They should be able to, as long as they meet identical standards to men. So no easier physical tests, and same haircut etc.
Poll: Women In Combat? Yea or Nay?
- Thread starter Wedgetail122
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If and only if they can meet the exact same standards that are expected of men. No special treatment. No leg ups. If your a strong woman and think you can hang go for it. Just don't get in and start complaining about how things are to hard for you.
That is a nice thought, but do you have any evidence at all that your position is supported by reality? What country do you live in that you are so sure you have no enemies that would take advantage of your weakness?Maiev Shadowsong said:
The history of the human race is one of oppression or destruction of the weak by those in a position of power. Slavery, the holocaust, the crusades, and I can go on for as long as you want me to. The list of wars we have fought is endless. The oppression of humans by other humans is practically a constant in this world. The defenseless are taken advantage of.
To take a random example, lets say South Korea suddenly completely disarmed and all of their allies decided to never help them in case of attack. Do you think that North Korea would hesitate in attacking and taking over?
Before someone asks: Yes, I was a soldier. US Army 11B.
I answered No, however, this is not really a question of "should," and the answer is not as simple as "Yes" or "No."
Obviously, if you ask "should" a woman be allowed to serve in a combat arms (boots on the ground) role, the answer is "of course, so long as she can meet the exact same minimum physical standards as any male soldier." Yes, there are women out there who can do that, though it's not really as normal as some people like to make it out to be. Carrying a 200lb injured man, with his 20lbs of attached equipment (not talking about his weapon and dropped ruck, which is another 45-80lbs) out of direct fire is not an easy thing on its own, much less dragging him to where he might need to go to get actual help. A lot of men can't do that, either.
But, the real questions that have to be asked is "who are we fighting" and "what are the rules of engagement?"
If this was X-Com, or Starship Troopers, where the enemy is some monstrous alien being or some form of animal with no physical relationship (and, thus, no sexual relationship) to humans, then the answer, for me, swings closer to Yes. In that situation a woman cannot be exploited by an enemy to the detriment of her comrades any more than a man can be. Equal risk.
If this some number of centuries ago, where it was normal rules of warfare to rape and pillage the countryside when victorious, then the answer is very much "Yes." If a woman is likely to be exploited/raped/murdered anyway, then let her fight. Same risk in either situation.
However, under modern rules of engagement and most (probably faulty, but I don't make them) expectations, civilians are either killed as collateral damage or avoided, but not purposefully raped and murdered. Obviously, there are exceptions, and they may be more the rule than the expected ROE, but the ROE is made under the pretense that the various Conventions apply. In this situation, I vote No. It has nothing to do with a woman's ability to fight, but rather with the ability of her to be exploited to the detriment of others. The threat or actual act of sexual abuse/torture against a female companion is a very powerful coercion technique. It will break people, I guarantee. Limiting this threat by limiting women to combat support roles is not necessarily a bad thing. It isn't evil or negative comment on female ability, in and of itself (though I'm sure it can be used to cover that up quite often). <~~~ This is my primary concern.
Also, there is the very good point that men are men and have natural tendencies to behave sorta like... well... men. They will form protective bonds with people around them, male or female, but their protective behavior towards women will tend to be more pronounced. This could potentially cause men to do some really stupid things in combat to protect a female comrade. However, this is one of those things I think men should be able to learn to get over. <~~~ A concern, but one that I think needs to be dealt with and dropped, rather than hidden behind.
That said, I am generally in support of women in combat roles where they are not part of a ground squad. While some of the same arguments above about using the threat of exploitation of a woman vs. male counterparts still applies, it is more mitigated in a situation where they are not part of an infantry type unit. Female combat pilots in both Air Force and Army aviation, I think, are perfectly great. Women serving on warships is fine with me (the pregnancy concern is very real, but I think there are ways to deal with it, rather than just hiding from it... people may not like the ways of dealing with, but equal rights means equal responsibility).
Anyway, I'd love to say yes. There are a lot of situations that I'd say "Yes" in, because I think women deserve the right to fight for themselves or others. However, in modern ROE warfare where the enemy is always another potentially disgusting human being, I still think the modern day infantry unit is safer being all male.
I answered No, however, this is not really a question of "should," and the answer is not as simple as "Yes" or "No."
Obviously, if you ask "should" a woman be allowed to serve in a combat arms (boots on the ground) role, the answer is "of course, so long as she can meet the exact same minimum physical standards as any male soldier." Yes, there are women out there who can do that, though it's not really as normal as some people like to make it out to be. Carrying a 200lb injured man, with his 20lbs of attached equipment (not talking about his weapon and dropped ruck, which is another 45-80lbs) out of direct fire is not an easy thing on its own, much less dragging him to where he might need to go to get actual help. A lot of men can't do that, either.
But, the real questions that have to be asked is "who are we fighting" and "what are the rules of engagement?"
If this was X-Com, or Starship Troopers, where the enemy is some monstrous alien being or some form of animal with no physical relationship (and, thus, no sexual relationship) to humans, then the answer, for me, swings closer to Yes. In that situation a woman cannot be exploited by an enemy to the detriment of her comrades any more than a man can be. Equal risk.
If this some number of centuries ago, where it was normal rules of warfare to rape and pillage the countryside when victorious, then the answer is very much "Yes." If a woman is likely to be exploited/raped/murdered anyway, then let her fight. Same risk in either situation.
However, under modern rules of engagement and most (probably faulty, but I don't make them) expectations, civilians are either killed as collateral damage or avoided, but not purposefully raped and murdered. Obviously, there are exceptions, and they may be more the rule than the expected ROE, but the ROE is made under the pretense that the various Conventions apply. In this situation, I vote No. It has nothing to do with a woman's ability to fight, but rather with the ability of her to be exploited to the detriment of others. The threat or actual act of sexual abuse/torture against a female companion is a very powerful coercion technique. It will break people, I guarantee. Limiting this threat by limiting women to combat support roles is not necessarily a bad thing. It isn't evil or negative comment on female ability, in and of itself (though I'm sure it can be used to cover that up quite often). <~~~ This is my primary concern.
Also, there is the very good point that men are men and have natural tendencies to behave sorta like... well... men. They will form protective bonds with people around them, male or female, but their protective behavior towards women will tend to be more pronounced. This could potentially cause men to do some really stupid things in combat to protect a female comrade. However, this is one of those things I think men should be able to learn to get over. <~~~ A concern, but one that I think needs to be dealt with and dropped, rather than hidden behind.
That said, I am generally in support of women in combat roles where they are not part of a ground squad. While some of the same arguments above about using the threat of exploitation of a woman vs. male counterparts still applies, it is more mitigated in a situation where they are not part of an infantry type unit. Female combat pilots in both Air Force and Army aviation, I think, are perfectly great. Women serving on warships is fine with me (the pregnancy concern is very real, but I think there are ways to deal with it, rather than just hiding from it... people may not like the ways of dealing with, but equal rights means equal responsibility).
Anyway, I'd love to say yes. There are a lot of situations that I'd say "Yes" in, because I think women deserve the right to fight for themselves or others. However, in modern ROE warfare where the enemy is always another potentially disgusting human being, I still think the modern day infantry unit is safer being all male.
Yeah, sorry Maiev, but for every idealist who truly believes that people are at their core good beings, there is either a person like me who believes that human beings will always do the wrong thing, absent social controls or, worse, there is a person who will absolutely take advantage of any weakness to take what the guy next to him has (these days, we give them a Masters in Business Administration and call them "consultants").
Pacificism is a good way to get dead. People are aggressive, predatory creatures who will bash their neighbor over the head to take his stuff, unless he's got strong social bonds to make him like that neighbor (in which case he'll find a neighbor farther away... like the next tribe over) or unless there are enforceable rules in place to stop him.
We've been doing it for as long as we've existed. We still do it on a day to day basis and every day lobbyists try to make it more legal, though we like to call that "de-regulation," apparently.
Pacificism is a good way to get dead. People are aggressive, predatory creatures who will bash their neighbor over the head to take his stuff, unless he's got strong social bonds to make him like that neighbor (in which case he'll find a neighbor farther away... like the next tribe over) or unless there are enforceable rules in place to stop him.
We've been doing it for as long as we've existed. We still do it on a day to day basis and every day lobbyists try to make it more legal, though we like to call that "de-regulation," apparently.
Depending on the country in question, that is indeed a possibility. But the countries that would still be safe are protected by the friendly military forces maintained by their neighbors. Hell, the way the US is taking on everyone else's problems, pretty much all of western Europe could disband and be fine. But that is still defense by proxy. All it means is that you are willing to let the citizens of some other country kill and die for the sake of you being able to live in peace rather than that soldier who lives two houses down from you.Maiev Shadowsong said:
Fear and violence do indeed go hand in hand, but so does anger, and greed, and a whole host of other nasty emotions. Your reluctance to defend yourself or for others to defend you not only does nothing to dissuade the nastier side of humanity, it attracts them. Its like diving into a pool of sharks with a bloody cut on your leg.
I'm sorry but I just cannot contemplate this line of thinking. How is allowing yourself and others to be killed by those who would do violence to you 'peace'?Maiev Shadowsong said:
Is your life so unimportant that you feel no need to defend it? Do your loved ones deserve no protection? Is your pacifism simply cowardice and apathy? I truly do not comprehend.
There will always be those who would do violence.
There will always be those who want what they do not have and are willing to use force to obtain it.
There are those who would kill you simply for being, because you are different and they don't understand or care to.
There should always be those who are willing to stand up to those people. Even for those who will not or cannot stand up for themselves.
Especially for those who cannot.
It's reallllllly not that hard to meet the minimum male requirements as a female. I don't think I ever took a PT test that didn't max my gender's requirements and more than meet the men's for my age group, and I never considered myself particularly athletic nor did I care enough to push myself that hard. The PT requirements simply are what they are, but that doesn't mean they can't be re-evaluated or changed. I couldn't do a single push-up in high school, but after training for a few months before I left for boot camp, they magically became much easier.Grampy_bone said:
Also about the periods, I chuckled.
I can't see any good reason why women shouldn't be allowed to play major roles in the military. There's no need for them to be segregated from men either. I don't think women should be drafted, however, but then I'm not a fan of the draft anyway, so if I had my way the draft wouldn't exist at all.
as a girl that served in the infantry my answer is kind of obvious i guess..
i do, however, support the idea of having gender blind requirements. if my life and health depend on another person, i want that person to be there because he or she is best suited for the job. not to fill some quota to appease some retard bra burning social justice warriors.
i do, however, support the idea of having gender blind requirements. if my life and health depend on another person, i want that person to be there because he or she is best suited for the job. not to fill some quota to appease some retard bra burning social justice warriors.
Absolutely. The Israeli army seems to be doing fine with female soldiers. Obviously there are biological strength differences but not every combat position in the army requires the ability to drag 300 pound bodies around the battlefield. My wife, for example, is a tiny thing but an expert sniper and sharpshooter. *shrug*Wedgetail122 said:
I actually think that in this day and age women should have to sign the draft card in the US just like men (well, selective service card) - the point isn't that there hasn't been a draft in a long while. The point is that it's a step towards full equality - realizing and recognizing that women can fight and die (and should fight and die) just like the sons of the US can in times of war.
It has been tried, and it has failed miserably. for example, take the Moriori - a civilization that was actually dedicated to the position you advocate. They were almost completely exterminated when their islands were invaded in the 1830s. A quote from one of the few survivors: "[The Maori] commenced to kill us like sheep.... [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed - men, women and children indiscriminately." Within 30 years only about 5% of the population survived.Maiev Shadowsong said:
But if death is preferable to violence, that is fine. Only understand that by rolling over so easily a pacifist culture gives power to the violent cultures of the world - and likely allows for far greater violence to occur than ever would be committed by a defensive war. When a society is violently subjugated without significant resistance, either because they cannot or will not defend themselves, the aggressor gains power and can then threaten more peaceful societies.
Consider the start of World War II. Germany was not a powerful nation in the decades leading to the war. But the build up was remarkably quick. Germany built up military forces and strengthened their position by annexing weaker nations using political and eventually military strategies. By the time anyone with any real strength got to the point of opposing Nazi Germany their position had become so strong that a world war was the outcome. Now, understand that I am not criticizing any particular nation or people in this example; I do not pretend to be an expert of the period and I would never try to judge the actions of leaders in such a difficult time. But the fact remains that Nazi Germany was only the threat it grew to be because no one significant opposed them until it was too late.
One of the greatest risks of pure pacifism is that you give power to the violent. Don't imagine that by valiantly letting yourself get slaughtered you are preventing violence and war. You are just as likely contributing to it.
Well, I can agree that you and I have a different perspective of death. It is certainly a part of life: the end of it.
I don't believe that there is anything waiting for us after we die. I don't believe that the things I do in this life are some training/judgement/whatever.
But I do believe in organ failure, blood loss and bullet wounds and, believe you me, they believe in you.
While I've never had to kill anyone in combat or war and I try to operate on a "do no harm" policy (if you cannot help someone, try not to hurt them) I have been on both ends of some of the horrific violence that humans can do to one another. I was stabbed in a bar trying to prevent an assault on a friend and I would do it again with the same level of hesitation: zero, but I would have killed that man if I could've.
We are everything we have done and learned and lived and experienced and shared with all the other people in our lives and I'll be damned if I'll lay down and die and let someone take it without a fight.
Captcha: charm offensive
Hmm...
I don't believe that there is anything waiting for us after we die. I don't believe that the things I do in this life are some training/judgement/whatever.
But I do believe in organ failure, blood loss and bullet wounds and, believe you me, they believe in you.
While I've never had to kill anyone in combat or war and I try to operate on a "do no harm" policy (if you cannot help someone, try not to hurt them) I have been on both ends of some of the horrific violence that humans can do to one another. I was stabbed in a bar trying to prevent an assault on a friend and I would do it again with the same level of hesitation: zero, but I would have killed that man if I could've.
We are everything we have done and learned and lived and experienced and shared with all the other people in our lives and I'll be damned if I'll lay down and die and let someone take it without a fight.
Captcha: charm offensive
Hmm...
