Women in Combat

So you think unit cohesion would suffer because there might be women in the unit? I would like to think that if a woman performed well under fire and was able to do all the tasks required of her that her fellow soldiers would be just as supportive of her as any soldier. Do you think the presence of a female would be too distracting to the other members? Do you really think a woman in army fatigues with no makeup, no perfume and a short haircut would be that sexually compelling that a male soldier might perform differently? I don't know about you but I don't size up every woman based on her sexual attractiveness. Most of the time I'm just interacting with a person, not a woman. Do you think if they let women in the infantry suddenly there are going to be a bunch of Jessica Albas and Sofia Vergaras running around tantalizing the males in the unit?

 

In the trenches, the scale of attractiveness is altered greatly.

 

I do think unit cohesion would suffer. There is a reason, for example, why the IDF puts female infantry soldiers into a single battalion, and why that battalion isn't utilized like male only battalions.

Compelling? Maybe not at first. As the deployment wore on though, things will change. Eventually her looks won't matter: she'll simply become a thing with a pussy and the actions of many, though not all, male soldiers will center around trying to use that pussy.

This is all still completely separate from the physical and hygiene handicaps a female infantry soldier will have.

 

A debate I had over the phone with a male friend, he felt strongly that in hand to hand combat, there would be a huge detriment if women were present. As with any military strategic placement, I would imagine some men would be exempt from being assigned players in that very specific scenario.

 

Which is a very valid point, IMO.

 

Maybe when we start to see women coming home in body-bags,we will truly see the horror and idiocy of war and stop senseless fighting and killing.The fucking male ego deserves an all-time comeuppance on this one.

 

Sig, and wouldn't you find that this is also a valid point?

 

Of course. During my time in infantry units males who couldn't hack it, despite passing all the physical fitness tests, were weeded out one way or another.

 

There will always be war, Fairlight. We're talking human nature here.

 

You (and several others) are underplaying it. Americans and other westerners tend to be extremely naïve about things that go on in less civilized places. I have a post ready to go that exposes the truth about some of the worst extremes, but I've been hesitant to post it because it's such an uncomfortable subject. I may put it up later today. Nobody wants to think about these things, but we need to be aware.

Those operations are winding down. If we end up fighting North Korea again, things will be very different.

Most of the time, maybe 80%, when I hear the word progress, it's associated with replacing something I like with something I don't like.

You'll never convince me that government policies shouldn't be questioned and debated, especially when it involves the military. So far, their track record in incorporating women into the military has been poor. Why would I assume that they will suddenly start doing much better?

Another valid point. It's a completely separate legal system, for good reason. Fighting isn't similar to anything else.

Vaginal infections, due to poor hygiene, can become quite serious when not properly treated; even life-threatening. I can't imagine what they will do about this in foxholes, tanks, etc.

They are already coming home in body bags, in small numbers. The media doesn't cover it.

 

From a recent online news article:

Representative Charlie Rangel (New York) is introducing two bills in the US House, one requiring all young women to register with the Selective Service, and another reinstating the draft, this time for men and women.

I'm not even convinced that a change to the law will be needed to bring about draft registration for girls. It seems to me that the Supreme Court ruling makes it very clear that the existing policy will have to change. All the ACLU has to do is challenge the status quo in court, and it will almost surely be struck down.

So many people have been focused on the career benefits to women who want to serve in this way that we have overlooked the obvious. A new obligation may fall on 50% of the US population, in exchange for providing improved opportunities for less than 1%.

This is what you get when the most radical, extreme feminists get to set the agenda for all women. I don't believe that more than 50% of American women believe that absolute sexual equality should be practiced in every aspect of life, no matter what the consequences. But does it matter at this point?

One of the greatest strengths of the Democratic Party is also one of its greatest weaknesses. As a loose alliance of minority interests, each group feels obligated to support the agenda of all the other interest groups, meaning that activist feminist leaders get the party's full support for whatever they want, in most cases, without question. It's happening again.

The resulting baby could be tortured to death, in front of the mother. What comparable thing can be done to a man?

Also, the old rule has already been dropped that used to prevent both parents of a child from being assigned to a combat area. Eventually, the way may be cleared for both parents of any size family to be drafted and sent to the front lines, potentially turning their kids into orphans.

There are long waiting lists for adopting healthy American children, so I guess some people will have no problem seeing parents as commodities that can be easily replaced. They are a lower political priority than preserving the profits of oil companies, defense contractors, and international investment banks.

We are headed down a road that leads away from civilization. We used to be better than this.

 

You're a real fucking peach, aren't you?

Linking this, because the person's quote there in italics is pertinent:

http://kiwianainked.wordpress.com/2...up-false-accusations-when-we-talk-about-rape/

 

Karen, what's the problem with women getting drafted?

As far as "those savages" sexually abusing prisoners, they ain't got nothin' on us. And they don't need to be women. Haven't you seen the pictures of Abu Ghraib?

Turns out war is hell. You may want to protect women from that and only allow men to do the dangerous jobs, but the worlds a'changing.

 

To equate the desire for equal pay for equal work done,or to allow women to finally be able to get credit to buy housing without a mans permission in civilian life,or even to vote,is in no way the same as allowing (or forcing) women to get blasted to pieces in the eternal mens game of waging wars for power,money, land or slaughtering their fellow humans just for thrills. Humanity gets more sick by the day.

There seems to be many who are extremely resentful of any progress made by women. In this case and in other words--"yeah,they want to be same as men--pick up a check once in a while-better yet--"stick 'em up there on the front lines. That'll teach the bitches about equality". That's not progress. It's the same as the rest of the bullshit we're being fed every day about the "greatness" of this country and what it does in our names around the world. Everything wrong is inched up slowly,so that when a critical look is taken--sometimes I ,personally wonder-"how in the fuck did we get here?"

As far as a draft goes,those who rule were smart enough not to re-start a draft. Didn't want a replay of the 60s.

 

Eternal men's game of waging wars. I haven't heard something quite so misandrist in a long time. How does your world view explain counter examples like Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher, and the volunteer women in the military today?

You also disregard the efforts of women who, while not participating directly, support war efforts. Like the women who worked in factories to make munitions for WWII, or the women in the UK who would publicly humiliate men who weren't in the military.

Women support war, and benefit from the protection that warriors provide them. Women now have the right to serve in combat if they so choose. So how come only men have to register for the draft?

 

Draft isn't really an issue. When have we *Actually* been drafted in the last few decades? Activating the draft would bring about other legal issues to overcome anyways.

 

So when do you think we should address the draft registration inequality? After the next draft starts?

 

Karen, this is not feminist, this is egalitarian. Feminists want what's easiest for women, which means matriarchy combined with strong (and ironic) traditional "respectful" pedestal-placing treatment of women.

It's a new obligation for 50% of the population, so that they're holding up with the other 50%. Maybe they could register and have the choice to be drafted as cooks, if you think that would be more fair...

If you want equal rights, there need to be equal responsibilities. I think that they should be equal, within the physical and mental capacities of each individual. But barring this, I'm surely not going to support equal rights for a gender that (apparently, recall that I don't believe this) doesn't have equal ability.

In fact, there never should have been female politicians with the ability to make decisions that could send gender segregated troops in to danger. If they can't fight, they can't make the decisions on fighting, at the very least insidious, it's just a serious and obvious lack of consequences for their actions.

Equality is equality. If women are not subject to their historical sheltered, protected position, then they are no more special or valuable than men, and should not be exempt from anything that a man must do. Inequality has historically been because females absolutely must be protected to preserve our species, that's why we're sexually dimorphic in the way that we are, but if we throw that out the window (as in a modern society, we should), there is no reason to exempt females from service.

You say korea: north korea has female combat troops, and a lot of them, I'm pretty sure.

 

Oh great this thread is back.

I'll recap a few things

1. Americans arent the first to do anything.
2. Its just as serious if brown, yellow or red people with vaginas get caught up in war, combat or not, as it is when rich white people with vaginas do
3. Young females actively trying to get into combat roles, either a majority or a sizeable minority are going to be gay girls, dont even bother trying to pretend thats not part of the issue.

 

I think women should be allowed to serve in combat roles in the military if they're qualified for the role. I'm a woman and I want the same rights as men have. That means that I have to deal with the same responsibilities that men have, and that's perfectly fine by me.

If they ever do reinstate the draft, and I doubt they will any time soon, women should be eligible for it, the same as men are. It sucks for us, but if we want equality, we have to take the good with the bad.