Women in Combat

So..... doesn't this pretty much come down to a gender equality issue?

There are a lot of feminists who will rabidly tell you that anything a man can do, a woman can do, and do better.

Obviously, that's not true, and there is natural specialization of labor between the sexes. But in most cases, we can do the same jobs no matter what our gender is, if we want to.

But if women should have a hand in top positions in government, where they effect military actions, or should be allowed to do a whole bunch of things really, they should absolutly be in the same positions as men in the military, and they should be subject to the draft/selective service, as well.

 

I'd rather have men in the ranks who wanted to be there instead of slaves who were forced to be there. Forced unity is no unity at all.

 

No, they are not. Life in the infantry is, I think, beyond the comprehension of many of you. It is a life were things like brotherhood matter more than you can imagine, along with physical and psychological demands very few outside the ranks will ever have to contemplate. A woman's body is, IMO, not up to the task.

 

I also thought this was mainly a gender equality issue. Why in earth is a draft good for individuals who don't want to serve?? And yes I am not an expert so I must be missing something but how would a required time to serve in the army for everyone prevent stupid wars exactly?

 

A woman's body can be very different... If she wants and is able to serve she should be able too. This would mean there would probably not be an equal amount of women on the frontline but the ones that are there are fit to the task. I'm not sure how the american male soldier looks at this but I have a friend in the dutch army who feels it is pretty normal to have them in their ranks. So i don't see the problem unless the procedure of enlisting new soldiers would be flawed.

 

I did my time in the US Marines. To be honest, I don't think the Dutch military model is one to be emulated.

 

I am sure the U.S. would not benefit from that I agree But I do think for the part of gender equality. Perhaps parts of the brotherhood so to say would have to get used to it but I think the first step to both constructive progress and gender equality should be that if someone is fit and eager to join they should be able to regardless what gender that person has. I mean if they are fit and willing what IS the problem?

 

THE game changer really.

Although many have referred in this thread to the broad set of feminists, or some invisible feminist agenda. Like all women are going to agree. The steriod pumped or the Michelle Rodriguez version the other guy mentioned arent going to listen to anyone. Litvyak lying about her flying hours to get in as a fighter pilot when she was already an instructor before the war, doubt that would have been anything to do with proving anything to men, just way cooler and pays more than just being a fueler or a cleaner. There will be some given the opportunity will do it cos they can. Whether Germain Greer says they should or not

I dont think you'll ever see a draft that forces women into combat roles. Except if the situation ever got desperate enough, then they'd repeal any amendment to the constitution anyway ever if that did come about

 

First off, I don't think they'll ever really be fit. However, if they were, my problem is the destroying of the brotherhood, and the esprit de corps that goes along with it.

 

Tell me about it. It's hard enough to get two women in a room to agree with each other. They may appear to agree, if they think it is to their advantage. We're all pretty much backstabbing bitches, most of the time. That's why an all-female army unit probably won't work.

Everything that seemed unthinkable in the 1980's has already happened, so I'm not making any predictions.

I know this quote is a few days old, but I can't stop thinking about it. I can't agree. I'd rather be killed than taken prisoner, in some circumstances. Death is inevitable for everyone. I want to die before I experience the very worst things that life has to offer.

I don't expect guys to understand how I feel about this particular thing. It's all theoretical to you.

This is about rape that leads to forced birth, not about consensual sex. Why would it make a non-rapist man feel guilty about sex? I don't see the connection.

I guess most of the guys here are too young to think seriously about horrendous things happening to their daughters. Some day...

 

I dont think there is anything more infuriating you can say to me than that. Pretend it never happens the other way around? Seriously, just cos you are a chic doesnt mean you have a clue as to what some are capable of

 

It is of course worse for a woman to get not only raped but also become pregnant as opposed to a man that gets raped but is it a reason to exclude them from frontline positions? I say no, mainly because I think they should be able to if they can and want. Should they be excluded because IF there was a draft you would have too many women in the army? I guess not, because I agree with vanilla gorilla it is just unlikely and too hypothetical. When a country installs a draft it is time to look again at who should be called up and who not. Not before.

edit:

Agreed obviously. Just because we are guys does not mean we can't emphasize and imagine such situations as good as other women can understand how you feel. And of course our answers are for a part theoretical since you are talking partly about theoretical situations... We can still miss what you exactly feel about this particular thing, sure. But I don't think that has to be gender specific.

 

I'm not following. The other way around? Men can't give birth.

Also, I didn't say that it's impossible for a man to understand my perspective. I said that I don't expect it to happen. There may be a few who get it.

 

So just clarifying, is the main issue for you about women in combat that they can get pregnant by the enemy and men can't? And/or that there could be a draft that causes women to get in the army and frontline positions against their will?

 

Finally, somebody who will agree with the obvious point.

And you can probably also understand that our enemies are likely to make maximum use of the situation for manipulating public opinion, as someone else mentioned several pages back (posting pics and video online, etc.).

The technology of war has changed, but a lot of the cruel strategies remain the same. When the German army took control of small villages in the distant past, they used to gather up the most attractive women and chop off their breasts, so no one would ever want to fuck them again. And in the old testament of the Bible, God is quoted as telling the Israelite army to conquer villages and rape all the women. We don't have to wonder whether or not similar thinking will emerge in the future.

You probably haven't been watching American cable news coverage of this story, but some of the most liberal female reporters and commentators are speaking only of the positive portions of this new policy. Some of these women look so fragile that they might have a breakdown if they broke a nail, so they obviously have no idea what they are talking about. They only know that the policy sounds liberal, so it must be 100% good. Such an approach to an important decision is offensive to me. They should be examining both sides.

I think those are the key points that need to be taken into consideration.

I don't disagree with anything Sig has posted, but I think that part of the issue is best left to those (like him) who have military experience.

I don't think that waging war is just another job, so I can't assume that what I know about other jobs is relevant to the discussion. The military should not be manipulated in this way for political purposes.

 

Well yeah, naturally I agree with that. But not that it should be the reason to exclude women from being a regular soldier.

Thus all positions should be open for everyone who can do and wants the job, me thinks. That's why there are requirement exams and stuff.

 

you have missed the point and keep grabbing straws all over the place. No one is saying a 5'3" woman who weighs 105 lbs should be forced to join the infantry. From the beginning the point has been equal opportunity and equal protection under the law. While very few women might be qualified to be in the infantry or be firefighters or steelworkers or coal miners, some women probably are. The part you are missing is that by separating and excluding them from certain activities you are relegating women to 2nd class citizenship. Feminism isn't men being sensitive to women, it is about the law treating women equally.

The other part not mentioned is that the infantry is only one of the combat arms; there is also armor, artillery, air support, etc. Women can easily be helicopter pilots, tank gunners and part of a howitzer crew. Furthermore you are overplaying the rape thing. How many US Military personnel became POWs in Iraq or Afghanistan? Finally, we have an all volunteer military so a woman serving in an Infantry Company does so of their own freewill, knowing the risks of being a female in close contact with the enemy.

It sounds like your idea of progress for women is men progressively giving more and more latitude to women to do as they please. You need to re-orient your thinking and get over your notions of 'women's lib gone too far'.

 

Karen, as to examining both sides, well....... if the woman can do the job, what is there to examine?

Are you saying that women are not qualified to make a decision to join the army as infantry (one that boys can make at the age of 17, with a parent's consent, or 18 otherwise) and that because it would suck if one was a prisoner of war, women are to be kept at home?

If that's how it is, I'm confused about where my fuckin' sandwich is.

It's totally cool that some women can't do it, they shouldn't have to, neither should guys who can't. But simply being female should not mean that they CANNOT do it, and I see this even as I hate modern feminists with a passion.

 

Quote of the day:

 

Equal opportunity and equal protection under the law doesn't really apply to the military. That said, I think and others are focusing too much on the physical limit females have in relation to combat roles. One must also consider morale issues, which I have started to address with my concerns about destroying the brotherhood that exists in the units we are talking about. That brotherhood directly informs their esprit de corps, which effects morale immensely. Such ideas are or vital importance to men under fire and can be the difference between a unit breaking and unit holding.