Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ghostavo on May 18, 2005, 07:05:31 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4560847.stm
Republicans in the US Congress are trying to pass legislation which would keep female soldiers out of combat.
The measure is being considered now by the House Armed Services Committee.
Advocates of the proposal want to stop women from working as drivers, medics and logistics specialists in teams which provide back-up to combat units.
They say the women get too close to the fighting. But the US army is opposed to the plan at a time when they are having problems with recruitment.
Senior officers have said if it passes into law, they will have to pull out 22,000 female soldiers from their current jobs and replace them with men.
A soldier is not allowed to be on the front lines because of it's gender? How does that work? :lol:
-
It's been historically the same way: in fact, females were allowed into support roles relatively recently. It's just the conservative Republicans want to wind the clock back to 1940.
-
Why can't people accept the fact that there are physical differences between the sexes that can affect combat ability?
-
That's true, but the US military is in no position to be picky. Look at Israel, and realize that women soldies can kick ass just like anyone else, and for a military that's regularly missing their recruitment quotas...well, beggers can't be choosers.
-
I'd be more worried about the abuses woman would have inflicted upon them if they were captured. Men are less...desirable. If you know what I mean :(
-
Women can pull a trigger just as well as men.
War these days isn't as much about lugging a huge broadsword into a large melee.
Hell, Russians have had females in their army's for both world wars. And the best snipers were female.
-
I'm not saying women are any less capable. I think that women should be allowed to go into war if they choose to, just like men.
I'm debating on the draft, but since women want to be treated exactly like men, I say draft them. They have to get the good and the bad. In my perfect world, I'd say no, but it just isn't fair or right to men to not make them get drafted, if they're able to be put into frontline duty.
-
Quite frankly, they're not supposed to be allowed in combat anyways, but the Army's integrating the logistics units with the shooters kinda obviated that.
I can see the "physical differences" argument semi-working for infantry, but they're not allowed on tank or other combatant vehicle crews right now either, and that's just plain stupid. And besides, women are on average smaller then men. That should in theory translate to proportionally less of them being wounded.
-
I think it´s more about damaging propaganda. No public would take seeing dead women kindly. Even if they are soldiers.
Imagine looking at the footage of the captured/dead americans from the ambush in Najaf?. If instead of dead men, you had dead women, the american public would resent it much quicker than it does for men. Women are still viewed as the gentle gender. No one wants to see a women with her insides colapsing on her hands.
-
Yeah, but if anything, wouldn't that both make the Americans angrier at the arabs, and more determined for revenge?
-
Exactly. It's simple culture and established images. I know I would react quite strongly if I saw a dead woman as opposed to a dead man.
-
its more about the honor of the woman than anything else, as well as the duty of the man to protect the woman. if we had women defending men, it make us all look like pussies, not cool
-
Women protect men all the time, though.
You know how many husbands are mortally terrified of their wives?
Toime warble.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Why can't people accept the fact that there are physical differences between the sexes that can affect combat ability?
Why can't people accept that there are physical differences due to things other than gender?
Quite simply, if a soldier has what it takes - motivation, skill, strength, discipline - then I see nothing wrong with them being on the battlefield.
The point of the army is to serve as a method of physical enforcement. It's not their job to worry that by doing a good job, they might make some people look like pussies. Nor is it their job to be politically correct or conform to stereotypes.
Having seen this debate come up a couple times before, I think the solution is pretty simple...figure out what a soldier on the front lines needs to be able to do, and test them based on that. Not based on their gender. If they make the cut, then they go to the front lines. If not, then they go to some other branch of the military. (They may be brilliant tactically, but not quite reach the physical requirements.)
But as far as political correctness goes, I feel that this is a step backwards. For social progress as well.
Hopefully the bill gets shot down by a large majority.
I do find it somewhat concerning that the large reshuffling of soldiers might be used as an excuse to reinstate the draft.
-
In World War 2 during the Battle of Britain, the british would sometimes (not sure how often) man their AAA guns with women. They found that those women often times did their jobs just as well or even better than their male counterparts.
This bill should be derailed. If a women is willing to pick up a gun and fight for her country, then let her fight.
Women might not be as physically strong or fast as men (in GENERAL, I'm sure there are lots of exceptions), but they make up for it in other ways.
-
Women are infact great fighters, especially pilots. Because women are smaller and have a shorter center of gravity, they can withstand the G forces better than any man. Even a Arnold Schwarznegger. They are physically better in that respect. They are also better when it comes to run large distances, their methabolic rate is better than most men. They might not be as strong to carry 100 pounds of equipment, but if you need to cover lots of ground fast, their are superior.
And as the WWII has shown us, russian women were formidable oponents in battle. The russians had a few all women fighter squadrons, that raked quite a lot of kills. They were also great tank crews.
But what we have is a cultural shock. The russian system viewed all individuals as equals, despite of gender. The west does not.
We are still hung up on the lady in distress kind of thing. We still view them as fragile little things, that we must protect at all cost.
I suppose women could be kept out of infantry duty, but anything else is perfectly within their reach. You don´t need to bench 200 kilos to drive a tank or fly a plane.
Actually, i wouldn´t mind seeing all airplanes flown by women. We would get a lot less friendly fire incidents and civilian casualties with them "driving". They are much more carefull and methodical, men are way too instinctive and careless.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Actually, i wouldn´t mind seeing all airplanes flown by women. We would get a lot less friendly fire incidents and civilian casualties with them "driving". They are much more carefull and methodical, men are way too instinctive and careless.
But men are more logical, which is the key to operating any kind of as-is equipment. While it may be true that women tend to come up with a solution to a problem instantly, men tend to think of more things at once, like redundancies, thatmake the plan better in the long run. Thing is, you dont want a "hey, this should work" solution to a lengthy problem, nor do you want a "let me think about this" solution to a quickly progressing problem. It all depends on what the situation is. If it were up to me, I'd say let "units" (non-gender) do all the ops. That way we all get the best of both worlds :D.
Also, carelessness has nothing to do with gender, it has to do with arrogance and ego. Around here, it is the female persuasion who are arrogant more often than men.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I'm not saying women are any less capable. I think that women should be allowed to go into war if they choose to, just like men.
I'm debating on the draft, but since women want to be treated exactly like men, I say draft them. They have to get the good and the bad.
Oddly enough I've never seen a feminist arguing in favour of the draft applying to them :D
Originally posted by ngtm1r
I can see the "physical differences" argument semi-working for infantry, but they're not allowed on tank or other combatant vehicle crews right now either, and that's just plain stupid.
Considering that the winner of SAS : Are you tough enough was a woman last time I wouldn't even agree there. It should just be down to the individuals stamina
-
Originally posted by Raa
Hell, Russians have had females in their army's for both world wars. And the best snipers were female.
MGS 1? :p
-
But men are more logical, which is the key to operating any kind of as-is equipment. While it may be true that women tend to come up with a solution to a problem instantly, men tend to think of more things at once, like redundancies, thatmake the plan better in the long run.
Being in the middle of a firefight REQUIRES that kind of split-second decision making ability that you say women have. Therefore which do you think is more valuable in a battle?
-
Incidentally, IIRC women have been found to be far better as long term submarine crew than men.....
IMO the main reluctance to put women in the front line has been because of the men; I think Israeli army studies shown that mixed units would fight harder, but were more likely to slow down to treat wounded than all male unit. And also the issue of relaitionships (same as homosexuality is/was prohibited).
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Oddly enough I've never seen a feminist arguing in favour of the draft applying to them :D
A funny thing, isn't it? One of the reasons why I think feminists are full of ****.
In anycase, in my opinion women shouldn't be used in army at all. But never mind me, I'm just a close-minded male chauvinist. ;) I'm sure an average female soldier is as capable as doing the task as an average male soldier.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
And also the issue of relaitionships (same as homosexuality is/was prohibited).
That's also a huge hurdle. Relationships - the military "discourages" (very strongly) inter-officer relationships. You'd have to find a way to keep people from getting too attached.
Personally, as my final statement; I think women should be allowed into frontline service, or at the very least, should be allowed to operate mechanized fighting machines on the front lines.
-
That's also a huge hurdle. Relationships - the military "discourages" (very strongly) inter-officer relationships. You'd have to find a way to keep people from getting too attached.
Hold them to the same standard of conduct. If a couple is caught in a relationship, then both people should be punished equally.
In anycase, in my opinion women shouldn't be used in army at all.
Why? Because they are too good? :p
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Hold them to the same standard of conduct. If a couple is caught in a relationship, then both people should be punished equally.
It wasn't to do with punishment, it's the battlefield consequences if it's not caught; there's always the danger of someone making a decision based on the welfare of someone they love rather than what is militarily best.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Why? Because they are too good? :p
Your opinion is as good as mine, and I respect it. I really don't give a damn are there women servicing in the army or not. I'm sure they'll do a fine job at it, but I certainly wouldn't have anything against if women weren't allowed to serve in the army.
-
Originally posted by Andreas
I really don't give a damn are there women servicing in the army or not. I'm sure they'll do a fine job at it, but I certainly wouldn't have anything against if women weren't allowed to serve in the army.
:wtf: So you're completly contradicting your last statement. Interesting......
-
Now, allow me to elaborate myself. I wouldn't want women to serve in the army. Yet they do, and since I can't do anything about that, I therefore just don't care about it. If I had the choice, I wouldn't allow them to serve. I must agree that my post looks very confusing, but my point was that ultimately I don't care about it so much since there is nothing I can do about it. Not that it really matters in the end.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It wasn't to do with punishment, it's the battlefield consequences if it's not caught; there's always the danger of someone making a decision based on the welfare of someone they love rather than what is militarily best.
Exactly.
-
The russians fixed that by creating all women units. Since no men are around, those issues do not apply. At least not as often.
-
Originally posted by Andreas
Now, allow me to elaborate myself. I wouldn't want women to serve in the army. Yet they do, and since I can't do anything about that, I therefore just don't care about it. If I had the choice, I wouldn't allow them to serve. I must agree that my post looks very confusing, but my point was that ultimately I don't care about it so much since there is nothing I can do about it. Not that it really matters in the end.
My mistake, I must have interpreted your responce incorrectly. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
It wasn't to do with punishment, it's the battlefield consequences if it's not caught; there's always the danger of someone making a decision based on the welfare of someone they love rather than what is militarily best.
Homosexuals, "brothers in arms" thing, etc...
Is that any different?
-
Originally posted by Kosh
My mistake, I must have interpreted your responce incorrectly. Sorry.
No problem. And I apologise for the confusion, I'll try to construct my sentences more carefully next time.
-
Don't be too hard on yourself, alot of that was me. It's just turning out to be one of those days.......
-
Well before I joined the Army I felt the same way that women can do many jobs just as well as men, but that was before. I don't mind women being in non-combat arm MOS's(job specialities), but you guys forget about the training the goes into training soldiers. That training cost money, and lots of it. When you go to a school the unit you are in has to pay money to have you trained, and women have the highest failure rates. That and I have first hand had to deal on many numerous occasions where we have had to slow down or stop what we were doing to take care of a woman that couldn't hack it. I have had problems with men too, but only on a few occasions. I normally have women falling out of movements and other field tasks almost every single time. I know lots of women that can, but the numbers don't lie there are just too many that can't, which wastes time and money, and training slots for others. They my have all these nice attributes that men don't have, but I've spent too much time having to take care of specially women that I am glad women can't serve in combat arm branches with the exception of Aviation, which they can join. I'm about to finish college soon and go and get my commission and I just hope that I get branched combat arms just so I don't have to deal with women as much. I don't have a problem with women in the Army, but I do have a problem with women in combat arms.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Homosexuals, "brothers in arms" thing, etc...
Is that any different?
Honestly, in terms of impact on behavior...not much, no. Study a major US conflict, talk to the veterans. A veteran rifle platoon from WWII or Vietnam is going to be more apt to save their buddies rather then follow orders. At that level, though, it's highly unlikely they are going to be faced with that choice, and above that level, where they would, the reverse is true.
Thrilla...I find your opinion interesting, since it's at odds with opinions I've heard from ex-army folks and the ubiquitous Marines here in San Diego. A gunny from the MCRD once told me that fewer women, proportionally, wash out of training.
-
Thrilla...I find your opinion interesting, since it's at odds with opinions I've heard from ex-army folks and the ubiquitous Marines here in San Diego. A gunny from the MCRD once told me that fewer women, proportionally, wash out of training.
Proportionally there are few women as well, but even the majority of failure rates for females in most of the training schools that deal with combat arms are over 90%. Until you see it for yourself it is kind of hard to believe.
-
I think some of that might be because women are "trained" from an incredibly young age to be weak and submissive.
While there are many exceptions to this, it is what I percieve in my own, pathetic everyday life.
-
Gender is a barrier. Barriers are constructed. It's all just a social construct that men have thumbed at women since what seems forever.
If you want to fight for your country, then by all means, go ahead. I won't stop you. Why does it matter? I think allowing women to serve in combat would benefit more than not. Bonds can form regardless of sex/gender. I think that's a poor excuse, and if there's a bigger turnaround, maybe the military just needs better pre-screening processes so the wrong people aren't there.
-
Guys, you're forgetting the best reason to let women serve: Lynndie Engalnd.
They may not fight as well as men, but when it comes to being sadist...well, let's just say I've got a very lucrative leash contract signed with the Army.
-
Wow, does it never occour to annyone that instead of saying yes or no, they should give them a ****ing CHOICE
-
another reason women traditionally have not served in armies is because they're the ones who have the babies. if you kill off all the wombs (and future children) what are you fighting for, in the end? of course its all different now so that particular argument doesn't really hold- mothers don't die in childbirth as often, there aren't as many stillborns, medicine's improved a bit, women can get IVF after menopause...
-
The very action of giving them a choice is a yes vote, that's the whole point.
-
wait, so can you choose to be in combat or not when you sign up?
-
As far as I know, yeah. You can pick a job speciality, everything from a cook to a mechanic to a sniper, and if you don't want combat then, to the best of my knowledge, you simply don't pick a combat job.
-
Everyone goes through Basic, so in theory you can be assigned to just about anything. However, they make an effort to put people in jobs they're suited for. It's just good sense to do so. Generally, even if you do end up in a combat position, you can probably get a transfer out if it turns out that combat severely disagrees with you. You don't want to be there, and the Army doesn't want you there if you're not going to be fighting well. You get transferred to a non-combat position.
The thing is, the women who are fighting in Iraq? They're in non-combat positions. Therein lies the hook. Combat rarely makes distinctions between logistics troops and combat infantry. They all wear the same uniform, and they all have guns, and they all have a roughly equal chance of getting shot at since the Army integrates its logistics units with its shooters.
-
I can't see it being any different. Unless there's some sort of draft in effect, why on earth would you want someone on the battlefield who isn't motivated to be there?
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Everyone goes through Basic, so in theory you can be assigned to just about anything. However, they make an effort to put people in jobs they're suited for. It's just good sense to do so. Generally, even if you do end up in a combat position, you can probably get a transfer out if it turns out that combat severely disagrees with you. You don't want to be there, and the Army doesn't want you there if you're not going to be fighting well. You get transferred to a non-combat position.
You have no clue.
You sign up for a job when you sign the contract. All contracts are 8 years, but active duty personnel can go into the IRR(Inactive Ready Reserve) after 4 years and the Reserves it is 6. The IRR is where you are on the Army's "Black List" which is a list of people they can call up until they have completed the entire 8 years. You pick what you want to do, but the fine print says the Army can change that job to fit the needs of the Army. Unless you are metally or physically ill you don't have a choice of being in combat. It doesn't matter anyways. Whatever you are from being a 11B(infantry rifleman) to a 92Y(Unit Logistics Specialists) or even being a Doctor you are going to get shot at over there. They don't care what your job is, but they have noticed it is easy to attack the Combat Support and Combat Service Support personnel over the actual infantry because of the lack of training, but those lessons are being learned and training on the IET(Intial Entry Training) level is being changed up and the problems are finally being addressed.
-
Regarding this whole topic, anyone else remember the Jessica Lynch story? She wasn't in active combat, yet she was still attacked and kidnapped. I don't think she weighed much more than 100 pounds; if I remember correctly, after the attack and while she was in her wrecked transport vehicle, she attempted to use a nearby rifle but was unable to. I have absolutely no problems with women being in any part of the armed forces. What I do have a problem, with, is putting anyone into a potentially dangerous situation who isn't physically fit/trained enough to handle themselves there. As long as men and women go through the same exact physical and tactical training and are held to the same standards, I don't see how any distinctions should be made based on gender. If, however, there are unequal standards, then you can't expect people to be able to perform the same tasks.