No, it isn't an example. You can't point to a country that treats women like complete shit and say 'See, they don't let women have guns and fight! Why should we?'
Sigh, you're all caught-up on Syria and happily ignoring the full scope of my posts here.
You're 100% right, lets disregard Syria. My main point still absolutely stands true and I'm waiting for someone to pose a strong counter-point to mine.
But before you even bother replying to me again, you first need to read through this because it covers the full scope of my posts:
SNIP
If you decide to bring up something that I have already covered/responded to in everything I've said above, I have no need to respond to you since your answer will already be there.
If I chose not to reply before, its because's I either had nothing to say on the matter, or someone else already did. I was merely commenting on that on particular issue.
If I wanted to argue point for point, I would have.
Why is everyone saying everything in the rudest possible way tonight?
But since I'm here...
Yuuki said:
Tradjus said:
I'm not going to let them try and convince me they can't afford plate carriers designed for women and a few more tents or barracks buildings per base, THEY CAN AFFORD IT.
But for what benefit? What does the military gain from doing that, as opposed to deploying male-only battalions/divisions and easily supporting them with facilities that are already available?
Is the unit's overall performance increased? Higher success rates of missions? There has to be some kind of return.
You asked what benefit we'd get from letting females in. In my opinion, the question should be 'What problems would we have if females were allowed?' But after 9 pages of post, the difference is mostly mute.
Before I keep going, I should mention that I'm personally not completely sold on the idea of females being in combat positions. I've mostly been posting from the 'females allowed' side because I'm disliking the arguments I'm seeing from the other side.
Yuuki said:
Dijkstra said:
Yuuki said:
Tradjus said:
I'm not going to let them try and convince me they can't afford plate carriers designed for women and a few more tents or barracks buildings per base, THEY CAN AFFORD IT.
But for what benefit? What does the military gain from doing that, as opposed to deploying male-only battalions/divisions and easily supporting them with facilities that are already available?
Is the unit's overall performance increased? Higher success rates of missions? There has to be some kind of return.
You seem to be under the impression that an infinite number of soldiers can be deployed anywhere...it is always specified how many troops are required to get a job done. While it's great to have a larger pool of soldiers to choose from, a smart nation isn't going to deploy 5 female soldiers with 95 male soldiers to a place where things are going to get harsh/uncomfortable, facilities are scarce and the women's performance suffers (even slightly) as a result.
That's why I asked, where is the benefit to the military unit? There are times where a nation has no choice but to send their very best in order to give themselves the best chance, where nothing unnecessary/extra will be done (i.e. cut all corners) unless there is a quantifiable pay-off/return.
Can't really say anything. The idea that female soldiers would bolster the ranks is ridiculous, especially since we're currently trying to reduce soldier counts. So I guess we kind of agree on that point, though perhaps for different reasons.
Yuuki said:
Dijkstra said:
So you're deliberately ignoring benefits to increased recruitment because of specific situations you may not want it that you didn't specify beforehand? Shifting the goal posts much?
Besides it increases recruitment potential. When you need it you can't just flick a switch on then back off
That's why I said "...while it's great to have a larger pool of soldiers to choose from...".
Increased recruitment potential is nice, but 10,000 male troops vs 10,000 mixed-gender troops is going to have zero benefits, only downsides regarding increased male-on-female sexual assault and a sudden need for separated shower/toilet/etc facilities. What is the gain/return? Answer the main question already, the goalposts haven't moved anywhere.
I have no idea why people keep getting caught up on the shower thing. It's a trivial matter, considering how we fight war now a days, and really isn't an issue.
As for sexual assault. This is an issue. I'm just not sure shouting 'NO YOU' to females trying to join the infantry is really an answer.
Yuuki said:
Machine Man 1992 said:
The answer is simple; "Sack up and shower with the dudes."
Dear god, I can only imagine the shitstorm that would ensue. I remember a thread/poll here about gender-neutral showers...some said "sure why not", some said "only if I have to", MOST said "no fucking way".
Also what about all these other downsides...
> Increased male-on-female sexual assault
> Higher PTSD victims
> Higher fatigue-related injuries
> Higher stress-related injuries
> A sudden need for separated shower/toilet/etc facilities
What is the gain/return that will out-weigh those downsides? If it exists, I'm ALL for it, trust me I love working with logic/numbers instead of against it. Anything that improves the military's effectiveness on their missions, full steam ahead.
The goalposts haven't moved anywhere.
More PTSD cases... probably. Women soldiers report a far higher percentage of cases (Something like 19%, as opposed to males who are around 9 percent). Several studies have found, however, that women handle it far better once they get state side. Men have a tendency to delve into destructive behavior.
The PTSD reports are also heavily flawed - While the US Military has gotten really good at supporting PTSD over the years, their still terribly bad at finding it in the first place. It took them 2 and half years to diagnose me, and I know several people that clearly came back from Iraq a bit scrambled but never were diagnosed or treated. Women are far more likely to seek treatment on their own.
Yah, fatigue injuries are more common in females.
Don't know what you mean by stress. Mental stress?
It really, really isn't hard to get a separate shower/bathroom and living space for females. It's not an issue, really, outside of maybe the Navy, where space is at a premium. And they already dealt with the issue years ago and figured it out.
More PTSD cases... probably. Women soldiers report a far higher percentage of cases (Something like 19%, as opposed to males who are around 9 percent). Several studies have found, however, that women handle it far better once they get state side. Men have a tendency to delve into destructive behavior.
The PTSD reports are also heavily flawed - While the US Military has gotten really good at supporting PTSD over the years, their still terribly bad at finding it in the first place. It took them 2 and half years to diagnose me, and I know several people that clearly came back from Iraq a bit scrambled but never were diagnosed or treated. Women are far more likely to seek treatment on their own.
Yah, fatigue injuries are more common in females.
Don't know what you mean by stress. Mental stress?
It really, really isn't hard to get a separate shower/bathroom and living space for females. It's not an issue, really, outside of maybe the Navy, where space is at a premium. And they already dealt with the issue years ago and figured it out.
Still waiting to hear about the benefits/gains to the military as a whole, besides higher recruitment numbers.
Dijkstra said:
There you go comparing 10k to 10k.
The benefit was already pointed out, you tried to weasel out by talking about the scenario where apparently they just need 10k troops as opposed to more in general.
You shifted the goal.posts when you made it about a situation where numbers weren't important. In doing so you changed the scenario, not needing higher recruitment was not initially specified.
You you feel bigger recruitment numbers out-weigh all the downsides (and there's definitely a few more than I'm missing), that's fine. I can't argue against opinions.
I will happily give you that point - if more troops are needed in combat and not enough are signing up, nations can resort to sending women into combat. Actually I think a couple of ancient civilizations/kingdoms DID literally resort to using women/children as warriors after they ran out of men. It didn't work out too well and they fell anyway, but desperate times call for desperate measures. Like I said, I'm happy with whatever works best.
Again, bigger recruitment pool is a bullshit argument for allowing females in. We agree.
Yuuki said:
Thoralata said:
Sociological and psychological things like tradition, gender roles, gender identity or the notion of masculinity and femininity are simply shit we made up and then reinforced. Gender roles aren't actually real, they were just opinions about gender we conformed to. Masculinity and Femininity were the ways we determined those roles. Gender Identity is a by-product of the stigma of those gender roles we conformed to. And Tradition was the flimsy excuse we used for all three.
In reality, on a base scientific level, none of those things are actually real. They aren't in any way apart of the real aspects of gender (body chemistry, reproduction, and base hormonal animal instinct). They're a creation (or by-product) of human stupidity (or rebellion against human stupidity in the case of Identity).
And was it by sheer coincidence that almost every kingdom/empire/nation/civilization found gender roles to be the best way to function throughout the history of mankind? Oh and it was also coincidence that they all arrived at that conclusion completely independent/separated from each other by time periods or geographic locations, right? Because I highly doubt everyone was copying everyone else, as if one civilization said "hey I heard rumors of a nation beyond the horizon who use men for war and protect their women! Lets copy them, yeah!". I'm fairly certain each one arrived at their own conclusion independently and used something that worked best for them. Despite the vastly different cultures, societies and conditions that each civilization rose from, there was ONE strikingly similar pattern across all of them - gender roles. Coincidence? Stupidity?
Or are you really implying with a straight face that all that was simply a miraculous stroke of luck on a global scale resulting in the exactly the same scenario for men and women, over and over again, over the course of thousands of years? All a made-up nonsensical thing, yes?
Different times call for different needs. We are in a time where the rise of technology is making gender roles less and less relevant, but it is only thanks TO that constant progression of technology & advances in our knowledge. Being able to use brains instead of manual labor has opened up a lot more options for women, which is great, I love it. But the long-term physical toll of being a SOLDIER (that's what this thread is about) isn't much different from what it was 500 years ago. It's still absolutely brutal on the body, inflicting strain on a daily basis - and men are capable of handling that over extended periods far better than women, even if that tiny portion of women do manage to pass the same entry physical tests. This isn't about gender equality, it's about being logical.
Unfortunately the majority of the people who are campaigning for women be allowed into combat/frontlines are civilians or activists who have absolutely no clue about what they're asking for, they just want to see their wonderful ideology of "true equality" play out in this harsh/unfair world where men and women are still very much different in everything from career/occupation choices to gender roles. Gender roles are still prevalent in most of the world's population (call it human stupidity, call it whatever you want), you can't just look at first-world-countries and yell "see, gender roles are gone, completely gone!". They are most certainly NOT gone if you look at any developing nation with lower GDP and worse living conditions than the oh-so-glorious USA.
More historical example arguments. Then some stuff about gender roles. Not sure what to say, as I don't think it even applies to letting females in to infantry.
Yuuki said:
Thoralata said:
The ability to fight and handle the stress of fighting is a psychological one. It does't discriminate by gender in any sense.
What's the legitimate response to why women should be in direct combat? There's no rational or scientific argument against it that doesn't rely on entirely anecdotal evidence.
Errr it's a documented fact that PTSD rates among female soldiers is far higher than males, as well as their rates of medical discharges & therapy for strain/fatigue-related injuries being significantly higher than males. They also face higher rates of sexual harassment (not their fault, simply harsh reality).
Here's several links documenting the realistic impact of gender differences how they have differing sociological effects, differing physiological effects, injury rates/long-term performance, etc...but I don't know why I'm posting these because you'll probably ignore all of it:
http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/ [http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx?docid=b42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7] / Cached version [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_ylOQK5HkPYJ:www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx%3Fdocid%3Db42d1acd-0b32-4d26-8e22-4a518be998f7+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a] (just read the Foreword on page 7 lol)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279143/ [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279143/]
http://www.hopetocope.com/Item.aspx/558/women-war [http://www.hopetocope.com/Item.aspx/558/women-war]
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal [http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal]
http://www.coe.ucsf.edu/coe/research/ptsd-sexualtrauma.html [http://www.coe.ucsf.edu/coe/research/ptsd-sexualtrauma.html]
http://ptsd.about.com/od/causesanddevelopment/a/PTSDandMST.htm [http://ptsd.about.com/od/causesanddevelopment/a/PTSDandMST.htm]
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174756788/off-the-battlefield-military-women-face-risks-from-male-troops [http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174756788/off-the-battlefield-military-women-face-risks-from-male-troops]
You really need to wake up and smell the coffee of biological differences and come out of this dream world of yours with the "it's just genitalia, nothing more!". In civilian life, yes we're getting there, in the military, fuck no. The ability to fight and handle the stress is NOT just a psychological one, it is very much physical as well and absolutely related to gender...as explained in all the links above.
I can keep finding more and more data if you want, but there's no point if you've simply encased yourself in a steel box and shouting things from the inside. That's not how discussions work.
PTSD arguments. I can't argue, as it's true - Females are, from Army studies, more susceptible to PTSD.
The problem, though, is the assumption that once someone gets PTSD, they become a sobbing, useless wreck. This is not true. PTSD is, unfortunately, much like autism - It has a spectrum. Some people become drunk wrecks that shoot their spouses. Some people just get nervous, develop twitches, and punch people who try to wake them up.
In that study, they found women are way more commonly affected by PTSD then males, but males were far more commonly found to delve into binge drinking, become aggressive, and do drugs.
That doesn't necessarily mean female PTSD is better. They tend to get depressed (Not the rainy day depressed, the pill kind) far more frequently, and that can become a far bigger problem if not treated. But I would argue that you can't just say 'Women are easier to mentally scar, now be gone with you.'
Yuuki said:
thaluikhain said:
You'll note, of course, that not every culture with gender roles has the same gender roles.
They had their own little spin on it depending on how they worked, lived, progressed, etc. But some basic patterns were definitely present through all civilizations (or at least, ones who were successful and at least left their mark on the world)...can't really ignore that.
If I have to explain that, then nothing I say will convince you.
I'll try some basic stuff...
The bit about women warriors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior#Women_as_warriors [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior#Women_as_warriors]
The very first sentence in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_Medieval_warfare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_Medieval_warfare]
Take note of something similar about all the soldiers in the below art (sorry they didn't have cameras back then, you'll have to take my word for it):
thaluikhain said:
For that matter, slavery was very common throughout many empires. Absolute rule by a hereditary ruler.
Depends, does it have a need/benefit today? If yes, bring it back. If no, leave it in the past. Adapt to the times and needs, think logically, aim for the best results, obvious stuff...and I explained a few posts above why female combat/frontline soldiers are more of a liability than a help with tons of info/links you should read first, stuff written by women & men who have known (and experienced) far more military life than you or me. Don't take my word for it, take theirs.
There is only one specific situation which I accepted as a good reason to let women be combat/frontline soldiers, that being a desperate lack of male recruits and the military needing more at any cost. In that case fine, resort to deploying women into combat since desperate times call for desperate measures. Otherwise let men do what men do best, war isn't a playground where people get to dream about ideologies, war is where people have to face facts.
You mean like how the Viet Cong had thousands of female soldiers? Or they have female soldiers in the Thahan Phran (ok, not a rebel group, but a paramilitary militia). For that matter, in the Thai military in general, for quite some time.
I can't find any evidence of lots of females in combat/frontline roles in the Thai military. Please find me some, then I'll add the Thai Military to the list of exceptions where females have been allowed to serve in combat/frontline roles. Thank you.
Yuuki said:
Ah, so openly gay people suddenly stopped being inadequate soldiers in the US a few years back? Black soldiers a few decades before that?
Gay and black soldiers haven't been denied the ability to fight over a global scale across independent civilizations/societies over mankind's history. There's no pattern. But men being far better suited for warfare than women is something that IS a pattern across all civilizations/societies over mankind's history, with a few rare exceptions (yes, exceptions). US Military is a fairly new thing compared to the rest of the world.
Yuuki said:
I somehow doubt Syria has suddenly embraced gender equality and would allow women in all positions they are suitable for.
Those weren't photos of the Syrian military, those were Syrian rebels - rebels have no positions, ranks or roles. They are common folk like you and me, folk driven to desperation and any able-bodied person who is willing to fight can join the battle or run away if they don't feel like. Yet they are all almost exclusively males doing all the fighting. There ARE a few exceptionally rare cases of women grabbing guns and joining the male groups, nobody is stopping them from doing that. I simply proved that that even among untrained common folk, when war/chaos arrives there is an immediate tendency for the men to take the fighting stance and women to seek shelter/protection. Syria is living proof of this.
Yuuki said:
For much of history, female leaders of major nations was exceptional. Should we ban female leaders because of this? Females in other various important professions?
Oh my god, read the thread title. This thread is specifically about combat/frontline roles. There is a reason I'm literally spamming my ass off with "combat/frontline" everywhere I can. Women are absolutely WELCOME to do whatever other positions they like, whether it be leading, playing tennis, governing nations, baking cookies or being the queens of the whole damn world. But let men use their physical advantage to do what they do best, and don't shove women into those roles (even if they want to be there) because in the long term and on a large scale it will only do more harm than good - both to the womens' bodies AND the military. See my linked reports/articles in earlier posts for proof, and also an extensive range of opinions from women and men who have served in the military in the more physically demanding roles. Take their word for it, not mine.
A quick wikipedia search shows the Thahan Phran currently have eleven female squads. I haven't the slightest idea about any female distribution in the past, and personally don't care. Thailand apparently uses females for counter insurgency, at the very least. I view both as irrelevant to the subject at hand.
No argument about the other stuff besides what has already been said.
Christ, it took forever to format this. I need a life.
Check back in 30 minutes, and I'll edit my post with a full break down for you, including all the previous post I skipped (Could have sworn that was your first post. My bad).
I just had to format and type that giant block up there, and my back is killing me. Need to get up and move around, then I'll get back to you.
OP's question is misworded (though not deliberately, I'm sure).
The debate over 'women in combat' was essentially over the first time they were allowed to enlist in the military. The modern battlefield doesn't really have a frontline to keep them from. A female admin sailor will be just as dead as a male infantryman if her ship is sunk by an enemy submarine. Rear echelon bases are attacked all the time. Females are assigned as MP's and see firefights regularly. They've been successful as combat pilots for some time now.
Women can handle "combat". There are many examples. The issue with allowing them into infantry MOS's is the debate, and that is where the mistakes are being made. Grunt life isn't so hard due just to the combat, it's the absolute shit conditions they endure for extended periods of time on top of it.
Read this female Marine Officer's take on it.
[link]http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal[/link]
Women in infantry roles is being pushed by those who generally have no experience there and view it as a "girl power" victory over the "male-dominated establishment". The question of whether or not it will benefit (or harm) our nations fighting ability in any way is irrelevant to them. Pity. It demeans all of the other ways in which women have served our armed forces in roles where they can easily be every bit as good (if not better) than the males.
Yeah I am sorry, I wanted to be brief about, I understand women have been in positions prone to combat ever since Coalition forces have been engaged with insurgents and unconventional forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. My general overview of this was to provide just a brief public snapshot, thanks for the article though. I was lucky enough to interview a female combat veteran, a former USAF MP now attached as a Major in support of Special Operations during Ex. Talisman Sabre here in Australia whilst they parked their Mobile HQ on our Cadet Squadron parade ground. I've gotten mixed feedback from military personnel I have met with, mostly positive but maybe because they were speaking into a camera
PTSD arguments. I can't argue, as it's true - Females are, from Army studies, more susceptible to PTSD.
The problem, though, is the assumption that once someone gets PTSD, they become a sobbing, useless wreck. This is not true. PTSD is, unfortunately, much like autism - It has a spectrum. Some people become drunk wrecks that shoot their spouses. Some people just get nervous, develop twitches, and punch people who try to wake them up.
In that study, they found women are way more commonly affected by PTSD then males, but males were far more commonly found to delve into binge drinking, become aggressive, and do drugs.
That doesn't necessarily mean female PTSD is better. They tend to get depressed (Not the rainy day depressed, the pill kind) far more frequently, and that can become a far bigger problem if not treated. But I would argue that you can't just say 'Women are easier to mentally scar, now be gone with you.'
Err THREE of links have nothing to do with PTSD, they are about flat-out physical differences and injury rates:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_ylOQK5HkPYJ:www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279143/
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
...which sorta shows that you didn't read the info even though you were specifically told to do so before responding to me. A damaged spine doesn't turn you into a sobbing wreck and make you get drunk (I guess it can have that as a side effect), it primarily screws your performance over because you can't freaking MOVE and need to be medically discharged. Nice counter attempt to the PTSD argument, but PTSD is far from the only downside of women in infantry.
As for your questions/responses to why I'm referring to gender roles and historical patterns/traditions, it was to prove ONE point and one point only - that men are more suited to combat than women as they have proven throughout history, and the physical toll of being a combat/frontline soldier hasn't changed much over the past 500 or even 1500 years. You still need to be able to bear immense physical wear n' tear over extended periods of time, something which field/entry requirements simply cannot test. Men do this better than women, as proven above with evidence.
That is my primary argument to why females shouldn't be allowed in combat/frontline roles, because the cost out-weighs the benefits. And by the way...you haven't listed a single benefit yet. At all. You are attempting to fend off my arguments, which is fine, but I only have to list ONE negative aspect to out-weigh what you have (nothing). I still went out of my way and listed several.
Throwing in a quote from someone with experience (although I would say she is a little biased, but at lease she has served):
You have no idea about the physical stress of being deployed in the infantry. Even in this modern era of warfare, the infantry still has to fight hand to hand at times in brutal house to house fighting. Our soldiers are also taken prisoner, women would not fare well when captured, we have vulnerabilites men do not have due to our biology.
If we women are actually physically equal to men and capable of fighting men in combat then why is it women are held to lower physical standards to join the military in the first place for any position. The top performing female recurits would barely qualify if they were held to male standards. The vast majority of them would not qualify at all if they were held to male standards. You know why we have different standards? Because women don't have the physical ability that men do and making us meet the same standards as men would mean almost no women would be able to serve in any capacity in the military. Even the Air Force has standards for men that most female recruits would not be able to meet.
I served in the Army, and neither I nor any woman I served with would be able to measure up with the men that serve in our infantry.
The decision to admit women to the infantry degradges the national security of the United States.
Ask yourself if women really were as physically capable why is there such a societal stigma against hitting women? Why is it that we have seperate sports leagues for women? Easy answers, because even a weak man is stronger than most women and if women were forced to play in the same sports leagues as men at the collegiate or pro levels without the benefit of some system of quotas forcing those teams to accept inferior female athletes, then our daughters would never have the opprotunity to participate in athletics. Serena Williams, one of the most physically dominant female athletes of all time was once asked if she could beat any of the male pro tennis players, she answered absolutely not because the men are bigger, stronger, and faster.
OP's question is misworded (though not deliberately, I'm sure).
The debate over 'women in combat' was essentially over the first time they were allowed to enlist in the military. The modern battlefield doesn't really have a frontline to keep them from. A female admin sailor will be just as dead as a male infantryman if her ship is sunk by an enemy submarine. Rear echelon bases are attacked all the time. Females are assigned as MP's and see firefights regularly. They've been successful as combat pilots for some time now.
Women can handle "combat". There are many examples. The issue with allowing them into infantry MOS's is the debate, and that is where the mistakes are being made. Grunt life isn't so hard due just to the combat, it's the absolute shit conditions they endure for extended periods of time on top of it.
Read this female Marine Officer's take on it.
[link]http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal[/link]
Women in infantry roles is being pushed by those who generally have no experience there and view it as a "girl power" victory over the "male-dominated establishment". The question of whether or not it will benefit (or harm) our nations fighting ability in any way is irrelevant to them. Pity. It demeans all of the other ways in which women have served our armed forces in roles where they can easily be every bit as good (if not better) than the males.
Again, I'm not entirely sold on the argument that females should be allowed into combat arms. The below, above, and in between post are merely arguments against view points I don't agree with.
So, here we go again.
Kheapathic said:
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.
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.
First, I don't think anyone here is arguing that they should lower the standards for service for females. If they are, then I don't agree with that.
If a female can meet the physical standards required (Not just the bullshit Pyshical Fitness test the Army does now), then equipment wont be an issue.
As for the link provided... I read the entire thing. All I saw was typical Marine bullshit. The point that combat is more then shooting a gun then needed is completely valid, but the rest is just utter crap. Much of its based on generalizations
I wanted to do a break down of it, but I can honestly find nothing but opinions, generalizations, and flat out bombastic speech that seems to aim straight at degrading women as best as it can, finally ending with the enevitable drivil on male responsability. I've seen drunk frat boys with more convincing arguments on why females should just be grateful for the men in their lives.
Kheapathic said:
Kennetic said:
Kheapathic said:
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.
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.
I got here late, otherwise I would've posted earlier; I went back and read your post, I have to agree. The problem is we both know that not allowing them is the unpopular opinion here. I'm like most vets, if she can do a job it's cool... just not infantry; 03, 11B, whatever it is your side calls it. But this is what happens when you bring an idea into an area where very few members have (and I know I'm gonna get shit for calling it this) an "informed opinion." It doesn't help that the forums are still full of the feminist gaming stuff.
Edit: I'm also sure most people here aren't aware the Marine Corps attempted/is attempting to make female infantry. The big problem for all the people saying if they can pass the standards is not a single woman has passed the Officer's Infantry School, due to physical abilities.
For reference, I was in the Army. 25B (Network Specialist, with some radio work on the side). I was in for 6 years before my spine gave out, though I was planning on getting out anyway. Signal units are bullshit.
I served in Iraq in 2006-2008 in 1st Cav. While serving, I met two women I'm reasonably certain could have passed as Infantry.
I completely expect deriding comments about my MOS, and maybe even some about the Army in general. Go ahead, you wont hurt my feelings. It's only fair after what I said.
Kheapathic said:
Kittyhawk said:
Simple answer. Yes. Any person that is willing to put their life on the line for their country, should not be turned away based on their gender. If they are capable and willing to do their duty, why not?
Rampant sexual assault, unit cohesion, special privileges, physiological differences, and there hasn't been a single woman who was able to pass the Marine Corps Officer Infantry School.
Rampant sexual assault, I've admitted before is an issue. Unit cohesion and special privliges are not proper arguments - All you have to do take the privileges away, and unit cohesion should be easily solved by the fact that if a female is put into an infantry unit, she's going to be training with them. If she can hack it, I have no doubt her male battle buddies will somehow manage not to fall apart and lose all their confidence and 'cohesion.' If they do, then that's something that needs to be fixed, not something that should be left as is.
As for the fact that females haven't passed through the school yet... so what? They didn't hack it. They wont be infantry. No harm done.
Kheapathic said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
Kheapathic said:
Rampant sexual assault, unit cohesion, special privileges, physiological differences, and there hasn't been a single woman who was able to pass the Marine Corps Officer Infantry School.
Ahh yes, unit cohesion. That great danger that has destroyed our fighting forces so many times over. Like when negroes were introduced. Or when Negroes were integrated. Or when women were first allowed to serve. Or when they stopped asking if you were gay. And I'm sure that openly serving homosexuals will destroy unit cohesion any minute now.
Women in combat will just be another in a long line of military failures that has made our military forces so inept and incompetent that our nation is actually in constant danger.
But I'm sure chicks in combat are different than all those other times because reasons.
Unit cohesion is much more then just being stuck together and is a lot more important than you think, especially with the ones who are doing the actual work. The fundamental difference between the women and non-whites is that non-whites were allowed to share the same amenities as whites; men and women are still segregated due to their biological differences.
I can judge by your sarcastic comments that you have absolutely no experience in the military. I can brush off your opinion as easily as you do mine; because unlike you, I have an experienced opinion. You also failed to address any of my other listed arguments, so take your time.
In the mean time, I ask you to read what I'll link below, the gentleman say it a lot better than I can.
Well, I have served in the military. If your unit cohesion is so delicate that the mere presence of a vagina shatters it like so much glass when a rock is thrown at it, then there's a problem.
I'll give an example, since as infantry, you never actually served with a woman (Presumably. Correct me if I'm wrong). We had a field exercise where we only had two tents to sleep in (For a company. Signal companies are tiny things).
Our Officers crapped themselves a little (Because Signal officers can be a bit jumpy sometimes. Especially the West Pointers. I think they're jealous of the Combat Arms officers they went through school with), and they started setting up a shuttle plan so the females could go home every night.
The females thought that was bullshit. So we males set up a curtain with a tarp I brought and some cord, so the females could be shut away from the terrible males that would descend on them and gang rape them without the cage of plastic sheet.
They didn't even use the damn thing, except for when they were changing pants and wiping themselves down.
As far as I know, volunteering to stay in the field for two weeks when you could go home, and going the extra mile to make that happen, is unit cohesion.
And the article was written by two people (Nit picking for fun).
Kheapathic said:
Shadowstar38 said:
Kheapathic said:
Kittyhawk said:
Simple answer. Yes. Any person that is willing to put their life on the line for their country, should not be turned away based on their gender. If they are capable and willing to do their duty, why not?
Rampant sexual assault, unit cohesion, special privileges, physiological differences, and there hasn't been a single woman who was able to pass the Marine Corps Officer Infantry School.
Prosecute the sexual assault, Tell them to get over it like any other time units where integrated, remove those, irrelevant, and doesn't mean there won't be in the future.
Sexual assault does get prosecuted (not as much as it should) and what you're saying is you want people (most of which are) in the prime of their life, to ignore baser instincts. It doesn't matter how well disciplined a group is, it's going to happen, and when it does people will get punished while being set up to fail.
I doubt you know what I mean by special privileges, so "remove those" isn't a proper answer. But if you want, I guess we can do away with female bunks, bathrooms, showers, and everything else. Integrate everything, go ahead, that'll just make sexual assault easier if not more enticing.
You say physiological differences are irrelevant, no they're not. One of the reasons there hasn't been a female who has passed the Officers Infantry School is because of their weaker abilities. Not to mention heavy gear is already divided into sections because it's too damn heavy by itself. It's divided but into few parts to keep it ready as possible for when there's a use for it. Dividing it up even more lessens the overall combat capabilities of the squad/fire team/etc.
Doesn't mean there won't be in the future, I agree with you, but with how it's going it'll be a long time and the few who do will be surrounded by men... and don't you fucking dare say "lower the standards."
If someone can't control their baser instincts, then there is a problem. The answer to self restraint problems is not 'Its base, what are you going to do about it?'
I'm a terrible person in my head. I've been fighting (Honest to God fighting) the urge to assault, sexually assault, and do generally bad things all my life. And I'm not talking about just thinking about doing this stuff - I have honest to god urges to do horrible, horrible things to my fellow man. And I have succeeded.
So don't say that people are being 'set up' to fail. If someone as mentally deranged as me can deal with it, then soldiers should be able to keep there hands where we can see them.
Sexual assault is not a matter of giving people an option to do something horrible - It's horrible people, doing horrible things.
... Oh, that's what special privileges means.
Honestly, I can't see how this is an issue.
And, again, I don;t think anyone wants to lower physical standards. If they are, we are in agreement - No dice.
Kheapathic said:
Shadowstar38 said:
Kheapathic said:
Shadowstar38 said:
Kheapathic said:
Kittyhawk said:
Simple answer. Yes. Any person that is willing to put their life on the line for their country, should not be turned away based on their gender. If they are capable and willing to do their duty, why not?
Rampant sexual assault, unit cohesion, special privileges, physiological differences, and there hasn't been a single woman who was able to pass the Marine Corps Officer Infantry School.
Prosecute the sexual assault, Tell them to get over it like any other time units where intergrated, remove those, irrelevant, and doesn't mean there won't be in the future.
Sexual assault does get prosecuted (not as much as it should) and what you're saying is you want people (most of which are) in the prime of their life, to ignore baser instincts. It doesn't matter how well disciplined a group is, it's going to happen, and when it does people will get punished while being set up to fail.
I doubt you know what I mean by special privileges, so "remove those" isn't a proper answer. But if you want, I guess we can do away with female bunks, bathrooms, showers, and everything else. Integrate everything, go ahead, that'll just make sexual assault easier if not more enticing.
You say physiological differences are irrelevant, no they're not. One of the reasons there hasn't been a female who has passed the Officers Infantry School is because of their weaker abilities. Not to mention heavy gear is already divided into sections because it's too damn heavy by itself. It's divided but into few parts to keep it ready as possible for when there's a use for it. Dividing it up even more lessens the overall combat capabilities of the squad/fire team/etc.
Doesn't mean there won't be in the future, I agree with you, but with how it's going it'll be a long time and the few who do will be surrounded by men... and don't you fucking dare say "lower the standards."
I'd expect adults to be able to control their urges when the more important matter of staying alive is at hand. Them not fucking is just a rule they have to follow along with anything else. If women really want these positions, the guys not being able to keep it together is a poor excuse.
I wasn't sure what you meant by special privileges. But the things you did mention don't seem like much of a burden to provide.
Poor wording on my part for the last one. Everyone's been stating women should join "If capable/ if they meet the requirements". So assuming a female can carry what you'd want a man to carry and do the same duties with the same skill, there's not much to object to.
I'd also expect people to not drink and drive and kill innocent people on the road, it happens. I'd expect people to be responsible and practice safe sex to not spread STD's, it happens. You can go ahead and expect a lot of things from people, but even the most disciplined types can falter... it doesn't help being in a high-stress environment, having women around only invites trouble.
They may not seem like much of a burden to you, but it's hell for logistics or when materials are being rationed because you don't know the next time you may get supplied. Couple that with a member or two of a squad/fire team/etc generally getting special treatment because of their gender also invites jealousy and other hard feelings.
Again, if they could, but every single woman who tried ended up failing. Not because of misogyny or a whatever, because the physical demands being put on them and their biological make up.
I think that catches us up. If I missed anything, I apologize.
In addition, if any of the above seems combative towards you as an individual, I apologize for that too. It was not my intention.
And, to be fair about the Marine comments I made, its not just Marines. I expect that if I looked hard enough, I could find 4 times as many articles of the same tone and nature written by Army infantry officers and NCOs, thought I doubt they's be so brazen as to post it on an Army website. I'm just too used to taking shots at you guys.
I'm fairly certain you understand.
Oh, whoops.
Kheapathic said:
AccursedTheory said:
Kheapathic said:
CHUD said:
Kheapathic said:
Reducing discrimination is just something to make people feel warm and fuzzy on the inside
Yeah, sure, and so was ending slavery and fighting apartheid. Just us crazy hippies and our "fuzzy feelings".
As long as the requirements for whatever military role in question stays unchanged - there is also no basis to claim that taking in women will "reduce effectiveness".
Are equal opportunists that desperate to turn anything they can into a dog and pony show? I know there are a lot of keyboard warriors here, but without experience (not what you see on tv or read) you really don't understand how war is conducted or the problems that come with deployments. You're lucky, you also have no experience to speak on the subject; women are excluded for a myriad of reasons, many (if not all) have been given and you still ignore them. If you don't understand, I doubt you ever will.
Okay, let me rephrase that. What is the tangible, functional difference that means anything to the average human being between a Male and a Female of the Human species?
Ah, that's more like it. Except that what is considered "tangible, functional" boils down to your personal opinion, and it also ignores that there are varying levels/types in functionality.
Men and women are created equal in the sense that we deserve equal rights, equal respect and we make each other complete (as far as nature/evolution cares). That's the extent of our equality. That's my opinion
Also another person's opinion, a female US Marine who served for a quite a long time and would therefore know (better than any of us) what the harsh reality is: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
Scroll down to the comments below that article to see perspectives of other females who have served in combat roles, and a vastly richer set of viewpoints in general (at least compared to this mess of a thread).
The overwhelming majority of posts in this thread must be along the lines of "as long as they meet same requirements blah blah", while giving absolutely no thought to the long-term physical, sociological, etc repercussions because apparently those don't matter as long as females pass the same fitness requirements as males. Sigh. Apparently being a successful combat soldier is as simple as passing field tests because they can totally "test" what happens over the course of 5/10/15 years of service and how it could impact the other men. Double sigh.
What I mean is that the only thing that makes us different in any sense of social interaction as Male or Female is our roles in reproduction. In any other situation, at any other time, at any other place, your gender is entirely inconsequential. Sociological and psychological things like tradition, gender roles, gender identity or the notion of masculinity and femininity are simply shit we made up and then reinforced. Gender roles aren't actually real, they were just opinions about gender we conformed to. Masculinity and Femininity were the ways we determined those roles. Gender Identity is a by-product of the stigma of those gender roles we conformed to. And Tradition was the flimsy excuse we used for all three.
In reality, on a base scientific level, none of those things are actually real. They aren't in any way apart of the real aspects of gender (body chemistry, reproduction, and base hormonal animal instinct). They're a creation (or by-product) of human stupidity (or rebellion against human stupidity in the case of Identity).
You fail to give a legitimate response to why women should be in direct combat. So you don't like gender roles, big deal; society adapted to them because they're what kept humans alive when the species was still developing. While you may not like it, there are differences between males and females that are more than just our role in reproduction. You seem to fail to understand the role of war (when it comes down to it) is killing. I'm not saying women can't be as lethal as men, but when it comes to deployments and hardships, men do handle the stresses better. One thing you seem to be devoted to is ignoring that the military isn't an all inclusive club for people; it's a force for fighting and it's not for everyone. Since it's selective, its allowed to be discriminatory, it isn't a place for social experiments or equality to make people feel all warm and fuzzy... it's a force that goes out and kills. So while you're on the kick about body chemistry, reproduction and base hormonal animal instinct; men are naturally stronger and more aggressive; why diminish your fighting capability in the name of equality?
Okay, let me rephrase that. What is the tangible, functional difference that means anything to the average human being between a Male and a Female of the Human species?
Ah, that's more like it. Except that what is considered "tangible, functional" boils down to your personal opinion, and it also ignores that there are varying levels/types in functionality.
Men and women are created equal in the sense that we deserve equal rights, equal respect and we make each other complete (as far as nature/evolution cares). That's the extent of our equality. That's my opinion
Also another person's opinion, a female US Marine who served for a quite a long time and would therefore know (better than any of us) what the harsh reality is: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
Scroll down to the comments below that article to see perspectives of other females who have served in combat roles, and a vastly richer set of viewpoints in general (at least compared to this mess of a thread).
The overwhelming majority of posts in this thread must be along the lines of "as long as they meet same requirements blah blah", while giving absolutely no thought to the long-term physical, sociological, etc repercussions because apparently those don't matter as long as females pass the same fitness requirements as males. Sigh. Apparently being a successful combat soldier is as simple as passing field tests because they can totally "test" what happens over the course of 5/10/15 years of service and how it could impact the other men. Double sigh.
What I mean is that the only thing that makes us different in any sense of social interaction as Male or Female is our roles in reproduction. In any other situation, at any other time, at any other place, your gender is entirely inconsequential. Sociological and psychological things like tradition, gender roles, gender identity or the notion of masculinity and femininity are simply shit we made up and then reinforced. Gender roles aren't actually real, they were just opinions about gender we conformed to. Masculinity and Femininity were the ways we determined those roles. Gender Identity is a by-product of the stigma of those gender roles we conformed to. And Tradition was the flimsy excuse we used for all three.
In reality, on a base scientific level, none of those things are actually real. They aren't in any way apart of the real aspects of gender (body chemistry, reproduction, and base hormonal animal instinct). They're a creation (or by-product) of human stupidity (or rebellion against human stupidity in the case of Identity).
You fail to give a legitimate response to why women should be in direct combat. So you don't like gender roles, big deal; society adapted to them because they're what kept humans alive when the species was still developing. While you may not like it, there are differences between males and females that are more than just our role in reproduction. You seem to fail to understand the role of war (when it comes down to it) is killing. I'm not saying women can't be as lethal as men, but when it comes to deployments and hardships, men do handle the stresses better CITATION NEEDED. One thing you seem to be devoted to is ignoring that the military isn't an all inclusive club for people; it's a force for fighting and it's not for everyone. Since it's selective, its allowed to be discriminatory, it isn't a place for social experiments or equality to make people feel all warm and fuzzy... it's a force that goes out and kills. So while you're on the kick about body chemistry, reproduction and base hormonal animal instinct; men are naturally stronger and more aggressive CITATION NEEDED; why diminish your fighting capability in the name of equality?
The ability to fight and handle the stress of fighting is a psychological one. It does't discriminate by gender in any sense.
What's the legitimate response to why women should be in direct combat? There's no rational or scientific argument against it that doesn't rely on entirely anecdotal evidence. My point about bringing up the purely biological reason for Gender is that in any sense outside of reproduction, gender is entirely meaningless. If you're going to turn away a recruit, have it be because they failed basic training and lack the strength, endurance, and psychological conditioning to perform in combat. Not because you think them lacking a Y Chromosome automatically makes them a poor fighter.
But that's dumb. And incorrect. And dumby dumb dumb.
Physical fatigue isn't psychological, and as you didn't try to refute it, men generally have greater physical strength and endurance. Try carrying 120 pounds of gear on a 10+ mile hike, through mountainous terrain, and in the middle of summer; that's not just psychological, it's physical and is a daily occurrence in training and places like Afghanistan. That's one of the stresses of combat, so if you want to argue that females can handle physical fatigue as well as men; I'd like to point out that none of women who've tried have made it past the Marine Corps Infantry Officers Course, due to the physical demands put on their body.
As for aggression, it's biological (something you love to reference); men naturally have more testosterone in their body due to being a male. While not directly linked to aggression, greater amounts of it have been shown to make someone more prone to aggression. Yes this can be trained or otherwise forced on people, but the fact is men naturally have more in them due to genetics.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=testosterone-promotes-agression-aut-12-06-09
(That's the most recent link from google when I search "testosterone linked to aggression.")
I'm sure you've also disregarded the obvious case that there would be a rise in sexual assaults. There's also the problem of mixed/coed commands having problems with sexual distraction. As well as female facilities/commodities aren't always available in places in a timely manner. When you have a bunch of people living in close quarters, one persons hygiene problem is everyones hygiene problem; so if a lady does not have access to commodities for their hygiene issues, it's going to affect a lot more than her. There's also the fact that women have what we call their "period." This can lead to cramps, emotional mood swings, constipation (at times and is a hygiene issue), bloating (improper gear fit which leads irritation), amongst other things.
So again I ask, why diminish your fighting ability in the name of fairness and equality?
Ok, so these women are failing a course... which means that we shouldn't bother letting them try? 'Those before you failed, thus you will also.' The world would be a terrible place if we ran on that assumption.
As for testosterone, you're only telling one side of the story. Here's what scientist have found about that nasty little hormone.
- Increases aggression
- Makes individuals more selfish when at high levels
- High levels often related to alcoholism, social delinquency, anti-social behavior
- Thought to be related to criminal behavior. Unable to verify
Doesn't look so good, does it? Particularly since naked aggression (Which testosterone is most certainly related to) is discouraged in military service.
The study you quoted, by the way, found that heightened testosterone makes people unconsciously attempt to dominate others in a social setting. That's far from proving it increases combat ability.
I'm going to ignore the period thing. Do you seriously think 'bloating' is going to make a female swell up so big her armor doesn't fit anymore?
Makes me recall Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.
Yuuki said:
AccursedTheory said:
My mind is, quite frankly, blown, at how casually you just disregarded hundreds of years of social progress for efficiency.
Syria is a terrible example. Its a society (Not just government) that, when it comes to human rights (To include female rights), could be at best described as 'antiquated.'
Syria has a culture of VERY strict gender roles. That will not change suddenly just because fighting breaks out. And also - WHY would women fight? I have a feeling nothing will change for them no matter who wins.
It's an example nonetheless. I don't see anyone finding examples, or info, or fucking ANYTHING to counter everything I've posted so far...other than digging up rare exceptions and failing to realize why they are exceptions to begin with.
I'm trying to prove a point that men are better suited for combat/frontline than women and therefore there's simply no need to deploy women unless the circumstances are absolutely dire. I have provided tons of articles/info/documents proving why there are no benefits and only downsides to sending women into combat/frontline roles, and opinions from female soldiers themselves for fuck's sake. It's pointless picking apart one of my several examples when I can quite easily pull a hundred more...and worst part is that you KNOW that you can too if you simply searched...
No, it isn't an example. You can't point to a country that treats women like complete shit and say 'See, they don't let women have guns and fight! Why should we?'
Seeing how I wasn't addressing you, I'm not surprised you skipped stuff within the first five pages as well. I'd also probably butcher this quote so just gonna address them in the order you listed.
First
Yes, rude, it's probably a condition from being around internet forums too long.
Second
I wasn't giving anything, I was venting frustration at this conversation still going.
Third
Didn't give anything there either, you sure do know how to cherry pick where information was given. Keep in mind I said by me or by others, take your time.
Fourth
Aggression is needed when fighting, whether you believe it or not it's necessary. Uncontrolled aggression can be dangerous. As for the other detriments you listed, have you looked into the rates of alcohol, suicide, and other problems plaguing people in the military? They're a lot higher than the general population, I recognize it as dangerous, but at the same time it's what gives people the killer instinct that's needed to survive the shit conditions they get put in. Now as you've openly quoted that it leads to dominating others, guess what else it would lead to... we've said it numerous times already, I'll let you go back and search for it.
As for the period thing, yes on bloating. Try wearing a full combat load when your gear doesn't fit properly. I'm not saying it won't fit, I'm saying it won't fit properly. I'm sure you don't understand so let me put it simply... you're gonna fucking hurt yourself because weight distribution on improperly worn armor causes weight to shit which puts more strain on different parts of your body. If you're on a movement, they're not gonna stop for you to fix your shit either, you fix it while you move and when you're loaded down with equipment, it's not easy to do.
Since you decided to only attack two arguments, I'll assume you have no problems with the others you quoted me on.
Edit: I forgot this
For the women failing the course, I have it listed due to how other "public servant" roles were weakened because women wanted a "fair" shot. I'm referring to policemen and firemen, traditionally male roles that women wanted to partake in. When women weren't passing the requirements, they were lowered to accomodate them. So yeah, they may not pass now... but if standards are lowered, there's gonna be a whole lot of problems in the future. You may say it won't happen... but I'm sure they said the same thing when police and fire fighters opened up their jobs as well.
So again I ask (as I have been for a while); why lower combat efficiency in the name of fairness and equality?
Didn't give anything there either, you sure do know how to cherry pick where information was given. Keep in mind I said by me or by others, take your time.
I haven't the slightest idea what this is in regard to. Unless your referring to how I said I was going to ignore what you said about mensuration.
If so, I'll remedy it.
A female has a period once a month. The hygiene gear to handle each period is, at worst, the size of my fist and weighs probably slightly more then half a pound.
I've known exactly one woman under the age of 40 that couldn't deal with cramp in a satisfactory manner. And she was a medical wreck. Presumably, women who can't deal with cramps would not make it through any sort of combat arms training.
I've never known any female who's mood swings were sufficient enough to interfere with service, unless that female also suffered from varies mental deficiencies that would normally disqualify her from front line service.
Constipation is a problem all of humanity deals with, particularly those who live on MREs. I swear, half of the time those things ran through me, and the other half are still in me somewhere.
I said it leads to attempts to socially dominate others, not shoot them in the face. I would also offer the following:
Do you think that social response will be limited to the enemy, or may it be applied to someone in authority?
As for gear... they are adjustable. You know this. Unless you're saying that bloating can be so sever a woman will increase in volume 25% and require a larger size carrier.
As for the spiel on armor, I wore it for 6 years. Though I never did get to wear the 'new' stuff.
As for agreeing with you, no. Unless I said I did, don;t assume so. If I ignored it, its either because I don't think its even worth arguing over, or that it's invalid. Though I don't think I've missed any of your points at this juncture.
Finally, for aggression and killer instinct...
I present Roza Shanina, killer of men and sacrificer (Not a word) of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Shanina
52 confirmed hits, at least 13 kills. As a sniper, which is often claimed to be the most intimate form of killing outside of walking up and shanking someone (Whether this is true is debatable and not the point).
And this goes hand in hand with my argument: I'm not saying all women, or even the average women, would make a better soldier. Like you've demonstrated, they fail constantly in Marine Infantry Officer School. And those women shouldn't be in the Combat branches. A woman who doesn't have 'the killer instinct' shouldn't be in the infantry. A woman who's mental weak and can't handle her period shouldn't be allowed in either.
But if a woman can keep up with the average infantryman, and can deal with combat stress, and can do all these things, should she be disqualified because most can't hack it?
As for lowering standards, that's something we both agree on. Hell no.
If I missed something, please point it out. I'm kind of rushing a bit, as I need to go lay down. I think its safe to say though, that if I missed anything from your post, or Yuuki's, my opinion is somewhere in response to the opposite individual. I don't presume to demand you read them though. This shits getting ridiculous.
Yuuki said:
AccursedTheory said:
PTSD arguments. I can't argue, as it's true - Females are, from Army studies, more susceptible to PTSD.
The problem, though, is the assumption that once someone gets PTSD, they become a sobbing, useless wreck. This is not true. PTSD is, unfortunately, much like autism - It has a spectrum. Some people become drunk wrecks that shoot their spouses. Some people just get nervous, develop twitches, and punch people who try to wake them up.
In that study, they found women are way more commonly affected by PTSD then males, but males were far more commonly found to delve into binge drinking, become aggressive, and do drugs.
That doesn't necessarily mean female PTSD is better. They tend to get depressed (Not the rainy day depressed, the pill kind) far more frequently, and that can become a far bigger problem if not treated. But I would argue that you can't just say 'Women are easier to mentally scar, now be gone with you.'
Err THREE of links have nothing to do with PTSD, they are about flat-out physical differences and injury rates:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_ylOQK5HkPYJ:www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/FileDownloadpublic.aspx
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1279143/
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
...which sorta shows that you didn't read the info even though you were specifically told to do so before responding to me. A damaged spine doesn't turn you into a sobbing wreck and make you get drunk (I guess it can have that as a side effect), it primarily screws your performance over because you can't freaking MOVE and need to be medically discharged. Nice counter attempt to the PTSD argument, but PTSD is far from the only downside of women in infantry.
As for your questions/responses to why I'm referring to gender roles and historical patterns/traditions, it was to prove ONE point and one point only - that men are more suited to combat than women as they have proven throughout history, and the physical toll of being a combat/frontline soldier hasn't changed much over the past 500 or even 1500 years. You still need to be able to bear immense physical wear n' tear over extended periods of time, something which field/entry requirements simply cannot test. Men do this better than women, as proven above with evidence.
That is my primary argument to why females shouldn't be allowed in combat/frontline roles, because the cost out-weighs the benefits. And by the way...you haven't listed a single benefit yet. At all. You are attempting to fend off my arguments, which is fine, but I only have to list ONE negative aspect to out-weigh what you have (nothing). I still went out of my way and listed several.
Throwing in a quote from someone with experience (although I would say she is a little biased, but at lease she has served):
You have no idea about the physical stress of being deployed in the infantry. Even in this modern era of warfare, the infantry still has to fight hand to hand at times in brutal house to house fighting. Our soldiers are also taken prisoner, women would not fare well when captured, we have vulnerabilites men do not have due to our biology.
If we women are actually physically equal to men and capable of fighting men in combat then why is it women are held to lower physical standards to join the military in the first place for any position. The top performing female recurits would barely qualify if they were held to male standards. The vast majority of them would not qualify at all if they were held to male standards. You know why we have different standards? Because women don't have the physical ability that men do and making us meet the same standards as men would mean almost no women would be able to serve in any capacity in the military. Even the Air Force has standards for men that most female recruits would not be able to meet.
I served in the Army, and neither I nor any woman I served with would be able to measure up with the men that serve in our infantry.
The decision to admit women to the infantry degradges the national security of the United States.
Ask yourself if women really were as physically capable why is there such a societal stigma against hitting women? Why is it that we have seperate sports leagues for women? Easy answers, because even a weak man is stronger than most women and if women were forced to play in the same sports leagues as men at the collegiate or pro levels without the benefit of some system of quotas forcing those teams to accept inferior female athletes, then our daughters would never have the opprotunity to participate in athletics. Serena Williams, one of the most physically dominant female athletes of all time was once asked if she could beat any of the male pro tennis players, she answered absolutely not because the men are bigger, stronger, and faster.
OP's question is misworded (though not deliberately, I'm sure).
The debate over 'women in combat' was essentially over the first time they were allowed to enlist in the military. The modern battlefield doesn't really have a frontline to keep them from. A female admin sailor will be just as dead as a male infantryman if her ship is sunk by an enemy submarine. Rear echelon bases are attacked all the time. Females are assigned as MP's and see firefights regularly. They've been successful as combat pilots for some time now.
Women can handle "combat". There are many examples. The issue with allowing them into infantry MOS's is the debate, and that is where the mistakes are being made. Grunt life isn't so hard due just to the combat, it's the absolute shit conditions they endure for extended periods of time on top of it.
Read this female Marine Officer's take on it.
[link]http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal[/link]
Women in infantry roles is being pushed by those who generally have no experience there and view it as a "girl power" victory over the "male-dominated establishment". The question of whether or not it will benefit (or harm) our nations fighting ability in any way is irrelevant to them. Pity. It demeans all of the other ways in which women have served our armed forces in roles where they can easily be every bit as good (if not better) than the males.
More PTSD cases... probably. Women soldiers report a far higher percentage of cases (Something like 19%, as opposed to males who are around 9 percent). Several studies have found, however, that women handle it far better once they get state side. Men have a tendency to delve into destructive behavior.
The PTSD reports are also heavily flawed - While the US Military has gotten really good at supporting PTSD over the years, their still terribly bad at finding it in the first place. It took them 2 and half years to diagnose me, and I know several people that clearly came back from Iraq a bit scrambled but never were diagnosed or treated. Women are far more likely to seek treatment on their own.
Yah, fatigue injuries are more common in females.
Don't know what you mean by stress. Mental stress?
It really, really isn't hard to get a separate shower/bathroom and living space for females. It's not an issue, really, outside of maybe the Navy, where space is at a premium. And they already dealt with the issue years ago and figured it out.
It's an issue, and I agreed. And I don't blame you for not noticing this, I guess I should have mulled on the issue more, instead of the the oh so certain 'Yah.'
It is indeed one of the reason I'm not completely sold on the idea, myself. But I have to ask myself if it really matters - Things like spinal arthritis (Which I have, at the age of 24, along with one hell of a collapsed disc) aren't catastrophic failures - Its accumulated damage.
So female infantry will have shorter shelf life.
I don't really see a problem with that. It's there body, if they want to trash it young (Like I did), then so be it.
But then again, there's the things like weak ankles (Which I've heard of, but I twisted my ankles worse and in far greater quantities then any female soldier I ever knew but one. But she was a complete wreck when it came to balance), which are catastrophic (In these case, I'm using catastrophic to indicate the type of failure [Sudden, problematic, and impossible to recover from if it happens at the wrong time], rather then by the amount of damage done for the long term).
Again, its a problem.
Also, I can personally attest to the fact that long term, chronic pain (Such as spinal damage) CAN turn someone into sobbing, alcoholic wreck. I never drank upon getting a bad spine, but its only because of the brain damage I have, and I never sobbed because I haven't cried since I was 12 (Which is not a boast. That's bad), but I was, and sometimes still am, a complete wreck.
There's nothing more embarrassing then having to lie on the floor of your office because your spine hurts to much to stand or sit down.
But the personal stuff above is just me being a whiny *****. Not on topic. Anyway...
I'm going to continue to ignore the historical stuff, as I don't think it applies. Again, I'm not sure on the issue myself. I'm just arguing against particular points that I don't agree with. I don't care about it, and I certainly don't think I change your mind on it.
Finally, your question...
Yuuki said:
And by the way...you haven't listed a single benefit yet. At all. You are attempting to fend off my arguments, which is fine, but I only have to list ONE negative aspect to out-weigh what you have (nothing). I still went out of my way and listed several.
Here's where we differ, and probably why this is getting so heated and everyone's being an asshole about everything (Including me).
You, and others, think people need to prove why its a good thing. Others think that you need to prove why it would be a bad thing. The question is more different then it appears.
I'm viewing it from the point of 'Why would it be a bad thing,' and this is what I have come up with.
-Greater physical damage (We agree on this, I'm just not so sure how big of an issue this is). I'm not advocating that that standards should be lowered for females, so the question, for me, is 'How much greater risk is involved for a female that can pass male standards,' not 'How much greater risk is involved for females in general.' And I just don't know. I think, judging by what we know, it will probably be greater.
-Sexual Assault/Unit Cohesion - Sexual assault is obvious. And for all my ranting above about how much bullshit it is, I do see unit cohesion as an issue. I just don't see it as an issue that can't be fixed.
- PTSD/Mental health - The stats on this one are weird. Females suffer from it more often, but males appear to suffer from it in a more... self destructive way. Its a problem. But this brings up a problem I have with the military in general, or at least the Army - Not enough training is done on mental health. We were trained on how to recognize issues in ourselves and our fellow soldiers, but I was never once taught by the Army (Maybe by an individual in the Army, but not by the organization) on how to DEAL with mental trauma (Until I was diagnosed). The current standard is to just do your job, recognize the symptoms, and then go to a psychiatrist and get help. I firmly believe that if the Army put more effort into teaching soldiers on how to deal with stress and mental issues both proactively and after the fact, both females and males rates of PTSD (Or at least the cases that are really bad) would be reduced significantly.
NOTE: I spent so much time spelling checking/grammar checking this, but I'm sure it's still a mess. I can't see anything but letters now. I apologize if it's unreadable.
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...
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.
