Women in combat- where do you stand?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-01-13 11:42pm

Women can and should be able to do anything men can do. Sexism in all forms (male chauvinism, man-hating feminism, etc) is wrong, idiotic, and should be severely attacked at every turn.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-13 11:54pm

Alyeska wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Antediluvian wrote: 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.
Easy. Instant prison sentence for the women, that or some other form of punishment. Part of being in an important military formation is proper discipline. Lack of discipline that leads to the degredation of unit morale, cohesiveness, and manpower capability should be punished. Women who realize just what they have to deal with, will take the appropriate steps. Another method is to make birth control of various forms mandatory.

And before anyone brings up the "what if she was raped and became pregnant". The woman would state who raped her and the person would be DNA tested. If she didn't see the attacker, then the DNA would be compared to a database of the soldiers DNA and the father would be severly punished.

If you put her in prison please explain to me WHAT THE FUCK you are going to do with her kid? Father's probably gone. You know this is not going to happen in our political-social climate of politically correct bullshit, so why spout it? Make reasonable situations that WILL be possible, not this.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-01-13 11:57pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote: 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.
Easy. Instant prison sentence for the women, that or some other form of punishment. Part of being in an important military formation is proper discipline. Lack of discipline that leads to the degredation of unit morale, cohesiveness, and manpower capability should be punished. Women who realize just what they have to deal with, will take the appropriate steps. Another method is to make birth control of various forms mandatory.

And before anyone brings up the "what if she was raped and became pregnant". The woman would state who raped her and the person would be DNA tested. If she didn't see the attacker, then the DNA would be compared to a database of the soldiers DNA and the father would be severly punished.
If you put her in prison please explain to me WHAT THE FUCK you are going to do with her kid? Father's probably gone. You know this is not going to happen in our political-social climate of politically correct bullshit, so why spout it? Make reasonable situations that WILL be possible, not this.

My primary point is that you make it a crime to get pregnant if you are in certain military fields. Do things to deter women from getting pregnant. Instead of a free trip state side, make them sweat it out and live with a black mark on their record.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-01-14 12:02am

It won't happen in this atmosphere. Best to leave things the way they are. Preferable solution would be segregated units, but that won't happen.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-01-14 12:35am

I got out of the Navy several years ago right when it was starting to allow women to serve as permanent crewmembers on combat vessels. Prior to that they were on auxillary ships which still could have been targets but were likely to stay further away from combat. Auxillary ships like that tended to have a very high percentage of female crewmembers, something like 65%. In order to cut down on manpower problems caused by pregnacies the Navy made it policy that women who became pregnant would remain on their ship until their sixth month, assuming everything was progressing normally. This was to prevent the common problem of women sailors purposely getting pregnant to avoid going on six month deployments.

The last I heard the Navy had not opened up all of its jobs to women but I think the majority of them have been. For the most part I can't see any reason why they shouldn't be. Most of my job involved electronics and button pushing. Still, on ocassion we had to move SRBOC rounds that weighed at least 55 pounds. Some of the test equipment I had to hall around the ship weighed 65-90 pounds and in both cases I had to hall it up and down ladders (vertical and semivertical) sometimes even hauling it by rope up the mast. Still, I think the Navy would likely be one of the branches best suited for enlisted women who wanted "front line" jobs.

By the way, although women couldn't be stationed on combat ships previously they could be sent to them TAD (temporary active duty) or as part of an air wing for upto 6 months...conveniently the length of a normal deployment. Still, other than a doctor there weren't any women onboard any of my ships for a whole deployment. There were some from one of the airwings for a month or more of training and we had female pilots onboard for training as well but that's it.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-01-14 01:58am

Just remembered another screwed-up thing about women getting pregnant in the military: they're kept on the unit roster as active (not disabled), so the unit cannot replace (even temporarily) the lost person. I remember my uncle telling me about one NA (Naval Aviation) unit that lost multiple mechanics/technicians to pregnancy and couldn't get any of them replaced for the entire maternity leave, at which point half of them resigned to "spend time with their family" anyway.

Seriously, read Gutmann's book. It's the only one written by a career woman I've found, and the only one that doesn't seem to either spout sexist propaganda or the PC BS we get too much of.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-01-14 05:53am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
A great many things done to captured US soldiers are in violation of those accords. Nobody pays attention to them -- certainly not the enemies of the US
If women are allowed to volunteer for combat units then the possiblity of rape is just something they need to live with. Rape for women, torture for men, either way being a POW can be a horrendous, brutal, experience. Besides being in a support unit does not protect you from danger, considering the largest threat is guerilla's and terroists. Like Jegs says, most of our enemies dont pay attention to any conventions.

Because pointing out that even though sexual relations are not approved, even though contraceptives ARE available you're still getting 25-50% pregnancy rates in support units and he can't see how this will fuck over forward combat units. He's a touchy- feely Californian-style let's analyze things in a lab point of view rather then look at the tried-and-true statistics of what's really going on. What a moron.
Agreed, except for the California comment. California is a big, diverse state. Not everyone is a touchy-feely liberal here. In fact most are not. Its just that those that are, tend to be very vocal. ( /minor nitpick)

Of course a simple looking at the Biography of Thomas Edward Lawrence will tell you that men can be raped too.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2003-01-14 06:26am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:
A great many things done to captured US soldiers are in violation of those accords. Nobody pays attention to them -- certainly not the enemies of the US
If women are allowed to volunteer for combat units then the possiblity of rape is just something they need to live with. Rape for women, torture for men, either way being a POW can be a horrendous, brutal, experience. Besides being in a support unit does not protect you from danger, considering the largest threat is guerilla's and terroists. Like Jegs says, most of our enemies dont pay attention to any conventions.

Because pointing out that even though sexual relations are not approved, even though contraceptives ARE available you're still getting 25-50% pregnancy rates in support units and he can't see how this will fuck over forward combat units. He's a touchy- feely Californian-style let's analyze things in a lab point of view rather then look at the tried-and-true statistics of what's really going on. What a moron.
Agreed, except for the California comment. California is a big, diverse state. Not everyone is a touchy-feely liberal here. In fact most are not. Its just that those that are, tend to be very vocal. ( /minor nitpick)
Of course a simple looking at the Biography of Thomas Edward Lawrence will tell you that men can be raped too.

Obviously a male POW can get ass-raped. However, that is only likely occur as a form of torture, during interrogation etc. Consider an enemy nation that in general follows international conventions (say, Nazi Germany towards Western, not Soviet POWs). Male POWs will be treated acceptably well for most part, since there is no reason to torture them arbitrarily. But with female POWs, whether there is a reason or not they will get raped. Just look at the "2 million Russian children" created when the Soviet Union conquered Europe. Hell, the fact that you have a woman in your hands who was trying to kill you not long ago might make it even more desirable to rape them...

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-01-14 08:45am

I've been thinking, and again I have to stress that my entire miltary knowledge comes from war movies, and I don't watch movies, so if I'm wrong in how it works in the front line, please yell at me...

Let's say we've got an all-female troop. Isn't hygiene going to become a problem here? They have to carry - how much time's worth of sanitary products - both used and unused, and be damn careful not to leave any evidence that could be used to track them...
This goes for used condoms, as well, in mixed troops.

A menstruating woman could be tracked by a sniffer dog, y'know.

And, about punishing a woman for getting pregnant - show me one contraceptive that's 100% reliable and I'll show you a madeup statistic. Accidents happen, all the time.

I think women can quite happily and efficiently handle a miltary career - just not one in the infantry.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-01-14 09:22am

Antediluvian wrote:Well, whatever guys.

Most of you are being really sexist, which is disappointing.

I'm leaving the board and I'm not coming back.

So whatever.

Goodbye.

Why don't you go do some reasearch on your own about the subject instead of throwing in the towel and accusing us of not using our heads. As you have already seen from those of us who have served in the armed forces for any length of time, we do NOT want women in the frontline units (infantry, arty, armour). Period. It will not work at this time, and probably not for any forseeable time in the future.

And no we are not being sexist. And why don't YOU go and enlist in the combat arms and see why...

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2003-01-14 09:23am

Got nothing against women serving in combat units as long sa they can meet the same standards as the men (and the standards aren't lowered so more women can meet them).

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-01-14 09:28am

Is it just me, or are there others who, reading the thread title, immediatly think

"Right behind them"

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-01-14 09:37am

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Women can and should be able to do anything men can do. Sexism in all forms (male chauvinism, man-hating feminism, etc) is wrong, idiotic, and should be severely attacked at every turn.

The thing is, we who oppose women in the frontline units are not being sexist.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-01-14 10:00am

Colonel Olrik wrote:Is it just me, or are there others who, reading the thread title, immediatly think

"Right behind them"

Because we're a board full of perverts who have threads about Mary Poppins and Trinity having hot lesbian sex.

Duh.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-01-14 10:21am

SylasGaunt wrote:Got nothing against women serving in combat units as long sa they can meet the same standards as the men (and the standards aren't lowered so more women can meet them).

See my previous post concerning the APFT. Standards are already much lower for women.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-14 10:36am

SirNitram wrote:
Because we're a board full of perverts who have threads about Mary Poppins and Trinity having hot lesbian sex.

Duh.

SIGGAGE.

*duge*

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2003-01-14 11:43am

Historically women have served in combat roles in several instances, most notably in Dhomey (spelling?) and the USSR in WWII. Often desperate partisans used women fighters. However it is rather obvious that the most success for female fighters comes in segregated units and comes from volunteers. For instance the soviet night witches were highly effective night bombers flying crap planes. However they served in an all female unit. Likewise the Dhomey women fighters were quite brilliantly effective, again they were also segregated (actually they lived as men in their society, but were still segregated). In both cases sexual relations themselves were severely punished, as in summary execution or all expense paid trips to Siberia.

Numerous partisan groups the world over have used women as irregular fighters, these have had luckluster performance in comparison to the all female units. The andartinas in Greece had some notable success (like going to combat wearing traditional clothes, and then making suicide grenade attacks), but were largely compromised by the inability of the women to perform combat duties. Likewise numerous andartes took unacceptable losses to help wounded or pinned andertinas. This is likely one of the more successful uses of female partisans in mixed infantry ... however it was enforced with an iron fist. Sexual intercourse among the troops was punishable with summary execution.

The simple fact of the matter is men are morons. Not all men, but enough. In numerous historical uses of women in combat, men have been documented to take unacceptable risks to protect their female comrades. I do not care if this is because of biology or because of society ... it exists. Now some of you have drawn the parrallel to blacks in the military ... the problem here is the number of people who were seriously effected by having blacks in their unit were minimal. Those who have issues can normally have it beaten out of them (and don't kid yourself the bigots who trash talk minority soldiers excessively will get their asses kicked if they make too much of an issue), and those who can't handle blacks in the military ... well the military can wash their hands of them and say good riddance. Trading the racists for minority soldiers is a net gain.

The situation with women, on the other hand, is not the same. Nobody is going to do anything if you are too chivalarous for your own good. At most you are going to have a superior yelling at you. Further if you purge the military of men who have this problem to integrate women who can meet the standards ... it is a net loss of manpower. The military's job is not to be politically correct, it is not to make the hopes and dreams of individuals to come true. It is to win, and to win in the most effective manner (i.e. minimizing collateral damage and friendly casualties). If you have to do something intrinsically unfair to win effectively ... whatever war is not fair and never will be.

Hence I support women in combat ... in segregated units. Historically they have been most effective here and I do not think that will change any time soon. Why in hell the militaries of the world do not adopt this policy is beyond me. It allows you to tap the female populace when it is effective with minimal impact on the morale and fighting efficiency of the rest of the military.

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2003-01-14 02:33pm

jegs2 wrote: See my previous post concerning the APFT. Standards are already much lower for women.

And I think that's a fairly idiotic thing to do if they're going into combat.. it's not like the guys on the other side are going to go easier on them than the guys.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-01-14 02:40pm

Vympel wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Because we're a board full of perverts who have threads about Mary Poppins and Trinity having hot lesbian sex.

Duh.
SIGGAGE.

*duge*

Nitram, not NitrIam.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-01-14 04:08pm

jegs2 wrote:
Darth Pounder wrote: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.
psst -- Don't get your military knowledge from Hollywood-based movies. They push their agenda down the collective throat of the world and in no way reflect reality...

The reason i brought it up is beacause of the background of the movie. Demi Moore was able to do a good bit of the actual training and thats reall something. If a pampered holywood actress can even do part of a Navy Seal course then whats to stop a fully motivated female doing the whole thing?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-01-14 04:33pm

The reason i brought it up is beacause of the background of the movie. Demi Moore was able to do a good bit of the actual training and thats reall something. If a pampered holywood actress can even do part of a Navy Seal course then whats to stop a fully motivated female doing the whole thing?

She did not even begin to get close to training. You do realize that after a few push ups she someone yells "cut" and she gets to go drink bottled water in her air conditioned trailer.

Im not saying she was not fit just that she didnt come close to real miltiary training. Ive heard that real SEAL heckled her every chance they got.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-01-14 04:47pm

I had read that she did most of the seal training. Maybe the report was wrong.

What about if you had a woman like Chyna from WWF fame? She could sure carry a man outta a burning tank. Would ya'll object to HER being on the front line?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-01-14 04:53pm

I had read that she did most of the seal training. Maybe the report was wrong.

What about if you had a woman like Chyna from WWF fame? She could sure carry a man outta a burning tank. Would ya'll object to HER being on the front line?

I would be very surprised if women like Chyna are NOT assisted by *ahem* drugs in some sort of way.

However, as Ive stated before IF and ONLY IF, women meet the same physical requirements of men in the combat arms should we allow them in.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-01-14 07:40pm

Well lets also look at the whole submarinares/fighter pilot aspect. For biological reasons relating to tissue saturation of gasses. Women have better resistance to G-LOC and the bends then men do. It's been stated that an all female sub would probably be a good idea, at the very least coustoue and other's stated that they had bodies more efficeiantly designed for dealing with underwater activitites (Where that lack of upper body strength, and that greater flexibility worked in their favor), while the Pentegon is against them being Combat Pilots, and the navy has it's subs still crewed ONLY by men. Were looking at two front line branches where they would technically be better then the men at.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-01-14 07:53pm

Just keep them out of the Infantry. I can see it now:
Joe A & Joe B are making moves on Jane A (since there are only three women in the company, the pickings are scarce). Joe A gets the nod, & Jane has her way with him inside the wooden latrine one night. Joe B feels snubbed, gets pissed, & spreads the word that Jane A is giving it up for Joe A & a select few others. The other Joes get pissed, because they aren't getting any, and unit cohesion & morale goes to hell...

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Women in combat- where do you stand?

Should women be allowed to fight?