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

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Thruster
"If I were a US military academy career officer and a pilot, I'll be damned if I would stand for being discharged because of a pregnancy. I would take all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary."

If you can't avoid getting knocked up when you have higher obligations, you should be summarily discharged.


Title 9 on the battlefield?

Really Tough Door?

Sooo... some cowardly bastard ambushes a female Military Officer in a dark parking  by knocking her out from behind, rapes her and she gets fired by the armed forces for getting pregnant... I see.

Or she is put into a position feeling forced by the government to seek an abortion to protect her career... mmmm

So would you recommend women who are destined to be career officers to have their tubes tied by the government or voluntarily do so to protect their career? Only on condition that the government perform a vasectomy on all males entering the military... and that would never fly nor should it.

In any event, I am not too worried about military discharge of females due to pregnancy... it's not on the books and I doubt it ever will be in the future, thus that particular subject is moot and irrelevant.

TIGERESS

[Thruster]

"Sooo... some cowardly bastard ambushes a female officer in a dark parking lot, knocks her in the head, rapes her and she gets discharged for getting pregnant... I see. "

No I can tell you don't see.

Assuming a military officer would fall victim to an assault speaks to that officer's decision making capacities. And I know the canned response.......

Victims of violent crime are almost universally guilty of placing themselves at risk. That is not to say they did something wrong, just did not do something smart.

I also resent the N.O.W. strategy of pulling the rape card whenever their procreative realities and responsibilities are discussed. For some years it's been the primary moral argument used to rationalize abortion also. I don't buy it.

Women have supposedly fought long and hard for "equality", they want the "benefits" commonly granted the male constituency but still resist the idea that certain obligations and responsibilities come with those "rights".

"So would you recommend women who are destined to be career officers to have their tubes tied by the government or voluntarily do so to protect their career?"

I suggest that if you are susceptible to being impregnated and consequently are responsible for bringing a new life into the world with all the commitments  that obligation carries, I suggest one should be extremely mindful of their actions. And behave accordingly. Tubal ligation is one of many options, maybe a bit on the extreme end. There's also I.U.D.s, Depo Provera and it's alternatives, maybe even a little personal restraint.

To answer what I believe is your real question, no, I don't think mothers should be soldiers. Comparing our military to that of armies under siege is at the least insulting to those who serve, irrespective of gender.

Using alarmist exceptions to the rule is a common tactic we see in many facets of modern society. I sincerely doubt that all things being equal, your theoretical victim would have to deal with a policy that would logically be applied to those who conceived in a more conventional method.

"In any event, I am not too worried about military discharge of females due to pregnancy... it's not on the books and I doubt it ever will be in the future, thus this entire subject is moot and irrelevant."

And I assure you that if frontline effectiveness is sufficiently compromised and the practice of rotating and accommodating too many preggers marines becomes unworkable, yes they will start to discharge personnel who are unable to competently fulfill their duties be they physical or intellectual in nature

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Bluedog
Tigress, I am 35 and no, I'm not trolling.
I was fishing for a response(particularly from you ladies of the board), there is no doubt about that, but I am not trying to deliberately upset people or belittle women in any way.

 

I believe you Bluedog, thanks.

There have been those who have started trolling threads here and have met the Wrath of Skuzzy for it... and get banned for it if they keep it up, which happened just recently.

I was actually more concerned you might have been a youngster exploring adult issues between men and women, thus I wanted to react accordingly.

TIGERESS

[lazs2]

It's a bad idea.. I don't even like working with em.

lazs

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Thruster
"Sooo... some cowardly bastard ambushes a female officer in a dark parking lot, knocks her in the head, rapes her and she gets discharged for getting pregnant... I see. "

No I can tell you don't see.

Assuming a military officer would fall victim to an assault speaks to that officer's decision making capacities. And I know the canned response.......

Victims of violent crime are almost universally guilty of placing themselves at risk. That is not to say they did something wrong, just did not do something smart.

I also resent the N.O.W. strategy of pulling the rape card whenever their procreative realities and responsibilities are discussed. For some years it's been the primary moral argument used to rationalize abortion also. I don't buy it.

Women have supposedly fought long and hard for "equality", they want the "benefits" commonly granted the male constituency but still resist the idea that certain obligations and responsibilities come with those "rights".

"So would you recommend women who are destined to be career officers to have their tubes tied by the government or voluntarily do so to protect their career?"

I suggest that if you are susceptible to being impregnated and consequently are responsible for bringing a new life into the world with all the commitments  that obligation carries, I suggest one should be extremely mindful of their actions. And behave accordingly. Tubal ligation is one of many options, maybe a bit on the extreme end. There's also I.U.D.s, Depo Provera and it's alternatives, maybe even a little personal restraint.

To answer what I believe is your real question, no, I don't think mothers should be soldiers. Comparing our military to that of armies under siege is at the least insulting to those who serve, irrespective of gender.

Using alarmist exceptions to the rule is a common tactic we see in many facets of modern society. I sincerely doubt that all things being equal, your theoretical victim would have to deal with a policy that would logically be applied to those who conceived in a more conventional method.

"In any event, I am not too worried about military discharge of females due to pregnancy... it's not on the books and I doubt it ever will be in the future, thus this entire subject is moot and irrelevant."

And I assure you that if frontline effectiveness is sufficiently compromised and the practice of rotating and accommodating too many preggers marines becomes unworkable, yes they will start to discharge personnel who are unable to competently fulfill their duties be they physical or intellectual in nature

Hi Thruster,

Nice getting a chance to get to know you better, and you, me.

In case you didn't know, I am not an equal rights male-bashing feminist; my prior postings will reflect that. Additionaly, I like men and respect men for who and what they are.

I certainly agree with you that active women combatants in a war zone need to be responsible for themselves with regards to prevention of pregnancy.

I also want to compliment you on your articulate writing and obvious attention and desire to explain your views clearly.

I have a lot of respect for that.

As far as the concept of "equals" is concerned...  males and females are "different" yet both are equally and fully human; Females are no less human than males.

That is to say, the human race is not "Mankind" it is "Humankind." The fact that it was ever referred to as mankind points to the historical de-humanization of women in the past.

Intentionally disrespecting and demeaning humans on the basis of gender, or ethnicity, or wealth, or any other issue which differentiate humans socially, thus relegating them to a status of less than human, is something I do not abide and never will.

I don't believe you are consciously doing that, but some men and women with self-inferiority issues do do that.

I think you would agree what a miserable example of a man it is who is compelled to put down women for the purpose of make himself feel like a man.

There are plenty of men posting on this thread who give credit where credit is due to women and do so without diminishing themselves as real men.

Again, I am not implying you are purposefully putting women down.

TIGERESS

[texasmom]

Really, when talking about men/women in the military... the most relevant discussion in regards to 'equality' would be 'equal capabilities in accomplishing the mission.'

Actually, dim-wit or weakling men should be removed also (they aren't)... not just women.  If a woman takes away from the mission ~ move her out of the way & put someone in who can handle it.

If she can handle it, fine.  If not, move aside.  No 'sensitivity training,' 'consideration of others' classes, all that crap, either.

*edit* if this were Walgreen's perfect world, slackers & know-nothings & don't-make-the-grades would all be removed immediately.  It never has & never will happen though.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by lazs2
It's a bad idea.. I don't even like working with em.

lazs

I doubt they enjoy working with you either Lazs dear!

coo

TIGERESS

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by texasmom
Really, when talking about men/women in the military... the most relevant discussion in regards to 'equality' would be 'equal capabilities in accomplishing the mission.'

Actually, dim-wit or weakling men should be removed also (they aren't)... not just women.  If a woman takes away from the mission ~ move her out of the way & put someone in who can handle it.

If she can handle it, fine.  If not, move aside.  No 'sensitivity training,' 'consideration of others' classes, all that crap, either.

*edit* if this were Walgreen's perfect world, slackers & know-nothings & don't-make-the-grades would all be removed immediately.  It never has & never will happen though.

Very much in agreement with ya! There are a ton of different jobs in the military which do not require the ability of bench pressing 200 pounds.

Skillfully deploying in a combat aircraft is one example, another is being a sniper or a target designator with a laser beam, or flying a chopper amongst the trees dropping troops or attacking tanks or ground troops or commanding or being a crew member of a B-2 bomber or driving an aircraft carrier or doing maintinence on or operating weapons systems.

Any female who cant cut it needs to get the hell out of the way; same for whimpering scaredy-cats who are males who we all know of or have all met at some point.

TIGERESS

[lazs2]

no tigress.. they don't.  I don't do things the way they want..  I get things done and I make decisions fast.    The funniest thing one ever told me was meant to hurt my feelings or prove a point I guess... she was trying to tell me I was wrong and how but I was simply telling her why I did what I did and how it was perfectly legal (it had worked out well in any case)  she said... "you have an answer for everything don't you?"

I said.. "no.. not everything but certainly for the crap you are spouting"

lazs

[Tigeress]

I have noticed an apparent relunctance by most, but not all, on the thread to take this previous post into account...

TIGERESS

Originally posted by Tigeress
I have stated before... men are physically superior to us.

I, for one, do not want to be a foot soldier unless my country ran out of enough able-bodied men to keep the enemy from the cities, streets, and doors of my fellow citizens.

Bottom line... when a country does not have enough male combatants to defend itself, female combatants go to war.

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

In cases like these, all the "should we allow" business goes right out the window.

That is a serious reason I think women have a place in the military, even if we are not active ground combatants.

We are the reserve ground combatants and good flying combatants unless you want us to just cozy up with your conquerors after they win.



TIGERESS

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by lazs2
no tigress.. they don't.  I don't do things the way they want..  I get things done and I make decisions fast.    The funniest thing one ever told me was meant to hurt my feelings or prove a point I guess... she was trying to tell me I was wrong and how but I was simply telling her why I did what I did and how it was perfectly legal (it had worked out well in any case)  she said... "you have an answer for everything don't you?"

I said.. "no.. not everything but certainly for the crap you are spouting"

lazs

Good for you; she obviously needed to be put in her place.
I read you as a no nonsense get it done kind of guy and I respect and admire that.

I also know you much better now that we have had a chance to converse over time.

From you own posts, I know that you like and respect women in general and can quote you on that from your previous posts... and some women deserve none of, or less of, your respect than others... same for me with regards to some men.

In my mind, there is a hell of a lot more involved in a guy being a "real man" than just his gonads and the aggressiveness and muscle bulk they bestow.

In my mind, there is a hell of a lot more involved in a gal being a "real woman" than just her attractiveness to men and her ability to produce children.

Want to witness real courage and strength of character under duress? ...imagine being a woman responsibly raising four children alone and holding down one or more jobs to make ends meet.

For some women, going to war would be no less demanding of her courage and strength of character, all other things being equal, from my presepctive.

TIGERESS

[Thruster]

Tigress,

You made a point to define equality that I believe is accurate and central to these types of issues then you write;

"That is to say, the human race is not "Mankind" it is "Humankind." The fact that it was ever referred to as mankind points to the historical de-humanization of women in the past."

Which I can't let slide.

I, My father, his father, and I'm gonna guess the whole line were raised to cherish, protect, and honor women. 7,500 years of western culture has shown no de-humanization of women. Most ancient to recent art has employed the female as a primary subject. Mythical and literary characterizations of women have been generally favorable, and in many cases heroic. In no credible reference that I am aware of has the case been made that women are less than human. Both genders tend to have divergent but complimentary abilities and virtues. It's the arbitrary commingling of those attributes that I find counterproductive. True, many aboriginal cultures diminish female's in the eye of the law but that is more an evolutionary response to pragmatic pressures. They still love their Mommas, Wives and Daughters.

And please don't invoke the actions of crazy foreigners to rebuke my assertion. We're painting with a wide brush here.

You then go on to write:

"Intentionally disrespecting and demeaning humans on the basis of gender, or ethnicity, or wealth, or any other issue which differentiate humans socially, thus relegating them to a status of less than human, is something I do not abide and never will.        

"I don't believe you are consciously doing that, but some men and women with self-inferiority issues do do that."

Are you suggesting that I am demeaning anybody subconsciously?

Although I have no frame of reference as I have never seen combat, I think it would be demeaning to a frontline soldier were he told someone half his size with half his strength was as capable as he in the most physically challenging occupations man has yet to conceive.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Thruster
Tigress,

You made a point to define equality that I believe is accurate and central to these types of issues then you write;

"That is to say, the human race is not "Mankind" it is "Humankind." The fact that it was ever referred to as mankind points to the historical de-humanization of women in the past."

Which I can't let slide.

I, My father, his father, and I'm gonna guess the whole line were raised to cherish, protect, and honor women. 7,500 years of western culture has shown no de-humanization of women. Most ancient to recent art has employed the female as a primary subject. Mythical and literary characterizations of women have been generally favorable, and in many cases heroic. In no credible reference that I am aware of has the case been made that women are less than human. Both genders tend to have divergent but complimentary abilities and virtues. It's the arbitrary commingling of those attributes that I find counterproductive. True, many aboriginal cultures diminish female's in the eye of the law but that is more an evolutionary response to pragmatic pressures. They still love their Mommas, Wives and Daughters.

And please don't invoke the actions of crazy foreigners to rebuke my assertion. We're painting with a wide brush here.

You then go on to write:

"Intentionally disrespecting and demeaning humans on the basis of gender, or ethnicity, or wealth, or any other issue which differentiate humans socially, thus relegating them to a status of less than human, is something I do not abide and never will.        

"I don't believe you are consciously doing that, but some men and women with self-inferiority issues do do that."

Are you suggesting that I am demeaning anybody subconsciously?

Although I have no frame of reference as I have never seen combat, I think it would be demeaning to a frontline soldier were he told someone half his size with half his strength was as capable as he in the most physically challenging occupations man has yet to conceive.

Hi Thruster,

Please don't infer that I am saying you are subconsciously demeaning anyone... written english is what it is... thus face to face discussions are a lot less onerous as to meanings.

The fact that women have been successful combatants is a matter of record and speaks for itself; physical strength differentiation notwithstanding.

The fact that the 19th amendment of the US Constitution was written by men then voted on by men then ratified by men in 1920 to allow women to vote and hold public office speaks for itself, dear.

I am not bitter about it but this country enslaved races of peoples in its past and cast them as less than human and forced women into the unenviable position of enduring many of the same disadvantages at that of a minor child.

When my Mother married my Father... in this country she was required to utter vows of "love honor and obey". Those vows were commonplace even into the 1970s but are mostly history now. I, myself, was not forced into vowing to obey my husband.

Additionally she, as a married woman, was required by Texas law to give over control of her property rights (which includes her money and wages)  to her husband. Texas law changed in 1967 to abolish that.

see--> http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/WW/jsw2.html

Thus, in the State of Texas in 1967, a married woman was recognized by law as deserving respect and status as an adult human being with regards to her property rights, not a child or sub-human.

TIGERESS

[Hornet33]

My take on women in combat and this is my opinion as a combat vet (Desert Storm) is this. Women flying fighters, helo's, or operating in a technical environment like Patriot Missle Battery controlers and such is fine. A mans ability in those arenas is no better than a womans when you need quick reflexes and an agile mind looking at the big picture.

Certain combat arms however I'm not so sure about. I was in Field Artillery. It's hard enough serving a howtizer with a bunch of guys that are able to hump rounds for hours on end. When a TOT fire mission comes in and you have to rapid fire a dozen rounds just as fast as you can and then pack everything up and move out just as fast as you can, I don't know of too many women that can sustain that degree of physical endurance to get it done in time.

I'm NOT saying there aren't women that can do it, but for most women in general they can't.

What disturbs me is when they have two seperate sets of physical requirements between men and women for the same job. If I have a job in the military that requires me to perform at a certain physical level to accomplish my mission then that standard should be the SAME for anyone else wanting to do that job. Gender should not be a consideration to physical standards that are required to complete a given mission. Sadly that is not the case many times.

Personally I don't think a woman belongs in the infantry, armor, or artillery unless they are part of the command staff. I've yet to see any woman that can pack a 150lb rucksack all day long and keep up with the men.

That's my take on things.

[Tigeress]

Originally posted by Saxman
I think the Israelis did a study on the psychological effects women soldiers had on their male comrades in a combat situations. They have one of the best-trained and most disciplined armies in the world, and yet they found that the male soldiers were naturally more likely to break ranks when a woman was hit than if it were another man.

Responses included increases in aggressiveness toward the enemy (some of the men in the study were driven to the point of rage) and an increased likelihood to abandon their position or objectives to aid a wounded female soldier. The men were also more protective of their female comrades.

Additionally, and at least in Western armies, men have been found to generally be more reluctant to open fire on a woman on the opposing side than they are another man. This is part of the problem that female suicide bombers present.

The Israelis, I have learned from men here, train their men to overcome these socially instilled tendencies on the battlefield.

It's part of their normal training.

A female combatant's life is not worth any more or any less than a male combatant's life.

Should you choose to dispute this assertion, let me know and I will dig out that training reference for you.

A soldier is a soldier... no two are the same.

TIGERESS