Females in combat zones/jobs. Good Idea? Bad idea?

[cav58d]

I'll say it again...

If you were able to, and chose not to serve for no other reason than not wanting to, than STFU.  You have no legitimate opinion here, especially telling someone with more heart and courage than yourself who wants to serve their country, that they cant.

I believe women should be held to the same physical standards of men...But maybe instead of calling it the physical standards of "men", maybe should define it was the mininum physical standards of a SOLDIER.

If she can do the job as good, or better than any other soldier, and carries herself as a professional, it's not her problem that a male may be distracted.  And if he becomes distracted, than maybe he has forgotten this...

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."  (change a couple words around and you have the Oath for Commissioning).

[Tac]

"I believe women should be held to the same physical standards of men...But maybe instead of calling it the physical standards of "men", maybe should define it was the mininum physical standards of a SOLDIER."


which is the core of the problem. The standards of a soldier are the standards based on male performance. Changing the label just to be politically correct is pointless.

I do believe women are equal IN combat jobs as men are that do not require physical performance. Male rifleman is almost guaranteed that he is going to outperform a female rifleman in almost every category. female combat pilots = male combat pilots. Heck there are jobs that women perform better than men .. submariners, mechanized units and officers for example.

The israeli army has a good portion of its female soldiers becoming officers or part of combat units that are not on foot. Support units, mechanized units, air force, etc. However the foot soldier units are still almost exclusively male. Most of their combat foot soldier officers are male. Why? Because the enemy facing them is literally all male and that puts a female at a disadvantage. I dont care how professional she is, if it comes to hand to hand she better be the world's greatest flipped out ninja using chuck norris's testicles to strangle the bad guy 'cause the odds are not in her favor BIOLOGICALLY speaking. If the armies of the world were all male/female integrated then it wouldnt be an issue.. but they arent. And its retarded to risk lives just for the sake of political correctness.

To take an oath of service is not the same as 'ill join only if i can be what i want' . if you want to serve, SERVE where you are best suited for or needed most.

[Kanth]

This was already the case in the early 90's.  When deployed we did use the same showers as men.  Same bathrooms too and slept in the same tents or if we're really lucky a building. We also drank the same drinks,ate the same food, wore the same uniform and carried the same weapon.

Not sure what any of this has to do with someone being able to perform their job though.

If you can't stand up to the job physically or mentally you shouldn't be there.

Originally posted by lazs2
ak.. whould that mean to you that they be in the same barracks and the same showers?  that really is the only way to make it equal.   If we are supposed to ignore the sexual part.. then why not completely?
lazs

[Benny Moore]

Originally posted by lazs2
Heinlein wrestled with this... he liked the concept of men and women being equal and tried to make it work in his stories but...  the starship troopers scene with everyone showering together was just plain silly when shown in something other than a printed page concept.   Lots of other examples of Heinlein trying to make men and women equal and failing misserably... he just couldn't accept that we are not equal in all things and it diminished his work.

You're slightly confused here.  Heinlein was not involved with the movie called Starship Troopers, and that movie was not really based on his book.  Heinlein's book Starship Troopers had no such shower scene.  In fact, in the book, the ships had sex-segregated quarters; men were not allowed past a certain bulkhead.

In the book Starship Troopers, the Mobile Infantry were all male (and they wore jump jet-equipped powered armor, something inexplicably missing in the movie).  The women were pilots and ship crew.  You really should read the book; it's quite different from the movie.  I recommend it highly, and so does the U.S. military.

[Bluedog]

Originally posted by cav58d
I'll say it again...

If you were able to, and chose not to serve for no other reason than not wanting to, than STFU.  You have no legitimate opinion here, especially telling someone with more heart and courage than yourself who wants to serve their country, that they cant.

 

You donned a uniform to protect the people's right to free speech among other things did you not?

No one is telling anyone they can or can't do anything, it is a discussion, people are offering their thoughts on the matter. Nothing more.

[john9001]

Originally posted by Bluedog
You donned a uniform to protect the people's right to free speech among other things did you not?

No one is telling anyone they can or can't do anything, it is a discussion, people are offering their thoughts on the matter. Nothing more.

well said.

[Elfie]

Case in point: Russia during WWII and Israel present day.

Israeli women being allowed/not allowed in combat units is being challenged again. However in 1950 Israel banned women from serving in combat units and for good reason.

Statements made by Moshe Dayan to General Gatsis.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/BG836.cfm

In hearings before the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services in November 1979, Brigadier General Andrew J. Gatsis, USA (retired), testified that Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan told him that during Israel's War of Liberation, "we had a constant fear of what the Arabs would do to our women if they captured them." The men, Dayan told Gatsis, "could not stand the psychological stress" of watching women being killed and captured. Gatsis also said that Dayan "felt that [having women in combat units] knocked down their combat effectiveness."

I've read elsewhere that men can not handle seeing a woman killed in combat and unit cohesion suffered when it happened. The Israeli's learned this lesson once yet it seems at least some of them are bound and determined to learn it again.

From the same article.

Under oath, and perhaps for the first time publicly anywhere, Toffler said just the opposite. Under cross- examination by VMI's attorney, Toffler acknowledged that separate physical requirements indeed exist for men and women at West Point, and that some physical activities for both sexes have been made easier or eliminated so that women would not suffer what Toffler delicately called "adverse impact." ( Ibid., p. 608.)

Toffler's sworn testimony further revealed -- again, probably for the first time -- that according to a West Point survey taken last year, some 50 percent to 68 percent of women cadets reported that they had been sexually harassed; 23 percent reported that someone had come into their room when they were asleep.

Under oath, Toffler also admitted that West Point has identified 120 physical differences between men and women, plus psychological differences. This, testified Toffler, has prompted West Point to make its physical training easier to accommodate women. According to Toffler:

Cadets no longer train in combat boots because women were suffering higher rates of injury; cadets now wear jogging shoes.

Women cadets take "comparable" or "equivalent" training when they cannot meet standards in some events. In practice this means that West Point males must do pull-ups while females merely do "flex-arm hangs."

The famed and valuable "recondo" endurance week during which cadets used to march with full backpacks and undergo other strenuous activities has been eliminated, as have upper-body strength events in the obstacle course.

Running with heavy weapons has been eliminated because it is "unrealistic and therefore unappropriate" to expect women to do it.

Where men and women are required to perform the same exercises, women's scores are adjusted to give them more weight.

Today's West Point males are not increasing their cardio-vascular efficiency as much as their predecessors did because they are insufficiently challenged by physical training standards geared to include women.

In load-bearing tasks (carrying and lifting), 50 percent of the women score below the bottom 5 percent of the men.

Peer ratings have been eliminated because women were scoring too low.

Fraternization between the sexes is occurring on campus. Said Toffler under oath: "I think it would be fair to say that certain forms of sexual activity can have a place on the grounds at the Military Academy." ( Ibid., p. 585-586.)

The cadet honor system has been weakened by making breaches of the code no longer grounds for expulsion in most cases.

[Kanth]

Elfie I would expect severe resentment when women obviously aren't being allowed to fail.

Same kinda crap is happening in our school system. Darn kids.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Tigeress
But there are women who want to and who do... it is their basic human right to choose and not have the right to make that decision taken from them.

TIGERESS

Up to the point that it compromises everyone and everything around them, including themselves, such as the combat situation.
Common sense has to kick in and be deployed at some point.
Way too much women can do in the military, and do it very well, without going to desperate , last ditch efforts.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Tac
I merely answered the question of what 'equal' means to a guy Tigeress, its got nothing to do with domination or anything


I do not believe its still a 'mans world' out there today. If anything, society in the US is a lot more integrated gender-wise than a mere 30+ years ago. Not because some men stood up for women but because women rose to the challenge and succeeded. It is pointless to give women equal rights if they do not walk up to the voting booth or step into the universities to enter the workforce. If you look at Japan for example, their society is almost like the US society was in the 60's and 70's.. women go to college but most graduate in 'home economics' ... very few enter the actual workforce. They're rising to the challenge albeit at a slower pace.

In our society women are entitled to receive special/better treatment than a man would..its just how we are and I do not believe any guy would complain about having to open a door for a lady or that sort of thing. But as any kind of 'privilege', in time it becomes assumed it is a 'right' and ceases to have meaning when it becomes abused.

Extreme examples like these women activists demanding 'equal' opportunity to be a combat troop without considering the consequences this has on the armed forces illustrates how 'privilege' became 'right' and eventually becomes abusive.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Walk in my shoes... but you can't, no man ever can, no more than I could ever walk in your shoes.

We live in two different parallel realities.

Many more women are envious/jealous of male privilege than men who are envious/jealous of female privilege.

Men are the rulers of our world whether we like that or not. Some of us like it and some of us don't.

Men don't take our name in marriage; we are given theirs.

Mrs. John Jones as a name for a woman is interesting if you really look it it.

No one really cares if a male is a virgin or not; historic attention to the virginity of a female denotes "not previously owned/occupied by another male."

We have always been viewed by the male gender as possessions and historically treated as a possession.

Males discussing whether or not women should be allowed... bespeaks of the control and possessiveness of males relative to females.

TIGERESS

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Tigeress
We will have to agree to disagree.

Walk in my shoes... but you can't, no man ever can, no more than I could ever walk in your shoes.

We live in two different parallel realities.

Many more women are envious/jealous of male privilege than men who are envious/jealous of female privilege.

Men are the rulers of our world whether we like that or not. Some of us like it and some of us don't.

Men don't take our name in marriage; we are given theirs.

Mrs. John Jones as a name for a woman is interesting if you really look it it.

No one really cares if a male is a virgin or not; historic attention to the virginity of a female denotes "not previously owned/occupied by another male."

We have always been viewed by the male gender as possessions and historically treated as a possession.

Males discussing whether or not women should be allowed... bespeaks of the control and possessiveness of males relative to females.

TIGERESS

Incorrect historically.   It was VERY COMMON for the husband to take on the wife's surname in Scotland, up until the 19th Century.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Incorrect historically.   It was VERY COMMON for the husband to take on the wife's surname in Scotland, up until the 19th Century.

Interesting, Masher. Didn't know of that exception.

TIGERESS

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by lazs2
ak.. whould that mean to you that they be in the same barracks and the same showers?  that really is the only way to make it equal.   If we are supposed to ignore the sexual part.. then why not completely?

Heinlein wrestled with this... he liked the concept of men and women being equal and tried to make it work in his stories but...  the starship troopers scene with everyone showering together was just plain silly when shown in something other than a printed page concept.   Lots of other examples of Heinlein trying to make men and women equal and failing misserably... he just couldn't accept that we are not equal in all things and it diminished his work.

I don't think that you are saying even that seeing a woman wounded or captured would have the same effect on you as a soldier or citizen as a man tho.. and... it shouldn't.. not if we think women should bear and raise children.. not if we think it is an inherrant trait of women to do so.

lazs

Is it not true that armies have raped and slaughtered females of the enemy for thousands of years?

In view of that, I suspect the issue is not so much seeing a female wounded or killed... its seeing your female wounded or killed, meaning an American female as opposed to say an Iraqi female.

Separation of sleeping/bathing/toilet is necessary as much as possible.

Isn't it true? That men don't want to have the context of females de-feminized or masculinized, in effect de-valued, in their eyes?  To remove that social male/female barrier like that would devalue us as females, right?

Isn't it true? That to "allow your" women to fight in combat would diminish separation and worth of your females?

Also, women effectively killing men goes back to the… “You drive like a girl” issue I spoke of earlier.

Women killing men diminishes and demotes all men, in effect. “You fight poorer than a girl.”
 
That was the reason the Nazi's assassinated the Rose of Stalingrad. The German male pilots could not accept a Jewish female Combat pilot could possibly be better than men... them.

Women are not assigned to the Infantry.

TIGERESS

[Tigeress]

Which gender runs the Armed Forces?

Physical standards are set up by the men in charge.

If you guys want to prevent "your" females from being in the US Armed Forces, using physical standards as a tool is a good way to accomplish that.

If you want females in the US Armed Forces, using physical standards as a tool is a good way to accomplish that.

What are the pros and cons of females serving in the Armed Forces?

Again, we are not assigned to the Infantry, thus considering direct front line combat is not even really on the table at this point.

Females are also nurses and doctors and dentists in addition to being MPs and EMTs and technicians and drivers of ground vehicles and fixed or rotary wing pilots.

TIGERESS

[Elfie]

thus considering direct front line combat is not even really on the table at this point.

It's bad enough that men are on the front lines of combat. Women don't need to be there also.

Like it or not, there are both psychological and physical differences between men and women. Those differences don't make one sex better than the other, instead they compliment each other.

Physical standards for individuals in front line combat units should be high, the training as rigorous as possible. Anything less would be a disservice to those being sent into combat.

Should women be allowed in the military in support roles, just as they are now? Of course they should. There are many things they can do better than males and vice versa. It's how the good Lord made us.