Women in Combat

I don't think capture is a big problem in the kind of military operations we have going on in the Middle East right now. I was thinking more about future wars. I have no doubt that North Korea's leaders would like to see every American woman get raped. They are a different kind of evil from the typical Islamic fundamentalist from Iraq or Iran. We can't assume that our army is always going to operate only in places where Islamic law prevails.

Women can be tortured too, in all the same ways, and men are not capable of giving birth to a rapist's baby. I don't see how anybody can say men have it worse.

Truth!

During the initial trial period, before women were allowed to volunteer in unlimited numbers, rape statistics were falsified to make it appear that the situation was under control. By the time the truth came out, it was too late.

The media tends to focus too much on the positive side of these issues. I wonder how they are going to put a positive spin on a female prisoner being released, carrying an unwanted infant on her hip, and telling a story about her cellmate who died in childbirth on a filthy prison cell floor.

But in your next paragraph, you're going to start lumping people together in groups. You can't have it both ways.

What about women who don't scorn men? That's not going to be a future draft criteria.

Progress means fairness. Fairness means that if the market value of your work is $12 an hour, that's what you make, regardless of your race, sex, orientation, etc.

I knew somebody here was going to go down this bullshit road, linking unrelated things. So, you think this is the grand bargain? If I'm not willing to offer my vagina to the US military, I should be content being treated like a second-class citizen in every aspect of life? That's worse than old-school paternalism!

If all the US military did was defend the country against attack, your point might have a tiny shred of validity, but all our modern wars are corporate adventures. We haven't been attacked by another country since 1941.

 

We don't have to look forward, we can look back. Females played a key role in the resistance during WWII - knowing full well the risks. If females know the risks, It's upto them if they take them.

What has 'Islamic Law' got to do with this?

There is a very different outcome, true - have you ever seen real torture?

I get you concerns - but don't discount how female soldiers feel about this. Don't be overly concerned if they are not. If they are worried, fair enough. Are they?

 

As far as I know, rape is less common in Islamic countries, as is a variety of other crimes, due to severe punishment. A lot of Westerners consider their punishments to be too severe.

How about coming home with a child that has his brutal, heartless father's eyes, knowing he or she will call you "Mom" for the rest of your life? Does that qualify as psychological torture?

And you shouldn't overlook the possibility of a future draft.

 

Yes, I can. Because I'm actually talking about individuals with the same interests, as in the case of feminists. People who lump themselves together voluntarily. When people say 'society', they really mean what is owed them by the individuals who don't share the same interests as them.

Not scorning men is not simply a lo-di-do-di mental attitude. It's not simply liking your boyfriend's dick in you when you get frisky. It means that if men are going to 'man up' and risk their lives for your pussy, they should be paid more and earn special privileges for it. That does not automatically mean subjugation of women, before you start with your strawman.

The assumption that men should do things for you without compensation is precisely what I mean by scorn. Everything that comes free of charge isn't ever going to be given any value.

Yes, those are the benefits of fairness. That's all you ever hear feminists talk about. But, what about the onuses of fairness? What about when it's time to serve in the military, for a wild instance.

Your vagina is not automatically more precious than men's lives. Not to 'society' as a whole.

We can agree on that (but this is true for both women and men); as we can agree on abortion; equal rights to life, property, and representation; equal employment opportunity; and sexual freedom (which, in concrete terms, just means the state should get the hell out of marriage, child-rearing, and prostitution).

But, I'm not willing to devolve into putting your pussy on a pedestal as I see you do out of the blue, whenever it's convenient.

 

Actually, this sounds quite sensible. It is after all, a choice. If anything, a pro-woman attitude should be a pro-choice one.

I think Karen and the white knights are already preempting the remote possibility of women being drafted by not even giving women the same choice as men, which is an oxymoron.

Edit: Worse, the underlying assumption of not giving women the choice to serve is that individual women are unable to assess for themselves the risks and rewards of making such a move. Which is precisely the same underlying assumption for making prostitution illegal.

Protect women from themselves.

Edit2: If anything, I wouldn't be so sure most women would even be accepted by the army, even if they want to join. As we know, being a soldier requires the sort of athleticism that men are biologically more apt to perform on average. I haven't heard from those who may be scared for their own safety being protected by women in the army yet. lol.

 

You're thinking about individuals I generally refer to as militant feminist leaders. Ordinary feminists often disagree with them on a variety of issues. I think this combat situation is an example of feminism gone too far, which puts me at odds with the leaders.

Leaders can declare men and women to be exactly the same in every way. That doesn't make it true. It isn't true.

WTF? Does my pussy own Exxon and General Dynamics? If so, that bitch had better start paying me a big monthly allowance! That little **** is high-maintenance!

You should be on display in a museum dinosaur exhibit.

I hope you're not still wondering why you aren't more popular with women.

Don't forget the biggest advantage of being a man; that you don't have to deal with pregnancy and childbirth issues. You totally take that for granted. :toetap05:

What things? I pay for everything I get in life, plus a shitload of taxes that partially goes to benefit other people.

I would say go fuck yourself, but you still couldn't get stuck with an unwanted child, so...

Guys like to put women on pedestals, so they can see up our skirts.

I think it's important to remember the fact that most of the women who are volunteering for these jobs are making that decision at age 18. Legally, in this country, you have to be 21 before you are considered mature enough to decide when and where to have a beer. Some of these young women are going to seriously regret their decisions one day.

Not really. Regulated legal prostitution makes condom use and STD testing mandatory, rather than assuming that all the girls see the wisdom of doing this. Also, it cuts pimps out of the process, who are often violent and manipulative. Sex should never be fatal.

In World War II, the compromise was to put a lot of women to work in factories making things needed on the front lines. I don't think that was a bad decision.

 

If they allow women in ground combat, do you think they'll start to require them to meet the same physical training scores?

Putting women in the military was supposed to about fairness, equality, etc. it's fair alright, as long as men have to work harder than women in order to get the same job.

That's the only problem I see with women in the military. They should have to meet the same requirements as their male counterparts.

 

Women can bring a sensibility, coordination, organization, efficiency to combat. We aren't fueled by testosterone when having an objective. Our ability to juggle many things at once.....sensitivity of hearing, seeing, and listening.....and other strengths could bring a distinct advantage against some enemy. Personally, I'd be scared shitless, so no thanks.

In response to some of the physcial ability. We cannot be expected to be as strong as men to be considered equal. Equal is not saying we're the same. If we're going to be homogenous, then I suppose men should be given estrogen, and women testosterone to better align the genders. That's ludricrous. Women will have to pass rigorous physical tests for sure, and will be able to manage ample physical challenges during combat. Just not 100% of it, and likely there are hardly any men that can do 100% of what is put in front of them.

 

The women are already exposed to the front lines everyday they just can't be in a combat role. They have lifted that ban so they can be if they want to be and further their career by doing so.

 

Men on the ground don't own those corporations either.

I'm pro abortion and pro pill. Nor have I impregnated anyone, ever. If you choose to have a child, that is your responsibility. Not mine.

See thread topic.

The same for young men.

Yes, I am pro-regulated army entry for women if they choose to do so.

I wouldn't mind that at all, if there were additional benefits upon my return. Vietnam vets do not seem to have gotten it, from merely anecdotal evidence. I do not know about WWII vets.

Otherwise, it would still not seem a fair trade off for risking my life for women. I notice you're not making some kind of Switzerland argument for dissolving the army altogether, so the buck stops at men.

 

How depressing.

 

It is an individual choice, which a soldier in most cases already has to make when he or she signs up. So, I don't really see the issue. If a person doesn't want to be in the frontline for whatever reason just be glad serving isn't an obligation. Otherwise don't sign up.

 

Perhaps it bodes well to remember the likes of Raskova, Litvyak, Budanova, Pavlichenko and Lobkovskaya. All soviet women who were decorated for their contributions to WWll being fighter aces to snipers.

As far as cruelty to women in service or rape it might be also prudent to remember no country is above torture. Nor is any gender.

 

Karen_J

No it isn't less common in Islamic countries. It's harder to prosecute in Islamic countries, due the the burden of proof being higher, and the stigma that is attached to accusing a man of rape
I think women need about 3 witnesses and a signed confession before anything is even considered.

The impact of rape isn't lost on me - I can imagine the damage it does to a woman's body and soul. But I think we can agree it is more likely a woman would be raped by a fellow soldier than 'the other side' - I think that has been proven already.

So, do we remove women from the military because of the threat of rape?

Is the threat of rape your only concern?

(Imho, there is too much emotional blackmail going on in this thread : / )

 

I wonder if the girls will have a group jilling off, before engaging with the enemy.. for those about to rock.. WE SALUTE YOU..

 

Male prisoners of war get raped, so it's not solely a female problem on that front not only that but if you're going to war you're risking much more than the threat of being raped.

I see this as a natural progression of gender integration in the military. Women are allowed in just about every position in the military already, hell women have already seen combat in Iraq and Afghanistan - so it other words it's about damn time! I don't see the problem having women be put into the draft either, if they're able bodied enough for combat why not?

Now the only argument I have against females in combat, is that the ladies have different physical standards than men, the military should make those standards equal.

I'm a bit excited about the new ruling as I think it will have more effect outside of the military than in it - societal pressure/expectation has a weight on ones own perception, think this can only be seen as a positive for women and our society as a whole. Killing chivalry one step at a time

 

It depends on the country. In most cases, defendants are more or less guilty until proven innocent. Some countries practice castration for rape. Others use the death penalty. In general, they have zero tolerance for crime of any kind. In Iran, thieves often get their hands cut off, even for the first offense.

They don't have serious crime problems. They have humanity problems.

This is a lesser problem. In that case, she won't be denied the right to have an abortion if she gets pregnant. If she chooses to have the baby, she will have access to modern medical care. Also, there is about a 5% chance of pregnancy from a single unprotected sex act. Imprisoned in a shitty country, rape is likely to be a daily event.

I think we start by telling people the truth about what they are signing up for. The facts are not sufficiently well-known. Recruiters know how to lure people in. They don't meet their quotas by painting an accurate picture.

If that doesn't seem like a big deal to you yet, you need to think through it a little more.

They are saying yes, but only time will tell.

 

I'm not the one who thinks women are less able to make judgment calls than men.

If you took the stick out of your ass, you'd realize it is women who need to be more popular with me.

 

For a while at least, I hope no one will accuse me of being a rubber stamp for the standard far left Democratic Party line. So far, every liberal news source and liberal commentator I've checked today has been 100% in support of the policy change, without a single comment about any negative consequence that might come from it.

You're in a bitchy mood today.

 

Yet rape still occurs. Frequently.

Oh, sorry. I forgot. The female soldiers are all going to be snatched and put into a harem - where they are raped on a daily basis.

Sounds horrible.

The point is, how likely is it? If one female soldier is snatched is that enough for you to say: No females on the front-line?

Like I said, females are at risk already - more so. Simply by going on patrols or being part of the medical team. The instances of the Taliban (etc) taking female soldiers/medics seems to be extremely low. I've never heard it happen. A female with a gun in her hand surrounded by men with guns in their hands - the risk seems even smaller.

Perhaps your prejudices are surfacing now.

I did not say it wasn't a big deal. You seem to be focused on this particular issue, and painting scenarios that are unlikely to happen - the worst case scenario. I merely wondered if you had any other concerns.

 

Nobody knows the answer to your question.

Some people are worried about how the women will fit in, and what the impact will be on unit performance. I don't know enough about that to make a comment.

In the only opinion poll I could find on the subject, only 22% disagreed with the policy change. I don't know the demographics of that 22%. I'm guessing most are conservative males.