|
| Thread: US women now to go into combat |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 25, 2013 08:30 AM |
|
|
Salamandre, you should not discuss because you want to, only when you have a reason: the decision to go to the army is a VOLUNTARY one of GROWN-UPs. A 10-year-old may want to join voluntarily - but they also may want to drink, watch porn or quit school, and so they don't have a say at that age.
Lastly, a 10-year-old is a 10-year-old for one year, not for their whole life.
It's really simple, right? Who wants to tell a whole gender, that they are not supposed to do something, even if they want to? The OTHER gender? And if you say, yes - what makes the military so different from, say, police force, fire fighters or else?
In short, OF COURSE women should be allowed to be part of the military, if they desire to.
Should there be different requirements? Physically spoken, looking at sports, it's clear that men are physically stronger than women, when you look at the "gender best". On the other hand said requirements are just a measure for a certain fitness with a view on what those people are supposed to be able to do, if they want to "survive" basic training. If the requirements are correct (correct with a view on that), then there are no different requirements needed, because in that area we talk about, fitness is fitness, men or women, and if they are fit they will make it. However, it depends: if you are required to lift, say, 100 kilos, women would be disadvantaged. If they needed to do something with their own body weight, say, making a number of pullups, they are not. For fitness, they need to make pullups, for lifting they need to be able to carry their part on an MG, if part of a fire team.
In short: if the requirements are halfway reasonable, then, no, they don't need different requirements, and, no, there shouldn't be any. But should women be allowed to be part of the military? No question about it.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 08:37 AM |
|
|
|
Sorry, removed while you were making post. The point you miss just because you are in arguing for the sake mood, is that not letting women in front lines jobs it to protect them and consequently the men with, not a discriminatory fact. If you only read what was discussed before, you would get it. The thread is not about women in army, but women at combat.
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 08:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, it might work if the women are kept in separate units, never contact with men and in essence are an army inside the army. For a number of reasons which anyone can figure out, that can't happen.
^That...
... is a load of bull. I happen to serve in the army where there are women combatants. And yes, naturally they're not serving shoulder to shoulder with men combatants, but instead have their own unit. From what I hear about that unit, I would not want to get into a fight with any of the girls there.
I might one day decide to actually read this thread and address it properly, but from what little I did read, I don't have the energy to go through all the mud slinging to get to the points. So I will only say this: integrating women into the army as a whole and particularly into male dominated areas of it is no easy task for several reason. However, there's at least one army in the world that proved that it is possible. I happen to know that, because I happen to be a part of it.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 08:54 AM |
|
|
|
I am not sure that the army of a country which has as goal to wipe all neighbors around is a good example. Hitlerjugend had same purpose, but this is by far another subject.
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 08:56 AM |
|
|
Way to go off topic, Sal. Keep this up and I just might hand my "Spam Lord" title to you.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 09:23 AM |
|
|
While we are off topic, will just drop this here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2264595/NOW-believe-Two-men-experience-simulated-labour-pain-TV-just-hours-lucky-dont-real.html
Now on a more serious note..if you think women inferior by any means (except perhaps pure brute strength), the women you know are probably those barbie doll types who if they turn sideways vanish. Real women have curves.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 09:28 AM |
|
|
Sorry, Sal, YOU miss the point: who made men protectors of women?
And if you start with that crap (and in fact we are in the process of STOPPING it here) - where does it stop? Police line of duty? Only desk jobs? Fire fighters? The same. Working in heights? Pilots? Shouldn't we protect women from the desires of other men as well? Shouldn't they wear protective gear all the time - something like the burqua? Should they even leave the house?
So simply forget that crap. Without training, NO ONE is fit for front line combat, except psychopaths. That's where military training kicks in: it tries to make them fit for that kind of crazyness. However, training or not, not all PEOPLE will be able to function as drilled in real combat, and there are enough men which lost it in their first combat situation.
I'm willing to concede that ON AVERAGE, men may be better suited for this kind of crap - but this is definitely NOT a compliment, but only an indication that something is fundamentally wrong with societal priorities. Now, ON AVERAGE doesn't count though, because it's not about forced draft, but voluntary joining. A woman voluntarily willing to join this macho crap and undergo all this, should be considered mentally fit enough to handle a combat situation, if the training has been good enough.
Also, as far as I know, the drill instructors and COs have experience enough to be able to judge - man and woman alike - whether they WILL handle it or not. The only snag here is, that many of those may have the opinion that if it's a man, they only have to drill him hard enough to make him fit for front line combat, while if it's a woman it's better to send her home.
Double standard.
So give me a break, please.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 09:32 AM |
|
|
I don't know who decided is off topic to reject Israel's army as a valid example of parity between men and women at comabt. Ah, was Geny, ok.
Israel is a warmonger and will use all resources available to enforce its army, no matter the cost. It believes its survival depends directly on his aggressive behavior, therefore it can not be compared with other nations. Well, most of them, iranians also use women in combat, this says enough.
Quote:
Sorry, Sal, YOU miss the point: who made men protectors of women?
Education? History? Necessity?
Quote:
So give me a break, please.
I didn't invite you. You choose to start the nonsense about army being unconstitutional, without reading all previous arguments.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 09:34 AM |
|
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 09:39 AM |
|
|
There are evolutionary reasons why men protect women. Women are the bearers and caretakers of children, and children are the future of the tribe. While a woman is pregnant or caring for children, she is in a weakened state and needs protection. In modern times, men are socialized from a young age about chivalry, damsels in distress and courtship. The truth is that even with our more enlightened views on gender roles, chivalry is not dead.
So if you think otherwise, good luck at dating them.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 10:08 AM |
|
|
Jolly, you are wasting your time. There are some here who have decided that women need protecting and coddling, and nothing is going to convince them that women are not near as defenseless as they think.
____________
Message received.
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 10:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I am not sure that the army of a country which has as goal to wipe all neighbors around is a good example. Hitlerjugend had same purpose, but this is by far another subject.
As much as I disagree with Israel, I fail to understand why the israeli army is a bad example of female soldiers in combat. And to be fair, their neighbours want to wipe them out atleast as much. Hopefully the israeli female soldiers are not coward nymphos like I have been told US female soldiers are. Would be nice if some other US veteran here could tell us about the US female soldiers...
____________
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 10:51 AM |
|
|
|
You are not saying anything but "I know a few girls who can kick your ass". So what? Who denies that such women exist? Are they the majority? No, they aren't. By far. Be it due to social prejudices, their own prejudices, built-in physical restrictions, whatever - it doesn't matter because your regular girl is not fit for a soldier, nor she wants to be. If the rest want to join the army - go ahead, let them, provided that they can prove that they are on a par with the men and that you have a policy to maintain the discipline and prevent all undesirable inter-gender relations, including the most violent ones (and no, Geny, Israel is not a good example because the whole state is de facto militarized for obvious reasons - you might as well arm even the 12-year olds if the situation requires it).
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 10:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Jolly, you are wasting your time. There are some here who have decided that women need protecting and coddling, and nothing is going to convince them that women are not near as defenseless as they think.
I know. The trouble is, they decide OVER THEIR HEADS, that they need protection. Which means, they are treating adult women like they treat children.
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 11:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Jolly, you are wasting your time. There are some here who have decided that women need protecting and coddling, and nothing is going to convince them that women are not near as defenseless as they think.
I know. The trouble is, they decide OVER THEIR HEADS, that they need protection. Which means, they are treating adult women like they treat children.
Or worse, like sex toy sub humans.
Quote:
Israel is not a good example because the whole state is de facto militarized for obvious reasons - you might as well arm even the 12-year olds if the situation requires it
I guess this looks like a good answer to my failing to understand but does it really mean that women are unable to be frontline soldiers just because Israel needs female soldiers?
____________
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 11:30 AM |
|
|
Or worse, like sex toy sub humans.
I guess this looks like a good answer to my failing to understand but does it really mean that women are unable to be frontline soldiers just because Israel needs female soldiers?
They're not a lesbian, but they want to try once in life. Wrong! I know there is a lot of discussion already.
Women_in_the_Army
Think of a psychologist says you chose the wrong toy. The psychologist does not know anything. As the world of brain resources.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 11:59 AM |
|
|
How can this even be a debate?
Of course women should be able to join the army and of course the basic requirements should be the same. Otherwise you would have a large group of physically inferior soldiers in the army.
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 12:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Israel is not a good example because the whole state is de facto militarized for obvious reasons - you might as well arm even the 12-year olds if the situation requires it
Wrong again. Israel does indeed need manpower to keep its army going. It does not need female front-line soldiers, because as you said yourself they are a minority anyway. So, if Israel wanted it could manage very well without them. In fact, I'm pretty sure it did in the past. However, it does let women to apply and serve in most (still not all) kinds of duties because of its democratic nature.
The point here is not if Israel is good or bad, tyrant or peacekeeper, militarized or not. The point is that it is an example that recruiting women to various parts of the military is possible. With great success.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 03:05 PM |
|
|
If a woman is capable of passing the physical tests meant for men, what's the problem? 
Not to mention that there's a ton of work in the army that doesn't require physical strength of any kind
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted January 25, 2013 03:20 PM |
|
|
Seems barbaric an uncivilized, here we had a recent issue of front line births.
Quote:
There is only about ten cases a year and as soon as they find out we sent them home.'
Quote:
Since 2003 at least 70 British servicewomen have been sent home from Afghanistan after discovering they were expecting. And at least 102 female soldiers were evacuated from Iraq after it was found they were pregnant.
You'd think that they'd notice a heavily pregnant soldier. But my cousin gave birth into a toilet, (last march child unharmed) so I've had first-hand experience with unknown pregnancies. I still think it's ludicrous.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
| |
|
|
