It's only a matter of time before they are accepted into the ranks.

I used to serve in the UK's Territorial Army, so I do have some experience concerning these things.

I'd love to hear some female opinions on this though, there's bound to be some reading this.

well when a woman joins the military Im sure she's aware of all the things that go along with it (its not exactally the most woman-freindly profession) however I think it would take alot of drive for a woman to join up (god forbid I'd never do it)

I think rape and torture are BOTH terrible and both can really fuck you up in the long term, I dont think I could say which is worse (Death is "the end of the world" but rape and torture I think come pretty close) though I think a woman is more lilkley to be raped

anyway I think when it comes to jobs that are mainly physical then yes men to have the advantage however that only means the have the advantage and not that woman cant do physical stuff (because they can)....and anything else? its all fair game, also you have to look at the induvidual

 

[Sarge034]

lol wow. Your point is only slightly valid, because a man can be raped and subjected to torture just as bad as a female. I don't know anyone who has been raped, but I know it is a huge psychological* blow and takes years for some women to get over. Men can also be degraded and tortured, and just because women are more likely to be raped, that does not mean that they will be.

You're also forgetting that our women are just as infidel-ish as our men for "the people over there", and it is possible that they will be treated the exact same as the men. The woman can still be raped, but so what? The man could have his arms broken, healed, broken again, healed, and have his balls removed.

If she found out she was pregnant, she would deal with it as she would if she found out she was pregnant in any other circumstance that involved rape. I think you really got off topic.
I liked the point that someone made earlier (that I can't find atm) where men are likely to be over-protective of women in combat, because that would definitely be a possibility.

My first question, did you read the other posts that led to this one? That would help a lot. My second question, how is the topic of women in a combat MOS off topic? It sounds like an equality discussion to me.

Spoiler: Long compelling text block

I know we are all considered infidels to the religious terrorists, and that is why I said it. A man will not be raped as it is against their religion. This might not be the best source. If it is not, just google Kuran on being gay. The line that did catch my eye said, "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." Women however, are considered second class citizens as it is. So couple their male chauvinism with their views on infidels and it will be worse for a woman.

As for the torture, please do your research. You will not be there long enough for the bone to heal. You will be saved or dead. IF they do decide to torture you they will remove your shoes and hit your feet with a pipe or some equivalent. They are more likely to work you over (that means they beat the shit out of you) and then decapitate you while filming it.

I only brought up the pregnancy because that is something else a man will not have to worry about. I'm not saying it is worse then non-combat related rape, just had equality relevance.

Two new things I had not thought about.

First, women require more personal hygiene items then men. I heard a story from someone that was stationed in Afghanistan. A woman got a really bad urinary tract infection that messed up her bladder because of the lack of proper female hygiene items in the FOB (forward operating base) they were in. So if that happend in a base, what happens when they have to go out on extended combat missions, get behind enemy lines, of are in a S.E.R.E ( Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) situation?

Second, male and female soldiers MUST have separate sleeping arrangements at all times. Combat personell often go outside the wire (out of the compound/FOB) and take controll of a building to work from called a firm base, and almost always sleep in a common area. You can see the living area in their firm base at 7.02, but watch the whole thing. This the the best documentary series I have seen on the war yet. This is a problem. Do we only make men stay outside the wire? Does that not put us back to the question of equality where this topic started?

Both of these reasons are why the Navy still does not let females on subs. They require more "stuff" and the Navy would have to modify the already cramped subs to have female quarters, showers, and bathrooms

The hyperlink does not work in the spoiler box, so here it is.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.missionislam.com%2Fknowledge%2Fhomosexuality.htm&ei=3bSJTdXlIobQsAPK9-SADA&usg=AFQjCNGdfc4iAsPZwyw6-3tSgfgyWiFBhg

 

[BlackSaint09]

Frankly i think it comes down to practicality(sorry if i miss spelled that).
I dont give a hoot if the person saving me from a burning building is a Woman or a man... JUST GET ME THE FUZZ OUTTA HERE!!!!!!!!!!
Also i think im a 3. Dont really know why i came up with that specific number.

 

[Eisenfaust]

sexism works the other way too... promote someone just because she's a woman, to get more women at higher levels, even if there's a more qualified man? sexist...

marvelling about the state of women as the governor general, the prime minister, and a handful of premiers of australia are women? not necessarily sexist, but not exactly doing much to eliminate the sexism... it shouldn't matter if they're women, so long as they can do the job... promote based on performance, not whether or not they dangle...

on the other hand, voting for someone BECAUSE they're a woman... sexist...

 

[VivaciousDeimos]

Well I'm not a women so I can't speak for them obviously, but although the concern is valid, getting taken hostage and raped is a pretty specific scenario and one that I can't imagine would happen very often.

I'd use a set of stats to prove my point but I wouldn't know where to find them but I'm pretty sure the number of times a soldier was taken hostage per mission is less than the chance of getting raped after a night in a particularly seedy bar.

And rape doesn't necessarily = the end of the world (though I can imagine many would disagree). Torture is bad enough if it's going to be that extreme.

Some women have a lot of skill that can be brought to the battlefield. It's only a matter of time before they are accepted into the ranks.

I used to serve in the UK's Territorial Army, so I do have some experience concerning these things.

I'd love to hear some female opinions on this though, there's bound to be some reading this.

If women are reading this could you please comment to get some different perspectives?

*Raises hand* I'm a woman, and while I won't presume to speak for my entire gender, I can offer my opinion as an adult female.

I tend to agree with Raven's Nest, especially that bit I bolded. The threat of rape is something you live with regardless of where you are. And, depending on where you live and how dangerous your neighborhood is, is something you have to take into consideration every time you go out alone. The same way you have to think about the possibility of getting hit by a car, or mugged, or murdered; yes it's something that could happen, but if I let all the might's and maybe's govern my life I'd never leave the house.

So if I know the risks, am willing to accept them, and am qualified, why should I be denied on the supposition that something bad could happen?

On the issue of equality, and specifically to this conversation regarding women in the military, I believe that women should be able to serve in combat, however, I also feel that we should be held to the same physical standards that men are. Because if I'm honest with myself: can I lift 60-70lbs? Certainly. Could I drag or carry a 200lb adult while wearing 60lbs of gear? No. But there are probably women who could. If an individual, regardless of gender meets the set qualifications, then let em' in.

 

[Verp]

Do you think there is a reason you see mostly X gender in Y roles?
I don't see mostly X gender in Y roles, simple as that. I don't even assume that people are the gender they appear to be in the light of traditional gender-specific clothing or behaviour.

Why do you think there is job inequality?
Because we haven't done enough to give equal opportunities to different genders. Efficiency in different jobs is likely to be a factor too, but for most professions it's hardly possible to say when there truly is a difference in efficiency until the opportunities are made equal and all genders' efficiency is measured in those circumstances.

On a scale of 1-10 (10 being highest) how sexist would you say you are?

I assume my number is close to 1. I acknowledge that there are some physical differences between sexes, but individual differences and modern technology make these differences mostly irrelevant. There are some mental differences as well, but the thing is, guy bodies don't necessarily have guy brains and girl bodies may not necessarily have girl brains. There aren't just guy brains and girl brains either -- I would know since I'm neutrois transgender.

Also, while I think the psychology of different gender identities to differ, everything goes. I trust people to know or find out what they're good at and what they want to do and seek out their role in the community accordingly. Expectations and artificial limitations based on gender should be abolished since they're mostly just in the way of true potential.

 

[Sarge034]

*Raises hand* I'm a woman, and while I won't presume to speak for my entire gender, I can offer my opinion as an adult female.

I tend to agree with Raven's Nest, especially that bit I bolded. The threat of rape is something you live with regardless of where you are. And, depending on where you live and how dangerous your neighborhood is, is something you have to take into consideration every time you go out alone. The same way you have to think about the possibility of getting hit by a car, or mugged, or murdered; yes it's something that could happen, but if I let all the might's and maybe's govern my life I'd never leave the house.

So if I know the risks, am willing to accept them, and am qualified, why should I be denied on the supposition that something bad could happen?

On the issue of equality, and specifically to this conversation regarding women in the military, I believe that women should be able to serve in combat, however, I also feel that we should be held to the same physical standards that men are. Because if I'm honest with myself: can I lift 60-70lbs? Certainly. Could I drag or carry a 200lb adult while wearing 60lbs of gear? No. But there are probably women who could. If an individual, regardless of gender meets the set qualifications, then let em' in.

Thank you for your insight. I wonder if you would be so kind as to look at my other post and tell me if it changes your mind at all? You are the only woman to reply on how you feel about my post. Thx.

lol wow. Your point is only slightly valid, because a man can be raped and subjected to torture just as bad as a female. I don't know anyone who has been raped, but I know it is a huge psychological* blow and takes years for some women to get over. Men can also be degraded and tortured, and just because women are more likely to be raped, that does not mean that they will be.

You're also forgetting that our women are just as infidel-ish as our men for "the people over there", and it is possible that they will be treated the exact same as the men. The woman can still be raped, but so what? The man could have his arms broken, healed, broken again, healed, and have his balls removed.

If she found out she was pregnant, she would deal with it as she would if she found out she was pregnant in any other circumstance that involved rape. I think you really got off topic.
I liked the point that someone made earlier (that I can't find atm) where men are likely to be over-protective of women in combat, because that would definitely be a possibility.

My first question, did you read the other posts that led to this one? That would help a lot. My second question, how is the topic of women in a combat MOS off topic? It sounds like an equality discussion to me.

Spoiler: Long compelling text block

I know we are all considered infidels to the religious terrorists, and that is why I said it. A man will not be raped as it is against their religion. This might not be the best source. If it is not, just google Kuran on being gay. The line that did catch my eye said, "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." Women however, are considered second class citizens as it is. So couple their male chauvinism with their views on infidels and it will be worse for a woman.

As for the torture, please do your research. You will not be there long enough for the bone to heal. You will be saved or dead. IF they do decide to torture you they will remove your shoes and hit your feet with a pipe or some equivalent. They are more likely to work you over (that means they beat the shit out of you) and then decapitate you while filming it.

I only brought up the pregnancy because that is something else a man will not have to worry about. I'm not saying it is worse then non-combat related rape, just had equality relevance.

Two new things I had not thought about.

First, women require more personal hygiene items then men. I heard a story from someone that was stationed in Afghanistan. A woman got a really bad urinary tract infection that messed up her bladder because of the lack of proper female hygiene items in the FOB (forward operating base) they were in. So if that happend in a base, what happens when they have to go out on extended combat missions, get behind enemy lines, of are in a S.E.R.E ( Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) situation?

Second, male and female soldiers MUST have separate sleeping arrangements at all times. Combat personell often go outside the wire (out of the compound/FOB) and take controll of a building to work from called a firm base, and almost always sleep in a common area. You can see the living area in their firm base at 7.02, but watch the whole thing. This the the best documentary series I have seen on the war yet. This is a problem. Do we only make men stay outside the wire? Does that not put us back to the question of equality where this topic started?

Both of these reasons are why the Navy still does not let females on subs. They require more "stuff" and the Navy would have to modify the already cramped subs to have female quarters, showers, and bathrooms

The hyperlink does not work in the spoiler box, so here it is.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.missionislam.com%2Fknowledge%2Fhomosexuality.htm&ei=3bSJTdXlIobQsAPK9-SADA&usg=AFQjCNGdfc4iAsPZwyw6-3tSgfgyWiFBhg

 

[Evidencebased]

sexism works the other way too... promote someone just because she's a woman, to get more women at higher levels, even if there's a more qualified man? sexist...

marvelling about the state of women as the governor general, the prime minister, and a handful of premiers of australia are women? not necessarily sexist, but not exactly doing much to eliminate the sexism... it shouldn't matter if they're women, so long as they can do the job... promote based on performance, not whether or not they dangle...

on the other hand, voting for someone BECAUSE they're a woman... sexist...

What if you think that, as a woman, she would understand your opinions on important issues better than a man would and so would do a better job representing you as a voter? Obviously it wouldn't be sufficient for her to be a woman (she would need to be a good candidate as well) but that strikes me as gender-based voting that isn't sexist. I personally prefer female doctors for that reason, too, because they have that bit of extra personal experience that a male doctor could never quite have.

As for your point about not liking to count/track how many women are in positions of power: ignoring sexism (such as the gender imbalance in politics) really doesn't help eliminate it. I know people hate to have issues like sexism pointed out, but that's a much better strategy than sweeping it under the rug in a kind of half-assed "see no evil!" gambit. And it's more honest, too; plenty of those male politicians are there by the benefit of a little extra dangle, because even if we think we're being totally fair and equal we still vote with a lot of unconscious biases that favor male politicians. I certainly have unconscious biases, and I'm a raving feminist! (And if a staunch feminist occasionally stumbles over this stuff, surely you can't expect egalitarian voting behavior out of someone like Freechoice, who apparently just plain hates the sound of women's voices. )

 

[Evidencebased]

snip

If women are reading this could you please comment to get some different perspectives?

*Raises hand* I'm a woman, and while I won't presume to speak for my entire gender, I can offer my opinion as an adult female.

I tend to agree with Raven's Nest, especially that bit I bolded. The threat of rape is something you live with regardless of where you are. And, depending on where you live and how dangerous your neighborhood is, is something you have to take into consideration every time you go out alone. The same way you have to think about the possibility of getting hit by a car, or mugged, or murdered; yes it's something that could happen, but if I let all the might's and maybe's govern my life I'd never leave the house.

So if I know the risks, am willing to accept them, and am qualified, why should I be denied on the supposition that something bad could happen?

On the issue of equality, and specifically to this conversation regarding women in the military, I believe that women should be able to serve in combat, however, I also feel that we should be held to the same physical standards that men are. Because if I'm honest with myself: can I lift 60-70lbs? Certainly. Could I drag or carry a 200lb adult while wearing 60lbs of gear? No. But there are probably women who could. If an individual, regardless of gender meets the set qualifications, then let em' in.

Also a woman! And I basically agree with everything VivaciousDeimos said. (And actually the chances of a female soldier being raped by her own comrades is far, far higher than her chances of being captured, in or out of combat. If male soldiers wanted to drastically reduce the amount of rape suffered by American female soldiers they shouldn't worry about protecting them from the scaaaary terrorists, they should just stop raping them.)

There are women who are able to keep up physically with the men, so fitness needn't be a barrier, and there are methods of birth control that women can use if they so choose (including but not limited to abortion), so having a uterus shouldn't be a problem either. Goodness knows women get raped and killed in wars all the time; at least allow them to participate in a little of the combat too, if they want.

 

[SwiftBlade18]

I do joke about fems making me sammiches, and "back in the kitchen!", but I think fems are more capable at pretty much everything. I'd LOVE to have more fems in government than guys.

I firmly believe women would make good frontline soldiers, there is no convincing reason they should be prohibited... The UK Armed Forces recently reviewed the situation and declined.

Also... Women do make some pretty bitchin' sammiches...

Im not 100% on this but isnt the reason for men only being frontline soldiers because the odds are you will be fighting men...and physically speaking men are stronger...

Other than the physical capabilities of men having larger lungs etc I also believe (whether its the case anymore) that by purely having men on the frontline it keeps the soldiers more focussed on the job at hand without 'female distractions'...also its entirely possible that if women were on frontlines and were injured that more attention/sympathy would be given by comrades.

I could be wrong though...Personally I have nothing against women being in the frontline if they really want to be, but i can see why it doesnt happen

 

[Eisenfaust]

sexism works the other way too... promote someone just because she's a woman, to get more women at higher levels, even if there's a more qualified man? sexist...

marvelling about the state of women as the governor general, the prime minister, and a handful of premiers of australia are women? not necessarily sexist, but not exactly doing much to eliminate the sexism... it shouldn't matter if they're women, so long as they can do the job... promote based on performance, not whether or not they dangle...

on the other hand, voting for someone BECAUSE they're a woman... sexist...

What if you think that, as a woman, she would understand your opinions on important issues better than a man would and so would do a better job representing you as a voter? Obviously it wouldn't be sufficient for her to be a woman (she would need to be a good candidate as well) but that strikes me as gender-based voting that isn't sexist. I personally prefer female doctors for that reason, too, because they have that bit of extra personal experience that a male doctor could never quite have.

As for your point about not liking to count/track how many women are in positions of power: ignoring sexism (such as the gender imbalance in politics) really doesn't help eliminate it. I know people hate to have issues like sexism pointed out, but that's a much better strategy than sweeping it under the rug in a kind of half-assed "see no evil!" gambit. And it's more honest, too; plenty of those male politicians are there by the benefit of a little extra dangle, because even if we think we're being totally fair and equal we still vote with a lot of unconscious biases that favor male politicians. I certainly have unconscious biases, and I'm a raving feminist! (And if a staunch feminist occasionally stumbles over this stuff, surely you can't expect egalitarian voting behavior out of someone like Freechoice, who apparently just plain hates the sound of women's voices. )

my point was not to ignore the sexism, but to ignore the somewhat feminist whoops and giggles and the "ooooh look how successful we are" that at best will make people think "sure, ok, we've done enough now" and at worst think "pffft... lets shut that woman up, she's being super annoying". I do see your point though, in noting a positive effect of gender differences in terms of policy (a greater focus, at least around the edges, on women's issues), but at a certain point it becomes redundant as a good politician will see the whole field anyway, and the only way to gauge whether or not a politician has considered an issue is to ask them, at which point they will have considered it...

point being we don't really know entirely what they're thinking unless we quiz them on every issue (and PLEASE no one scoff at the idea of a "good politican"...). sure, what you do know may be enough to influence how you vote regardless of whatever they believe on a certain topic, which is certainly you're prerogative, it just seems that the "a women know more about women's issues" approach is slightly sexist as well, in assuming men don't have their own beliefs on the matter

apologies, that was all a bit ramble-y, my point was to merely point out how little i like the pride the aformentioned women expressed in the fact that they were women who happened to get high jobs, as opposed to people, regardless of gender, who happened to get high jobs... maybe i'm just affraid of what happens when/if feminism overshoots the mark (assuming we can manage to get it up to the mark in the first place)

(oh and, "whoops and giggles", in case anyone's knee jerks, is a phrase i'd use to characterise similar situations regardless of gender, if you assume it was a sexist comment, perhaps you're sexist yourself for assuming that a) as a man i would be sexist enough to say that and b) whooping and giggling was a sole characteristic of women portrayed to their detriment... feminist in that sentance was an adjective, not part of the noun... and this is to no one in particular by the way, simply covering my arse... though perhaps evidence of my above point)

 

[Griffolion]

A few years back, there was a big equal opportunities blow up because some women who wanted to be fire fighters were dismissed because they physically couldn't handle being a fire fighter. They were kicking off because apparently the fire service was institutionally sexist against women until it was kindly pointed out to them that if their lack of physical suitability manifested in the field and ended up in someone dying, that's the reason why.

The fact is, men and women are equal. But SOME jobs are better suited to men due to physical, unchangeable biology in that men are typically stronger than women. It's a fact, no'one is being sexist or intentionally against women, it's simply the way something is. Vice-Versa, there will be some things that are better suited to women, both biologically and mentally.

But when it comes to a job or role where both men and women would be equally suited, i am all for, no matter the gender, the giving of equal pay, equal perks etc which is something that is still a problem.

 

[MorphingDragon]

2 - I think that some Jobs are better suited for the physiology that a woman has. THough otherwise I don't care.

Though some people would rate me as 10 because I still believe in Chivalry and being a gentlemen.

 

[Raven's Nest]

Im not 100% on this but isnt the reason for men only being frontline soldiers because the odds are you will be fighting men...and physically speaking men are stronger...

No, modern combat scenarios almost never come down to hand to hand combat. Battles are won through superior fire control. Whoever has the most guns pointed in the most directions wins... So being female is of little consequence.

Other than the physical capabilities of men having larger lungs etc I also believe (whether its the case anymore) that by purely having men on the frontline it keeps the soldiers more focussed on the job at hand without 'female distractions'...also its entirely possible that if women were on frontlines and were injured that more attention/sympathy would be given by comrades.

Whilst it's true some men are just stronger and fitter than women, it's not true of all men. Most squaddies don't resemble Rambo. There more than a handful of front line serving male soldiers who are built like your average skinny nerd. The army's fitness standards favour those with long distance running stamina over the ability to bench press obscene weights. In my brief time with the army I saw non-combatant female soldiers run circles around us infantry guys... (they didn't like that obviously)

With regards to the sympathy when wounded thing. It's kinda bull. No-one gets left behind in combat and you want to protect as many lives as you can. Most people don't realise how strong the ties between comrades really are. Trust me if one of your brothers in arms is shot and wounded, you'd want to rescue them just as much as you would if they happen to be female. Coincidently, they are very highly disciplined when it comes to being ambushed, suppressed, pinned down and taking casualties. No good soldier would risk his fellow soldiers lives by attempting to save a comrade who is in shit creek, female or male. Did you know that when you are on the battlefield, it is part of UK military training that if you see one of your comrades get shot but you cant see if they're alive and you are still under fire, they are to be considered KIA until the firefight is won.

Also a woman! And I basically agree with everything VivaciousDeimos said. (And actually the chances of a female soldier being raped by her own comrades is far, far higher than her chances of being captured, in or out of combat. If male soldiers wanted to drastically reduce the amount of rape suffered by American female soldiers they shouldn't worry about protecting them from the scaaaary terrorists, they should just stop raping them.)

There are women who are able to keep up physically with the men, so fitness needn't be a barrier, and there are methods of birth control that women can use if they so choose (including but not limited to abortion), so having a uterus shouldn't be a problem either. Goodness knows women get raped and killed in wars all the time; at least allow them to participate in a little of the combat too, if they want.

Sadly this is true. You are more likely to get raped by a soldier on your own side. Though it is very unlikely to be one from your own unit, especially if you were fighting alongside them.

There's always exceptions though. For some reason, a handful of members of the UK's parachute regiment were court martialled after gang-raping and filming the ordeal, a new recruit to the same regiment... And the new recruit was a guy... go figure.

I think the real reason we don't have women serving front line combat is the same reason for many of the issues in this thread... The occupations that are predominantly male centred, simply don't want females in those job roles. Or I should say, most of the aging male bosses simply refuse to allow women into those industries because of some backwards, illogical and out dated ideals that a women couldn't possibly be better than a man in the same role...

It's the same reason that women are often paid less than a man in the same roles. Sexism pure and simple.

 

[gazumped]

I think the sexism debate is just like the racism one.

...

When these feminist groups, and racial organizations start saying things like, "People should be judged solely on their own merit." instead of, "People shouldn't be judged based on skin color or gender."

Quite!
Imagine if we were saying what people can and can't do because of their physical racial differences. White people's skin sunburns more easily than black people's, so maybe white people shouldn't do jobs where they have to be outdoors. Asian people have higher risks of heart disease, so perhaps Asian people shouldn't do physically demanding jobs.
Of course, we don't think like that because these roles haven't been drilled into our psyche for millenia.

White people still do gardening and there are still Asian firefighters (for example) and you don't hear people arguing that's wrong all the time.

If we presume that things fit certain types of people, it limits them psychologically before they even try. And they might be excellent at something. Or they might be rubbish at it. But why tell them if they'll be good or bad at it before they've given it a go?

For total gender equality to exist, you would need to make it so that if a male and a female would fight, it would be treated as a normal assualt.

*nods* This is really disgusting, here in the UK the amount of male victims of domestic abuse aren't very far behind the amount of female victims, yet any public announcements about it and advertisements of organisations to help abuse victims only ever focus on women and children.
And this kind of thing affects both parties; not only are we suggesting that only men are evil enough to deal out abuse (and awfully neglecting the male victims by making them think they have no one to turn to or that their story won't be believed), it also suggests that only women would take abuse, reinforcing out pathetic and weak stereotype.

 

[VivaciousDeimos]

Thank you for your insight. I wonder if you would be so kind as to look at my other post and tell me if it changes your mind at all? You are the only woman to reply on how you feel about my post. Thx.

I did in fact read your last post before I wrote mine, and my opinion is unchanged. In regards to personal hygiene: if I knew that I was going to be staying in a potentially dangerous territory or place without amenities then I would invest in the Patch before shipping out. They're small, unobtrusive, weigh practically nothing, and can be used for up to eight months without having to actually have a period. I'm assuming that's what you meant by "personal hygiene"? And, while not all women are the same, intense reoccurring physical activity can cause some women to cease menstruating altogether. It's something a lot of female athletes learn about. And I think carrying around 60+ lbs of gear in 117degree weather would count as "intense". So the issue could be moot either way.

As for the sleeping arrangements? *Sigh* Perhaps it's just hopelessly, naively optimistic for me to think that not all men are dogs who will jump me the first chance they get. If I'm going to trust these people with my life, and be willing to die with them or for them, then it seems to me that I should feel safe sleeping in the same room and using the same shower as them.

Also:

Also a woman! And I basically agree with everything VivaciousDeimos said. (And actually the chances of a female soldier being raped by her own comrades is far, far higher than her chances of being captured, in or out of combat. If male soldiers wanted to drastically reduce the amount of rape suffered by American female soldiers they shouldn't worry about protecting them from the scaaaary terrorists, they should just stop raping them.)

I was thinking this, writing my original post, but didn't come right out and say it, so good on you. But basically yeah, if we're all willing to bleed and kill and die for each other, then it's not that extravagant an expectation for those around to me to respect my person and not rape me, right?

 

[Chemical Alia]

lol wow. Your point is only slightly valid, because a man can be raped and subjected to torture just as bad as a female. I don't know anyone who has been raped, but I know it is a huge psychological* blow and takes years for some women to get over. Men can also be degraded and tortured, and just because women are more likely to be raped, that does not mean that they will be.

You're also forgetting that our women are just as infidel-ish as our men for "the people over there", and it is possible that they will be treated the exact same as the men. The woman can still be raped, but so what? The man could have his arms broken, healed, broken again, healed, and have his balls removed.

If she found out she was pregnant, she would deal with it as she would if she found out she was pregnant in any other circumstance that involved rape. I think you really got off topic.
I liked the point that someone made earlier (that I can't find atm) where men are likely to be over-protective of women in combat, because that would definitely be a possibility.

Mostly agreed, especially on the point about how individuals differ in how they deal with situations like torture and rape. But I'd like to see the "front lines" and combat MOSs open to capable men and women. Not just physically, but psychologically prepared, at least to the best extent possible. If a man has some horrible psychological objection to seeing women harmed or killed and would simply break down in such a case or fail to do his job properly, he shouldn't be considered fit for the position.

 

[Sightless Wisdom]

Equality is a strange concept, especially with all the double-standards we currently have. Insulting mens intelligence, totally fine; insulting women's intelligence, not fine. Just one off the top of my head due to another recent thread but there are many such as it.

To get back to my real point, equality is really ethereal. If you treat everything the same way... your bound to be inefficient. There billions of different personalities and situations that all require a different approach. I mean, there are some mean who fit the bill of big and strong and capable of doing physically demanding work. but there are many women who are the same. And on the other side you have men like me... I know many women who are much stronger than I am, but chances are I would still be viewed as a better fit for a typically male job. Which of course is wrong.

Again, the issue is a bit convoluted and I'm finding myself lost within my own explanation, thus the rambling.

TL;DR/main point: People need to be treated situationally, not based upon a static physical trait. There women suited for typically male jobs and men suited for typically female jobs. That said, pushing too hard for equality will only negate the benefit by introducing logical inability to correctly asses a person's abilities regardless of gender.



Hope that was all coherent.

 

[Kaizer_Panda]

If we were on a society with total gender equality, Women would lose all the little advantages they have, for example "ladys first" would disapear, I could punch a girl and there would be no problem, well It would be a problem because Im hitting a Human being not because Im hitting a woman

This post may sound sexiest but that is my vision, also I think Womans day is very sexist

sorry for bad english

 

[siahsargus]

Im not 100% on this but isnt the reason for men only being frontline soldiers because the odds are you will be fighting men...and physically speaking men are stronger...

Other than the physical capabilities of men having larger lungs etc I also believe (whether its the case anymore) that by purely having men on the frontline it keeps the soldiers more focussed on the job at hand without 'female distractions'...also its entirely possible that if women were on frontlines and were injured that more attention/sympathy would be given by comrades.

I could be wrong though...Personally I have nothing against women being in the frontline if they really want to be, but i can see why it doesnt happen

I think it is so ignorant of you not to realize that physical strength does not increase battlefield survivability. Do you think that an enemy combatant would really not hesitate to shoot a woman, a mare among stallions? Also, women are better, more chill sharpshooters than men are. remember also that a woman with military equipment and a gun is less likely to get raped than a defenseless civilian housewife. By the way, homosexual troops have more espirt de corps because they can see what they are fighting for. Why would hetroes be any different? If we have more accountability for rape, less sexism, and a greater understanding between male and females, there is no reason remaining to prevent women from being front line troops. Children have been front line troops because people didn't want to sent in the women. Men should not be the expendable gender, their stereotypical extra strength has better applications than dying.
/rant