Women in combat- where do you stand?

[Yogi]

What about putting women in seperate units, away from the men?

[TrailerParkJawa]

Can't you just discipline them beforehand? Like setting down ground rules?

Not if they intend to get out by getting pregnant. The only way I could see that working is too make is mandatory that women in overseas posts get a depro-privera (spelling?) shot. Which is a whole can of worms.

What exactly does this shot do?

Its a form of birth control. I think it lasts 6 months to a year. Im not advocating they do this, Im just throwing out an idea that would prevent the problems we are discussing.

[Knife]

A lot of these agruements remind me of G.I. Jane. And i will repeat one of the counter-arguements from the movie

"During world war 2 my grand daddy wanted to be in the navy, fire them big ass guns but the navy told him 'no, if a black guy wants to be in the navy he can cook or clean' so you are trying ti start this whole crusade but to them you'll just be another N***** on the block"

If a woman wants to fight for her country and has the physical ability to do what she choses then who the hell are we to deny her. She has more balls than a lotta ppl voting no who aren't in the army themselves.

Has nothing to do about that. It has to do with the relasionship between men and women no matter what race, creed, ethnicity, or religeon. If you put men and women together in close and stressful situations, the male and female psycology will interfere with the ability of the unit to fight properly. There is no quick way around it. Maybe someday when mens and womens roles in society have finnished changing and a sence of gender equality is established (I don't think it will ever happen at least not for a long long time). It is folly to introduce pyscological instability into a combat situation when you do not have to. If they want to serve, then let them serve but not in the infantry.

[Sea Skimmer]

A lot of these agruements remind me of G.I. Jane. And i will repeat one of the counter-arguements from the movie

"During world war 2 my grand daddy wanted to be in the navy, fire them big ass guns but the navy told him 'no, if a black guy wants to be in the navy he can cook or clean' so you are trying ti start this whole crusade but to them you'll just be another N***** on the block"

If a woman wants to fight for her country and has the physical ability to do what she choses then who the hell are we to deny her. She has more balls than a lotta ppl voting no who aren't in the army themselves.

Has nothing to do about that. It has to do with the relasionship between men and women no matter what race, creed, ethnicity, or religeon. If you put men and women together in close and stressful situations, the male and female psycology will interfere with the ability of the unit to fight properly. There is no quick way around it. Maybe someday when mens and womens roles in society have finnished changing and a sence of gender equality is established (I don't think it will ever happen at least not for a long long time). It is folly to introduce pyscological instability into a combat situation when you do not have to. If they want to serve, then let them serve but not in the infantry.

And you don't get "close and stressful situations" inside say a tank moving through a forest crawling with infantry or in the cockpit of an attack heilcopter? Intresting logic.

[kheegster]

Another point in favour of "No". A female soldier who is captured is almost certain to be raped, whether there is a need to torture her or not.

[Antediluvian]

Have you served in a combat unit? If you haven't, then your question is moot, for you are incapable of understanding. We in the Army have someting called "Esprit de Corps," upon which we base our morale. If the situation I described took place in an Infantry unit, where morale is paramount to unit readiness and success in battle, that situation could destroy the entire unit. I've seen it happen in CS units.
Did you not read what I wrote? THEY CHOSE NOT TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS DESPITE THEIR AVAILABILITY -- understand now? Most soldiers who get pregnant are kids between the ages of 18 and 21, and they are removed far from home, so when they're placed in an environment with women their age, they will fuck each other -- it's a given, and they generally will throw caution to the wind.
That has zilch to do with what I said. Think before you type.
Again, have you served in a combat unit?

No, I haven't served in a combat unit, but just because it happened in your unit, doesn't mean it will happen in every unit, or happen at all.

There is this little thing known as discipline.

And yes, I read what you wrote. You didn't answer my question. The women and men in your unit may not have chose to use them, but that doesn't mean everyone will be that irresponsible.

As for the submarine argument, I brought it up to show how silly your objections are. Your argument is just as weak as that.

Ok, how about mine. I served in a combat unit and then in a support unit so I've seen the two sides. First in the support roles women can and do serve brilliantly. However anytime you get men and women together you are going to have sexual relations no matter what the commanders want.
I have been aboard ships where the majority of the handful of women who serve on board end up preagnant durring their tour. I know that almost half of the Women Marines who lived in the barracks when I was in the FSSG, got pregnent (small hint, if they are in the barracks, they are not married ). Can a woman serve in the military? Yes, but again when men and women are put in close proximity of each other, sex will happen. When the woman is pregnent, she can not perform her duties for what? The last 6 or so months? Not the mention the first couple of months after the birth of the child.

Now, translate that to the infantry. Its a no go. If men and women are in close proximity in the military, then once you translate that over to the infantry, the closeness and the bonds between people get even closer. Ontop of all that, you have to keep the units war fighting capability in mind. If you costantly have personel moving in and out of the unit for personal reasons (refer to jegs2's experience in Korea). Then add on top of that the pycological effects of women in the infantry. In a firefight do you want your troops protecting the females? Cause thats what your going to get. Is it the womans fault? Or maybe the men because it is hardwired into us to defend females in dangerous situations. Can this be blamed on women? Yes and no. Its the way humans are and its the way we think.

Physicaly women, atleast some of them, are capable of being in the infantry. Socialy, mentally, culturally, and realisticly it is a bad idea to have women involved in the ferrocity and horrors of close quarters ground combat. It is both the mens fault and womens fault at the same time. Plus you can add in the mix things such as, when I was in the infantry, we shared one big common bathroom and shower. That won't happen if women are introduced to the infantry. So, are they special and get their own? You'll have 20 men sharing 4 toilets but women get a one on one toliet situation? I've been in barracks were 6 men were assigned to a room. Are you going to cram 6 women in a room? There are a host of social problems we must address before women should be able to be in the infantry and political correctness is not one of them.

Why not? I don't see a problem with women sharing a room or a toilet. Are you implying that women can't share a room or rough it?

Or for that matter, that women and men can't control their sexual urges around each other?

And what's with this protecting thing? I hear this argument a lot, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Why do you think the male soldiers will go out of their way to protect female soldiers? Is there any proof for this hardwiring other than social indoctrination?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Another point in favour of "No". A female soldier who is captured is almost certain to be raped, whether there is a need to torture her or not.

Then we HANG the bastards!

there is a reason that rape is a warcrime under the Geneva accords.

[kheegster]

Or for that matter, that women and men can't control their sexual urges around each other?

And what's with this protecting thing? I hear this argument a lot, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Why do you think the male soldiers will go out of their way to protect female soldiers? Is there any proof for this hardwiring other than social indoctrination?

Soldiers go on R&R. Soldiers get drunk. Drunk people fuck, whether they are supposed to or not. Why do you think such a large percentage of females get pregnant in the military as it is? Do you think they are so dumb as not to know the consequences of unprotected sex?

It does not matter whether the male instinct to protect females is hardwired or socially indoctrinated. The point is that it exists.

[InnerBrat]

Not if they intend to get out by getting pregnant. The only way I could see that working is too make is mandatory that women in overseas posts get a depro-privera (spelling?) shot. Which is a whole can of worms.

It's Depo-provera.

And it only lasts 12 weeks. I don't know diddly about the military, but are overseas posts as short as that?

[neoolong]

I say let them into everything but Infantry (and Special Forces). In today's army, thats really the only field where there is actually a forseeable need for upper body strength. If a comrade in arms is wounded, one to two men, in fit shape, are capable of moving (to a helicoptor or a truck) all but the heaviest of men. The average woman, even one who went through basic training can't do this. That means, that someone will DIE because a woman/women can't do what a man/men can do in the same situation.

If, however, a woman proves that she is capable of doing this, then I have no problem with that specific woman going into Infantry.

I'm inclined to agree. dropping the standards so women can enter a certain feild is ludicris in my opinion.

Or, to shamelessly use a quote

"It makes the kind of sense that is...not"

Yet at the same time dropping certain standards across the board for certain fields is a GOOD idea. A woman with less upper body muscles can work in other fields, can fly a helicopter, drive a tank, or do other duties. That said, men with bad upper body strength can do the same thing.

There is a difference between preventing women from joining special forces and simply holding the standards HIGH but allowing capable women in special forces or infantry.

What happens if the helicopter or tank is disabled? And the female pilot has to carry someone to safety? If strength standards are dropped in that area specifically so weak men and women can serve in that capacity, is it still a good idea?

[The Yosemite Bear]

You know that two century's ago we still had women surving in the military.

During the civil war we had women disguising them selves as men in order to fight. (And some like Jesse James would dress as a woman to perform sneaky raids)

[InnerBrat]

Another point in favour of "No". A female soldier who is captured is almost certain to be raped, whether there is a need to torture her or not.

I want to draw attention to this, and add the possibility (only a possibility, mind you) that her own comrades might find themselves carried away and in need of some relief...

[kheegster]

I'm inclined to agree. dropping the standards so women can enter a certain feild is ludicris in my opinion.

Or, to shamelessly use a quote

"It makes the kind of sense that is...not"

Yet at the same time dropping certain standards across the board for certain fields is a GOOD idea. A woman with less upper body muscles can work in other fields, can fly a helicopter, drive a tank, or do other duties. That said, men with bad upper body strength can do the same thing.

There is a difference between preventing women from joining special forces and simply holding the standards HIGH but allowing capable women in special forces or infantry.

What happens if the helicopter or tank is disabled? And the female pilot has to carry someone to safety? If strength standards are dropped in that area specifically so weak men and women can serve in that capacity, is it still a good idea?

I think Alyeska means that women should be allowed to serve in armor etc WITHOUT lowering the standards. I might be wrong, but as it is the physical requirements for such roles are already lower than that for infantry or spec-forces.

[The Yosemite Bear]

My mom as a long time Army Brat CAN drive a tank, and operate the guns reasonably well.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Not if they intend to get out by getting pregnant. The only way I could see that working is too make is mandatory that women in overseas posts get a depro-privera (spelling?) shot. Which is a whole can of worms.

It's Depo-provera.

And it only lasts 12 weeks. I don't know diddly about the military, but are overseas posts as short as that?

I did not know it was so short lived. No assignments are not that short.

[Antediluvian]

Or for that matter, that women and men can't control their sexual urges around each other?

And what's with this protecting thing? I hear this argument a lot, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Why do you think the male soldiers will go out of their way to protect female soldiers? Is there any proof for this hardwiring other than social indoctrination?

Soldiers go on R&R. Soldiers get drunk. Drunk people fuck, whether they are supposed to or not. Why do you think such a large percentage of females get pregnant in the military as it is? Do you think they are so dumb as not to know the consequences of unprotected sex?

It does not matter whether the male instinct to protect females is hardwired or socially indoctrinated. The point is that it exists.

No, I don't think they're that dumb. Don't try to turn this around on me.

They can use contraceptives to avoid this, now can't they? Ever hear of condoms?

As for this male instinct, I doubt it's existence.

Where is this instinct when women are assaulted and raped by men? Or when they are murdered by men?

Why don't male police officers rush to protect female police officers in the field? They don't give them any special protection.

[kheegster]

Or for that matter, that women and men can't control their sexual urges around each other?

And what's with this protecting thing? I hear this argument a lot, but it doesn't make sense to me.

Why do you think the male soldiers will go out of their way to protect female soldiers? Is there any proof for this hardwiring other than social indoctrination?

Soldiers go on R&R. Soldiers get drunk. Drunk people fuck, whether they are supposed to or not. Why do you think such a large percentage of females get pregnant in the military as it is? Do you think they are so dumb as not to know the consequences of unprotected sex?

It does not matter whether the male instinct to protect females is hardwired or socially indoctrinated. The point is that it exists.

No, I don't think they're that dumb. Don't try to turn this around on me.

They can use contraceptives to avoid this, now can't they? Ever hear of condoms?

As for this male instinct, I doubt it's existence.

Where is this instinct when women are assaulted and raped by men? Or when they are murdered by men?

Why don't male police officers rush to protect female police officers in the field? They don't give them any special protection.

Read my post properly: despite availability of contraceptives, a 25-50% of female soldiers still get pregnant, as described by Jegs etc. It is just because they are in situations where they don't think normally (drunk etc) when they start fucking without a rubber.

You wouldn't describe rapists and murderers as normal people, would you? The fact remains that we would more readily beat up a guy cursing at us than a girl doing the same. We treat women differently from men. If and relationships occur between female and male soldiers, then it gets even worse.

[Antediluvian]

Soldiers go on R&R. Soldiers get drunk. Drunk people fuck, whether they are supposed to or not. Why do you think such a large percentage of females get pregnant in the military as it is? Do you think they are so dumb as not to know the consequences of unprotected sex?

It does not matter whether the male instinct to protect females is hardwired or socially indoctrinated. The point is that it exists.

No, I don't think they're that dumb. Don't try to turn this around on me.

They can use contraceptives to avoid this, now can't they? Ever hear of condoms?

As for this male instinct, I doubt it's existence.

Where is this instinct when women are assaulted and raped by men? Or when they are murdered by men?

Why don't male police officers rush to protect female police officers in the field? They don't give them any special protection.

Read my post properly: despite availability of contraceptives, a 25-50% of female soldiers still get pregnant, as described by Jegs etc. It is just because they are in situations where they don't think normally (drunk etc) when they start fucking without a rubber.

You wouldn't describe rapists and murderers as normal people, would you? The fact remains that we would more readily beat up a guy cursing at us than a girl doing the same. We treat women differently from men. If and relationships occur between female and male soldiers, then it gets even worse.

If this instinct actually existed, then there would be no raping or murdering of women, now would they?

And I read your post properly. You didn't even say anything about contraceptives in that last post I responded to.

[weemadando]

Anyone who wishes to should be able to sign on for combat duty. However, regardless of sex, race or religion they must pass the STANDARD tests. No cutting slack for either sex, but simply a single set standard that ANYONE who wants combat should have to pass.

[Straha]

I voted No. I have no problem with women working where they can take the hassle, but my main reason for NO is because or culture is much more biased towards women then men. This means that if a woman gets captured and tortured you'll have every person putting up a get our women out of there sign. But if you have men captured they have to "tough it out."

[kheegster]

Soldiers go on R&R. Soldiers get drunk. Drunk people fuck, whether they are supposed to or not. Why do you think such a large percentage of females get pregnant in the military as it is? Do you think they are so dumb as not to know the consequences of unprotected sex?

By saying that they DO know the consequences, it means that they already know how to use contraceptives, but for the reasons described above, they do not get used...

If this instinct actually existed, then there would be no raping or murdering of women, now would they?

Stop hitting on to the strawman of this 'instinct'. All I said is that men have a tendency to be protective of women...whether it is a biological instinct or otherwise is irrelevant. Anyway there are so many cases in which a biological instinct is not followed...[/b]

[The Yosemite Bear]

hmm, I think Suasan Brownmiller did a good job of explaining the psychological factors that involve war time rapes and other warcrimes. Even since they have been punishable by death since the darkages, it still continues.

The war time situation, is usally a combination of Adrenilne addiction, plus mild megolomania resulting from the act of killing. It is proving that your nation is strnger their theirs. A superiority power issue. not over a sexual one. The military has a large number of Sexual harrassment laws, but they are not really enforced. Even to this day our present day military get into lots of trouble over the rape of civilians, something that we officially still Hang or Leathaly inject our soldiers for under the UCMJ, though I don't think we have since WWII.

[Antediluvian]

Soldiers go on R&R. Soldiers get drunk. Drunk people fuck, whether they are supposed to or not. Why do you think such a large percentage of females get pregnant in the military as it is? Do you think they are so dumb as not to know the consequences of unprotected sex?

By saying that they DO know the consequences, it means that they already know how to use contraceptives, but for the reasons described above, they do not get used...

If this instinct actually existed, then there would be no raping or murdering of women, now would they?

Stop hitting on to the strawman of this 'instinct'. All I said is that men have a tendency to be protective of women...whether it is a biological instinct or otherwise is irrelevant. Anyway there are so many cases in which a biological instinct is not followed...[/b]

Or just doesn't exist. You have supplied no evidence for this.

You are the one that said that it was an instinct, not me. There is no strawman.

As for your drunk idea, I agree that it would screw their judgement up, but why couldn't they take contraceptives after the fact, or simply abort it?

You're going to have to come up with better reasoning that women shouldn't be in frontline combat units because they might get pregnant and this imaginary male protective instinct.

[Antediluvian]

If people are so bothered by the idea of mixed units, then why can't they just have separate units for males and females like someone else suggested on a previous page?

Would that satisfy the naysayers?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Can't you just discipline them beforehand? Like setting down ground rules?

That's a gem. How do you discipline them before hand to not get pregnant so they will get discharged? The problems discussed above ARE REAL. And the kind of 25-50% issues he's talking about would be worse in a frontline combat unit and totally unacceptable.