[aldo_14]

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).

[Andreas]

Originally posted by karajorma

Oddly enough I've never seen a feminist arguing in favour of the draft applying to them

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.

[Unknown Target]

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.

[Kosh]

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?

[aldo_14]

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.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Kosh

Why? Because they are too good?

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.

[Kosh]

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.

So you're completly contradicting your last statement. Interesting......

[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.

[Unknown Target]

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.

[Swamp_Thing]

The russians fixed that by creating all women units. Since no men are around, those issues do not apply. At least not as often.

[Kosh]

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.

[Ghostavo]

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?

[Andreas]

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.

[Kosh]

Don't be too hard on yourself, of that was me. It's just turning out to be one of those days.......

[Thrilla]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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]

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.

[Kosh]

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.

[EtherShock]

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.

[Rictor]

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.