Women in the military

[Zacharine]

And you do realize that forward spotters for artillery, one of these 'artillery and support jobs', is more physically intensive than a basic infantry-man's? I assume you don't know much of what the actual jobs and the physical intensity of those jobs is for anything but front-line troopers.

I do have several infantry friends who went to do spotting and leading artillery fire and I do know it's still nothing compared to what scouts or anti-tank infantry does. Scouts with the job of doing forward spotting and reporting targets for the artillery are part of infantry, not artillery.

Funny, because my brother was one of those forward observers, redirecting fire and so forth for the actual guns and he had the red artillery background to his badges.

And the point of my post was that there are jobs that are on equal ground with basic frontline trooper in terms of physical strain. To somehow differentiate women as plausible candidates for 'only support, comms and arty' jobs is simultaneously
1. Sexists, as there are women out there who have and can fulfill the required physical standards.
2. Demeaning to everyone on those arty, support and comms jobs.

 

[Liberaliter]

I spoke to my Dad's friend who has connections with the army and he said that women weren't allowed to fight on the frontlines due to psychological reasons. A women injured would make the male soldier become more reckless than seeing a male injured. I also think that due to efficiency reasons women should not be allowed. A fighting force should be at optimal efficiency.

 

[Dele]

Funny, because my brother was one of those forward observers, redirecting fire and so forth for the actual guns and he had the red artillery background to his badges.

And the point of my post was that there are jobs that are on equal ground with basic frontline trooper in terms of physical strain. To somehow differentiate women as plausible candidates for 'only support, comms and arty' jobs is simultaneously
1. Sexists, as there are women out there who have and can fulfill the required physical standards.
2. Demeaning to everyone on those arty, support and comms jobs.

Yeah, and I know for obvious reasons that main jobs of foot scouts is to observe enemy movement, strenght and guide artillery fire to their positions because theyre the only one around to see the enemy. There are a few jobs true but only very very few that are even comparable and even with them, the training is easier than what it is for the basic infantry or combat engineer.

Differentiating women to support jobs is first and foremost practical as it maximizes the possibility that a woman will perform at the same effiency as a man. It's obvious that there are numerous men and even more women who cant handle the frontline job but the amount of women who can is not enough to justify all the hassle it involves to get women to frontlines. It's not even really demeaning to support as, even though they are important and needed in the war, support doesn't get even the fraction of shit we have to go through. Everybody knows that there is a reason why artillery is hated above all. They have it easy compared to frontline troops.

 

[JanatUrlich]

If women can pass the same physical and mental tests as men, I see no reason for them to be held back.

A vagina and boobs aren't as big a hindrance as some people would like others to believe

 

[Harmondale2]

if they want to and can get the job done, then of course they should be able to

 

[Spacelord]

I'm all for women in the army if it keeps me out of the army. 'cause I ain't fighting!

 

[Zacharine]

Funny, because my brother was one of those forward observers, redirecting fire and so forth for the actual guns and he had the red artillery background to his badges.

And the point of my post was that there are jobs that are on equal ground with basic frontline trooper in terms of physical strain. To somehow differentiate women as plausible candidates for 'only support, comms and arty' jobs is simultaneously
1. Sexists, as there are women out there who have and can fulfill the required physical standards.
2. Demeaning to everyone on those arty, support and comms jobs.

Yeah, and I know for obvious reasons that main jobs of foot scouts is to observe enemy movement, strenght and guide artillery fire to their positions because theyre the only one around to see the enemy. There are a few jobs true but only very very few that are even comparable and even with them, the training is easier than what it is for the basic infantry or combat engineer.

Differentiating women to support jobs is first and foremost practical as it maximizes the possibility that a woman will perform at the same effiency as a man. It's obvious that there are numerous men and even more women who cant handle the frontline job but the amount of women who can is not enough to justify all the hassle it involves to get women to frontlines. It's not even really demeaning to support as, even though they are important and needed in the war, support doesn't get even the fraction of shit we have to go through. Everybody knows that there is a reason why artillery is hated above all. They have it easy compared to frontline troops.

Okay, it's quite clear you have some kind personal bias you can't seem to shake off.

"It's obvious that there are numerous men and even more women who cant handle the frontline job" This is a given, just as there are numerous men and women who can't handle the raw memorization required from medics for example, or running trough woods with spools of comms wire to lay down the connections everyone else takes for granted, or making large amounts of tasty and nutrious food to a precise timetable in the middle of nowhere without compromising hygieny, or the tech-savvy required to set up an AA-targeting radar/command post and program it to local conditions and link it to AA-guns within the same timelimit it takes to raise a tent as well as fixing that radar if something breaks. Each speciality has their own demands and most certainly not everyone is cut out for everything.

"women who can is not enough to justify all the hassle it involves to get women to frontlines." is a moronic statement, because that hassle is exactly the same as getting men to the frontlines. Logistics: unchanged. Training schedules: unchanged. Organization of troops as well as command structure: unchanged.

"even though they are important and needed in the war, support doesn't get even the fraction of shit we have to go through"

Ever heard of the saying: "The only compliment Support gets, is lack of complaints. When Support does its job properly, they are invisible to those whom they are there to serve. But when Support fails, everything fails."

The COs certainly have and any good CO keeps that in mind. Support has just the same kind of shitstorms as everyone else. They have only one benefit to them: Mostly only Support witnesses those shitstorms. When faced with frak-ups in support, everyone else simply assumes that food arriving 30 minutes late is fine and dandy for the cooks and that they simply go back to their comics without a care in the world, uncaring and far away lazing about. This is because the 'extra motivation' dished out is rarely if ever witnessed by those harmed from the results of the frak-up.

Seriously, it's clear you have no idea of anything but your own role when it comes to military, and discussing this further with you would be simply a waste of both our time; you are ignorant and apparently proud of it.

 

[jamesworkshop]

every military role requires certain skills or physical/mental conditioning to perform giving anyone lower standards lowers the fighting strenght of the army and ruins morale.
those test are inplace as the minimum.
Women should be allowed to serve in any military role but only if they prove they have what it takes because every man applying has to do the same.
Any concern about negative effects will be countered simply by having greater numbers and the fact you are not ignoring people who can do the job but nobody found out because no one gave them the chance.

 

[Dele]

running trough woods with spools of comms wire to lay down the connections everyone else takes for granted, or making large amounts of tasty and nutrious food to a precise timetable in the middle of nowhere without compromising hygieny

Yeah and when we go walk 15km carrying 50kg and dragging a medieval 'cannon' with us, spend a week or two digging trenches and pulling it up and down the hills, not getting enough food due weather, lying still in snow for hours in -20c while sleeping tops 2 hours per day, nightly marches with switching positions for no good reason and after all of that we have to walk back to barracks with the same load.

Lightweight spools of comms wire or waking up early every day to make food or drive a vehicle around is chocolate compared to what we go through. You do know that only the failures and potential drop-outs go to make food because it's the only useful thing they can do.

Like I said before. Support is important but they have it easier mentally and physically.

 

[Kelbear]

Yes, for women in the military.
Yes, for holding men and women to the same standards.

 

[Zacharine]

Lightweight spools of comms wire

Now I really would like to see you run trought the woods carrying three or four of those, back and forth for every connection. You see, if the command structure is spread around say a two-kilometer radious, that makes on average >1km per line (that's three spools of wire: 2x500m + knots and ties + non-straight lines) for every connection

Take only a measly 6 connections and that becomes 18 spools of wire in the ground. Which then naturally needs to be picked up once you switch positions. And if there are any problems (like some idiotic night-guard thinking that putting a pin trought the wire is a great practical joke), these guys run trought the wire checking it all up.

Or the standard medic march. 3 men per team, one member always on a net-stretcher. That full ~45-50kg gear on everyone. Distance: 12km. Switch the man on the stretcher every 4 km. So everyone carries for 8km 50kg gear+25kg from the 'injured' mans gear + the injured man himself (conservative estimate 70kg divided for two). This takes place during nighttime, without flashlights, and the route includes several kilometers of swamp.

If "drive a vehicle around" is really what you think support is about, then you've never seen one of their excersices.

Really, I'm not saying you didn't have it hard dragging those cannons, but so did many others in other positions, including many support positions you hold to be only for "failiures and drop-outs."

Now you most definately are demeaning on everyone on those support jobs.

Yes, you had it hard. Now get over it, because you're nothing special. If you'd been a combat diver then I might have agreed that you had it harder than most.

 

[A random person]

As far as I'm concerned, women should be allowed to join the military and perform in frontline combat roles just the same as men.

I disagree with the current way that they are given lower standards to reach however. There should be one set of standards: If you meet them, you're in. If you don't, you're out. Whether you are male or female.

Yes, that means that given the fact that on average (yes, I am well aware that on an individual basis there are plenty of women that are stronger than the average man) men have more physical strength than women, it is likely that more men that are applying will meet these standards than women (assuming of course that both the male and female candidates are of average strength). However, it ensures there is no discrimination, as both sexes are being held to the exact same standards. I see no reason why a woman should be rejected for frontline duties providing they pass the same tests that a man has to pass to perform the same duties.

Pretty much what he said; the reasons for barring women are their capability, and if they have the capability of capable men, that is no longer a valid reason [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CaptainObvious].

 

[Actual]

I agree that women should be allowed to do the same as men in front line combat. But according to a book I was reading the main reason for not having women is due to the fact that if a woman is wounded, because of some instint, the men will stay and protect the woman, thereby stopping the mission. I may be completely wrong in this, but this is what I read. I still agree that what a man can do, a woman can do.

Even if this is true, if the men are not disciplined enough to ignore their base instincts and focus on the mission, then surely that is a fault with them, and not the women? In which case, I hardly see why it should be used as an argument against them.

[small]Edit: Woo, Gonzo![/small]

Except it's not a fault, in everyday life we would call this man a hero. In a war, he's endangering his mission,and the lives of many to protect one. It's natural and admirable for a man to want to protect a woman, and it shouldn't be allowed in a combat situation.

In fact, in countries with national service they should also be forced to serve.
If women want emanzipation they should deal with the goddarn negative consequences too!

Just a quote for a good point.

 

[Actual]

dont forgot that woman from resident evil 1 and avatar

Michelle Rodriguez

Spoiler: Oh my god Michelle Rodriguez!

 

[Quaxar]

He makes some good points.
"Women can't take the pain? Of course they can! Ever seen a man with flu? They'll be in bed for a month. Women, they can bleed for a week, they just get more and more aggressive."

 

[skeliton112]

If they want equality i say we should give it too em good and bad. And to me this fits underneath BAD.

 

[Galletea]

I agree with the general flow here. I think that if the women can keep up and carry all their equipment then great, they should be allowed. If not they shouldn't.

All the stupid ideas of quotas and trying to combat prejudice with positive discrimination has got to stop, it's stupid and it doesn't help. If they can't do the job then they can't do it, it's simple.