Combat Women.
Mon, 2003-03-31 16:25
#1
Combat Women.
Mon, 2003-03-31 16:25
#2
I've had a few discussions with co-workers (all male) about the women fighting in Iraq. Ofcoarse, they all felt that women have no place in combat situations. "They could get tortured or raped!" was the general outcry.
Now, men are as easily tortured or raped as women are. Is it worse to see it happen to a woman?
Do women belong in combat? Can they be as effective soldiers as men are? How will they change the "art" of war?
Mon, 2003-03-31 16:52
#3
Now of course ideally, women should never be involved in combat. Neither should men.
But here in the real world where combat takes place, women belong in the fighting just as much as men do, provided they meet the same physical and/or mental requirements. Now as a result of biology, this would place far more women in non-combat roles. But there are big strong women out there who are more qualified to be soldiers than I am.
Mon, 2003-03-31 16:57
#4
Although I would (obviously) prefer not to see either men or women in combat situations I don't see why women should be barred from combat. Any soldier or should have an idea of what the worst possible consequences of being captured are.
Torture can be doled out to either men or women (I would consider rape a form of torture in these circumstances) and the possibility of torture, if not enough in its own right to dissuade people from fighting in combat, should not be a bar to only one sex.
Mon, 2003-03-31 16:58
#5
quote:
Now as a result of biology, this would place far more women in non-combat roles. But there are big strong women out there who are more qualified to be soldiers than I am.
How much combat arms experience have you actually had to qualify you to make such a pronouncement?
Mon, 2003-03-31 17:04
#6
I can't understand why a woman would want to be in such a hostile environment.
I don't mean combat, I mean the misogynist, ignorant, violent culture that is the military. Women are given the clear message that they are not welcome or respected, and their presence is merely tolerated.
As for roles in combat, that is a non-issue. Anyone can die for corporate interests. One piece of cannon-fodder is as good as the next.
Mon, 2003-03-31 19:00
#7
quote:
Chicago -- Ninety percent of women under 50 who have served in the U.S. military and who responded to a survey report being victims of sexual harassment, and nearly one- third of the respondents of all ages say they have been raped.The incidence of violent assaults among female veterans, the vast majority of whom reported at least one ``severe assault,'' is much higher than in the general population and raises questions about the treatment of women currently on active duty and the 1.2 million veterans, researchers said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1995/0...
quote:
Sexual misconduct by military instructors has been an issue since a scandal erupted at an Army training school at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland in 1996. Eleven sergeants and one captain at Aberdeen were charged with offenses including rape, adultery and obstruction of justice. The scope of the misconduct rocked the Army and forced reform in its training schools.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentI...
When I was 20 something I wanted to be pilot in the Air Force, I have gained some maturity and new directions and being a combat pilot and killing people isnt something I could do now. Back then I could well imagine I could be capable, having a lot of unresolved issues and anger. At that time my thinking was why not have fun (flying) and utilize that anger - of course there wasnt any war to fight so maybe that made the fantasy more sustainable. I dont know.
However at that time women were not allowed to fly planes for the Armed Forces. We were deemed "not capable" and "emotionally unstable" (PMS)
A "good woman" was one who stayed home and raised babies or worked as a teacher (not a Principal), nurse (not a doctor), sales clerk (not management, or in a field such as Financial Sales or Management), Secretary (not Management, not Executive). Womens sports were "tolerated" and Employment ads in the paper read "Help Wanted Male" and "Help Wanted Female".
The only positions available to women in the Armed Forces were clerical. The fact that women had ferried air craft during the Second World War was not recognized. The only "flying career" a woman could have was Stewardess and the airlines hired strictly on the basis of weight and bust size. You didnt even need a brain and it was even better if you didnt have an operational one.
You would think we have progressed since then. However the military is one of the few remaining "boys clubs" these days and one way the boys can keep it for themselves is to harrass, rape and terrorize women who stray into "their territory".
Saying women are not suited for combat duty is the same as saying "all women are maternal and want babies" "all women want a husband to support them and take care of them". Its sexist and as all sexist crap its used as a tool to "keep women in their place." Enlisted men who subscribe to this theory will go to any length as we have seen to try and do that.
The prisons, as one example, are filled with women who I imagine would do quite well in combat. disclaimer: not saying ALL women in prison fit this profile. And "how about those girl gangs?"
If there are women who choose to go into combat then there is no biological or psychological reason to say they cant. As someone said, IF they can meet the physical requirements then they should have the choice. We have fought too long and too hard for choices to opt out on this one.
And it is not for me or anyone else to wonder if there is something "wrong" with women who make this choice.
I am afraid there will always be wars and there will always be people fighting them [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2003-03-31 23:53
#8
quote:
Saying women are not suited for combat duty is the same as saying "all women are maternal and want babies" "all women want a husband to support them and take care of them".
quote:
One piece of cannon-fodder is as good as the next.
Ever so true.
It's kind of funny. The guys that I was talking to about this know that I am a feminist. They were in a way trying to placate me and flatter me at the same time. Like, "women are able to do a lot of things, but chivalry keeps me from accepting women in combat roles."
I wonder if this misguided notion is one cause of the mysoginy in the military?
Tue, 2003-04-01 01:36
#9
The military culture which is perceived to hinder the acceptance of women goes beyond that. It is a rejection of 'weakness'. This is evidenced by the continued difficulties in treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Soldiers who have to face the fact that they can go into battle naturally want to be prepared. This includes having good equipment and good leaders. But it also means rejecting the weakest within the ranks, be it the obese, the socially awkward, or women.
I think the integration of women into the military goes hand-in-hand with building a better democratic state.
Tue, 2003-04-01 03:10
#10
In Canada women have been officially accepted into the combat arms, though the there does appear to be a lack of sisters rushing in to pick up a rifle.
I was fortunate enough to serve under a wonderful Platoon Commander who happened to be female. She looked after us and we made sure we worked hard for her. She was young, relatively inexperienced (as were many of us), and I think she learned a lot about leadership while we were on tour. The senior sergeants and warrant officers passed on a lot of experience and knowledge, and she wisely applied that knowledge to the situations we faced (as any decent officer worth his/her salt should). She could run with the best of us and shoulder more than her fair share of the load. Serving under her leadership was probably one the best experiences in my career with the forces.
She later went on to learn about advanced techniques in demolitions/explosives and was transferred to the Pioneer Platoon which she led until it was disbanded (they phazed out that task and gave it all to the engineers).
The Pioneer lads used to tease her about their traditional beards and joked that she would have to grow one as well.
I have no qualms whatsoever about serving with females in combat. She led me in Kosovo, she could have led me anywhere else.
Tue, 2003-04-01 03:34
#11
quote:
The prisons, as one example, are filled with women who I imagine would do quite well in combat. disclaimer: not saying ALL women in prison fit this profile. And "how about those girl gangs?"
Hmmm... I'm not really sure if the disclaimer ameliorates the statement that precedes it, which I think is factually incorrect and also displays ignorance about the women currently serving time in Canadian prisons (and US prisons, for that matter).
Please note the following:
[LIST][*]Most women in prisons are in for non-violent crimes.[*]Most of the women who are in for violent crimes either perpetrated violence on their own children or against their spouses, who are often abusers whose violence the women endured previous to their incarceration. Many are in for assaulting police officers. Some women (think Karla Homolka) were accomplices in violent crimes with male perpetrators, while others were convicted along with the pimps or johns with (or against) whom they were fighting.[*]Most members of 'grrl gangs' are teenagers, and seldom do prison time at all. If they do, it is usually in youth-oriented penal centres.[*]The vast majority of prison inmates fall into at least one, and often many, of the following categories: FAS (Foetal Alcohol Syndrome), ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), dyslexia, alcoholism, drug addiction, illiteracy, mild retardation, brain damage. In addition, many women prison inmates have PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), from abuse by family, spouses (in the common-law sense, not necessarily husbands), pimps, johns, other inmates, the police and corrections officers.
[/LIST]
In this thread, we are discussing, among other things, the sexism, abuse, sexual violence, misuse/abuse of power etc that is rampant in the military. When we are assessing female inmates or ex-cons for duty-fitness, please consider the following:
[LIST][*]Women in prison for harming or killing their children are usually one or more of the following: severely deficient in social skills and/or emotional maturity, deficient in intellectual functions either from birth or due to injury or drug abuse, desperate, mentally-ill, abuse survivors, sociopathic, drug-addicted.[*]Women who injure or kill their abusive spouses are often emotionally, physically and psychologically damaged by both their abuse and their own violent act(s).[*]Women who abet male accomplices in acts of violence are often survivors of abuse.[*]People (women and men) who get off on victimising unsuspecting innocents with gang violence are typically easily-manipulated, have deep fears of violence and only feel safe with other undisciplined toughs and often despise people they perceive as weaker than they.
[/LIST]
Do you really think that these women 'would do quite well in combat'?
I'm not trying to justify crimes perpetrated by females - the fact that most female inmates are abuse survivors does not diminish the seriousness of their crimes. But my point is that most female inmates, besides grappling with mental illness and trauma, intellectual or educational deficits, and substance abuse, are also often the products of years of less-than-ideal relationships with men and authority figures. They are often severely lacking in social and communication skills, and have been both the perpetrator and victim of the kind of behaviour that we're trying to weed out of the military.
In my work with female inmates, it is my observation that these women often have many challenges dealing with conflict or the threat of violence in a healthy and productive way. Which doesn't in any way mean they [i]can't[/i] do so, but unlike in movies like Mad Max, Barb Wire, Thelma and Louise, Baise Moi or Tank Girl, violence, crime and/or prison definitely [b]does not[/b] uniquely equip women to take on the difficult challenge of military combat. Rather, the opposite is true. Many women inmates and ex-cons display the behaviours and characteristics of the trauma-induced phenomenon known as 'shell shock'. If they're shell-shocked already, what's combat going to do to them? And to their fellow fighters, and the people they are fighting against?
Natalie
Edited to add:
Another element to consider is health. Firstly, female inmates have often been permanently injured as the result of violence. Some are missing eyes, limbs or hearing. They are often infected with HIV or Hepatitis, and have untreated diabetes, tuberculosis and STDs. They are often malnourished, or experience the long-term effects of foetal or childhood malnourishment. This is in addition to the ravages of substance abuse.
[ 01 April 2003: Message edited by: Natalie Anne Lanoville ]
[ 01 April 2003: Message edited by: Natalie Anne Lanoville ]
I keep finding typos. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 01 April 2003: Message edited by: Natalie Anne Lanoville ]
Tue, 2003-04-01 05:40
#12
[url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030329/ap_on_re_us/w... Soldier Shocks Ariz. Reservations [/url]
quote:
The 23-year-old Hopi is a source of pride for Tuba City as one of the very few American Indian women in the military.
I read somewhere they found her dogtags and uniform in Nasiriya, but that could just be a rumour.
Tue, 2003-04-01 09:25
#13
quote:
Now, men are as easily tortured or raped as women are. Is it worse to see it happen to a woman?
Yes. Most men can defend themselves better. I shudder to think what the Iraqi soldiers are doing to the women POW's as we speak. Why rape a man (which most likely isn't your preference) when you can have a women (which is)?
quote:
Do women belong in combat?
No, not on the front lines.
quote:
Can they be as effective soldiers as men are?
There are many kinds of soldiers, and woman serve these roles just as well as men. If we are talking infantry however, no way. Woman are not as physically strong as men, don't have the stamina of men. I go the gym everyday, and I'll eat my shorts if I see a women bench 135.
These unnesessary risks potentially harm the whole group.
Tue, 2003-04-01 09:35
#14
Men cannot defend themselves better against torture. Once you are a prisoner, you cannot stop your captors from torturing you.
Even if rape WAS something exclusively used against women, I can think of other physical forms of torture that I would consider just as painful, and possibly moreso. You can just as easily pull out a man's fingernails as you can a woman's. You can flog a man's feet as easily as you can a woman's.
And I certainly hope that no one is going to say that it would be easier for a man to tolerate the pain than a woman.
Tue, 2003-04-01 10:06
#15
quote:
Men cannot defend themselves better against torture. Once you are a prisoner, you cannot stop your captors from torturing you.
I don't to have to explain to how women are viewed in the Middle East. Men simply get more respect.
quote:
Even if rape WAS something exclusively used against women, I can think of other physical forms of torture that I would consider just as painful, and possibly moreso.
That's fine. You forget that these women are probably more 'sex slave' than 'rape victim'. Very ugly. Again, look how women are treated in the Middle East. Men would have it easier.
quote:
And I certainly hope that no one is going to say that it would be easier for a man to tolerate the pain than a woman.
Childbirth is painful as hell (so I've heard from my mother, who has had 5). But the context of torture and childbirth are completely different. So is humping 30 km with 100 lbs on your back in the desert.
Tue, 2003-04-01 10:09
#16
quote:
Like, "women are able to do a lot of things, but chivalry keeps me from accepting women in combat roles."
It's not about chivalry. It's about sexist bias -- PMS and emotional stability my arse. What about the emotional stability of the high number of soldiers with substance or marital abuse problems? [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img] [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
It's also about fear -- fear that one might hesitate and die before killing a female adversary, fear that one might not be able to kill a female adversary at all, fear that a woman candidate could be better than them and advance through ranks ahead of them, and so on.
Of course, big boys with guns don't like to talk about being afraid, so they dream up the kind of bullshit they've been spewing. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2003-04-01 11:07
#17
quote:
There are many kinds of soldiers, and woman serve these roles just as well as men. If we are talking infantry however, no way. Woman are not as physically strong as men, don't have the stamina of men. I go the gym everyday, and I'll eat my shorts if I see a women bench 135.
You are assuming that the ‘strongest’ woman always has less stamina and strength than the ‘weakest’ man in any unit. First of all, there will always be a ‘weakest’ member of any team, strength-wise. Often they make up for this in other ways such as agility, specialized knowledge, quick response, ability to make tough decisions, etc. Second, there is no one on this board who is saying that if a woman is not physically able to endure combat (as much that anyone can be) she should be supported and taken into the unit anyway. This is not some sort of equal opportunity program we are talking about. However, if a woman is physically fit and feels that she is emotionally ready to serve, there is no reason why she should not.
Tue, 2003-04-01 11:28
#18
quote:
That's fine. You forget that these women are probably more 'sex slave' than 'rape victim'. Very ugly. Again, look how women are treated in the Middle East. Men would have it easier.
What does how women are viewed in the Middle East have to do with anything regarding women in combat. You are assuming that we will only be in combat in that region. Peace Keepers have engaged in combat in many place not in the Middle East, in the defence of peace.
The rape argument is crap. Women don't have to serve to get raped. We are aware of the risk on a day to day basis. I think it may be more traumatic and demoralizing for a man to be raped. Men are raped in prision to enforce power structures. Men don't wonder what will happen to them if they are raped before they serve, I think a lot of women have run through the thoughts of what it would be like and how they would survive and probably know a rape victim.
Sad thing is they probably are more likely to be assaulted sexual by fellow male soldiers than becoming a capture POW and raped and tortured. There is a big problem with that in the US Military.
It doesn't take a penis to pull a trigger and kill people. It takes a willingness and training to do so. Gender isn't relevant.
Tue, 2003-04-01 11:51
#19
quote:
Sad thing is they probably are more likely to be assaulted sexual by fellow male soldiers than becoming a capture POW and raped and tortured. There is a big problem with that in the US Military.It doesn't take a penis to pull a trigger and kill people. It takes a willingness and training to do so. Gender isn't relevant.
Right on both counts, Scout.
Tue, 2003-04-01 13:23
#20
From a miltary, tactical perspective, I don't think it's benefical to have women on the front lines attacking the enemy.
For the same reasons listed previously, torture\rape, but not just because THEY will be effected -as was pointed out, men can be tortured and raped as POWs too- it's how it would effect the REST of her company. I know several people, men and women, in the Armed Forces and they say they would feel more compelled to "talk" if their fellow soldier having finger nails torn out, or being gang-raped happened to be a female rather than a male.
Aside from the answers I've heard from people I know, I've also heard that this problem was cited by the Israeli army when they attempted to mix the genders of ground forces.
From a feminist perspective, the level of rape and abuse in the American Armed Forces deeply troubles me. I read a letter from a former member in the New York Times the other day, she was attacked and abused by the very men who she would be entering battle with. An investigation has been started, and the story should stick around. It SOUNDS like it could be very widespread, the inquiry might dredge some of that up.
I can't imagine being a member of an attacking force. War, for the most part, has gotten us no where.
However, if my country/home/safety were being invaded, I'd fight to the last breath.
Factoid: Did you all know that the Norse women used to fight alongside men? Not sure what their actual role in the battles where, but interesting to know. They also owned land and were considered equals. Yeah for Vikings! [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2003-04-01 13:28
#21
Scout, the discussion is about women serving in active combat. What's your view? I can't tell from whatever you posted.
quote:
What does how women are viewed in the Middle East have to do with anything regarding women in combat. You are assuming that we will only be in combat in that region. Peace Keepers have engaged in combat in many place not in the Middle East, in the defence of peace.
We're talking about combat in a war, not peacekeeping. There is a huge difference.
And I'm speaking of the Middle East because a) there is a war going on in the area and b) some Middle East countries have horrible track records for women. Of course that may offend the politically correct.
quote:
Men don't wonder what will happen to them if they are raped before they serve, I think a lot of women have run through the thoughts of what it would be like and how they would survive and probably know a rape victim.
You can say for sure 'men don't wonder' but think 'a lot of women' think about being a victim. Holy generalization.
quote:
Sad thing is they probably are more likely to be assaulted sexual by fellow male soldiers than becoming a capture POW and raped and tortured. There is a big problem with that in the US Military.
What does that have to do with women serving in combat? Your point is not clear.
quote:
It doesn't take a penis to pull a trigger and kill people. It takes a willingness and training to do so. Gender isn't relevant.
To paraphrase R. Lee Ermey, "It takes a hard heart to kill". It takes tremendous upper body strength to carry your injured buddy 20 miles, however.
Tue, 2003-04-01 13:50
#22
I'd think if someone is capable of meeting whatever standards are in place to serve in the army, then they can. We are all aware of the possible consequences of serving, and the choice whether to or not should be left solely up to the individual. If a woman can meet the physical requirements to serve and she chooses to do so, then so be it.
I'd like to think that the training for the army requires not just the tools to kill people physically, but the mental tools required to deal with killing and with being in a situation where you may have to watch you siblings-in-arms being tortured or being tortured yourself.
I DO think stiffer punishments should be in place for soldiers who assault a fellow soldier (whether it be raping a female or assaulting a male in some way). As a society, we should be taking more care to ensure that these things do not happen and that when they do, the punishment is severe.
As for the whole females-not-being-as-strong-as-men thing, I give that a big old [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] . Sure, men tend to have a larger frame than women, but that doesn't mean women are all just frail breakable wimpys. Like I said, anyone who can meet the requirements to serve and chooses to do so, as far as I'm concerned, can go right ahead. I'm all for adults having the freedom to make adult decisions.
Tue, 2003-04-01 15:47
#23
quote:
Most members of 'grrl gangs' are teenagers, and seldom do prison time at all. If they do, it is usually in youth-oriented penal centres
There has been more than a few incidents of girl gangs beating and killing full grown men. I assume it is useless to point out that I dont mean ALL girl gangs, just as I pointed out I dont mean ALL women in prison. Having worked with youths and families I am well aware of the statistics thank you for sharing though. The fact is there are some hard core female criminals and murderers and to suggest all women in prison are "victims" is incorrect and sexist. Women are as capable of violence as men are.
Paramedics and firemen all have to pass physical requirement tests in order to be accepted and to effective in their positions. There are women who can bench press more than 135 pounds, there are women who can handle the rigors of combat. Hand to hand combat is pretty much a thing of the past and given the fact that a specific woman is capable of carrying a full pack, weapons or a fallen comrade and has the mental and emotional resources to withstand the "horrors" of war then I dont see a problem.
The problem is with the male perception of women, and as Pax.. said chivalry be damned, its sexism pure and simple. You see women as being weaker and as needing your protection and as not being trustworthy in extreme situations. Its a male problem, not a female problem --
Tue, 2003-04-01 15:56
#24
Timebandit
I hesitate to post in this thread at all, as I am, by and large, a pacifist. However, it strikes me that the reasoning by some posters is completely asinine.
quote:
If we are talking infantry however, no way. Woman are not as physically strong as men, don't have the stamina of men. I go the gym everyday, and I'll eat my shorts if I see a women bench 135.
Bench pressing is somewhat different from combat as well. You may be able to bench 135 -- I'll admit now that I can't, as that's about 10 lbs more than I weigh -- but I am willing to bet that I can outrun you. That includes speed, distance and time duration.
Women excel over men, in general, in terms of endurance. We function better without sleep, we can keep going with less food and water than a heavily-muscled man. And tough? You know squat about tough until you've managed to push an 8lb human through a 34 inch set of hips without so much as a tylenol. I've done it twice. So kiss my ass, Mr Muscle.
Which brings us to:
quote:
Childbirth is painful as hell (so I've heard from my mother, who has had 5). But the context of torture and childbirth are completely different. So is humping 30 km with 100 lbs on your back in the desert.
Hard work, mostly. But that's not the point. Or maybe it is... The pain is one thing, the endurance that women have built into them biologically is where they are stronger than men. I think a lot of gals would surprise you at how long they can go and how much they can carry over a distance. I don't generally carry 100 lbs of stuff (nor am I convinced that soldiers carry that much -- can you clarify this for us, xrcrguy?), but I can out-hike lots of guys with a kid strapped to my back... Or in my belly, which tends to cut back one's lung capacity.
In terms of torture? Men and women are equally vulnerable, and, as infidels and invaders, one cannot expect a higher level of respect for males. It's ridiculous and short-sighted to suggest so.
quote:
Factoid: Did you all know that the Norse women used to fight alongside men? Not sure what their actual role in the battles where, but interesting to know. They also owned land and were considered equals. Yeah for Vikings!
As were the ancient Celts. Women fought alongside men, and all fighting was hand to hand. A Roman historian, can't remember the exact name offhand, wrote of Julius Caesar's invading force of Romans fighting the Celts in what is now Britain. The women fought with the men, and were as fierce and hardy fighters as the men, although more terrifying to the Romans, who were culturally unused to screaming, naked, painted women rushing into battle.
The Celts and Vikings were both warrior-based societies and respected anybody who could fight, regardless of gender.
There are several other ancient cultures that had women warriors as an accepted matter of course. Women not being suitable for combat is a cultural construct, not a biological one.
Tue, 2003-04-01 16:06
#25
quote:
(nor am I convinced that soldiers carry that much -- can you clarify this for us, xrcrguy?)
Certainly not for any length of time in any operation in which I was involved.
Tue, 2003-04-01 16:19
#26
Timebandit
I thought as much. Thanks, pax. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2003-04-01 16:56
#27
In the interests of disclosure, know that I have been an infantry soldier and officer. On that basis I have a professional claim to an informed opinion. Know also that my oldest daughter is now--against my advice--an infantry soldier in a Canadian regiment. I have several objections to women's service in combat arms.
1. In most military trades gender wouldn't matter--doesn't matter. Infantry is not among them. Physically, it is brutally hard. "Modern" warfare has not much changed the fact that you have to grunt rations, personal weapon and ammunition, water, shelter, and your share of crew-weapons ammunition anywhere you go. This rarely totals to less than 60-odd pounds. In addition, in dismounted operations, the lightest crew weapon you'd be called on to take a turn carrying is the Browning .50--86 pounds for the barrel/action alone. In a landmined environment, the only safe walking is in the recent--heavily corrugated--tracks of armoured vehicles. Even in suntanning clothes, this is an ankle-breaking workplace for trained, fit men. Loaded for a fight, it is far worse. Few men are physically qualified to attempt it, and most who try, fail. The number of women who could do it is vanishingly small.
Unit cohesion under stress is the key requirement to infantry battlefield success. Infantrymen are athletes, and most are within two years of 21. Even if/when you could emplace a woman physically capable of doing the job, unit cohesion is compromised if Private Smith is wondering if his sentry duty is part of his rotation, or because his master-corporal wants to get a few minutes alone with private Busty, whom Smith had his eye on.
Given the paltry number of women who could legitimately pull their weight on a one-to-one basis, against the fractious effect they have on the cohesion of units of young men is it worth it? Well, no.
My daughter and I share an uncommon physical strength, high pain threshold, hardness of heart and facility with a rifle. On these alone, she would make a decent soldier, but because she shares her mother's large bustline and small waist, to a rifle platoon she is more distraction as a woman than she is worthwhile as a rifleman.
2. I would recommend against anybody's participation in the Canadian military. Canada's governments have a century-old tradition of sending servicemen into danger, and then defaulting on veterans' compensation, education, medical and rehabilitation costs. There are still emaciated, doddering old wrecks, uniformed victims of the Japanese whose claims are being deferred, and deferred, and deferred, by Veteran's Affairs. The present government has no members who have ever carried arms, and is a particularly inept embarassment.
3. I recently took "Women's Studies" as a required part of my nursing training. The Received Word is that women should be allowed in combat trades because a)women are kinder, gentler, etc., and would contribute to conflict resolution by mediation and compromise. and b) women are every bit as capable/aggressive as men. I forbear comment.
Tue, 2003-04-01 17:04
#28
Timebandit
quote:
On these alone, she would make a decent soldier, but because she shares her mother's large bustline and small waist, to a rifle platoon she is more distraction as a woman than she is worthwhile as a rifleman.
That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard... Just to make sure I have this clear: You figure that male soldiers are so benightedly moronic that, when they are being shot at, they will be distracted by your daughter's [i]breasts[/i]?!
Of course, we could just chalk that up to Darwinism in action, couldn't we?
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2003-04-01 17:04
#29
quote:
I would recommend against anybody's participation in the Canadian military. Canada's governments have a century-old tradition of sending servicemen into danger, and then defaulting on veterans' compensation, education, medical and rehabilitation costs. There are still emaciated, doddering old wrecks, uniformed victims of the Japanese whose claims are being deferred, and deferred, and deferred, by Veteran's Affairs.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, and experience, which is probably both different and more recent than mine. On the above quote, I most certainly agree. I was quite glad when I was taken aside and given a candid "briefing" to this affect some years ago.
Tue, 2003-04-01 17:14
#30
Hello David40 how do you all feel about women fighter pilots? I wager I can fly as well as, if not better than a lot of those sky jockeys and cowboys killing allies.
As a female I am more suited to flying that a male, as we all know that planes are inherently (sp?) female and respond to a womans touch which is less ham handed [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] Thye often object to being thrown around by men - and who can blame them?
quote:
alone with private Busty, whom Smith had his eye on.
So shame on Smith, because men cant control their libido women should be kept out of the forces? Why not give the males who have this problem with little dicky some Salt Peter or something to keep them focused on the task at hand?
I wouldnt want my daughter to be in the armed forces and she would never choose to be, she knows she isnt suited to it, having a penchant for fashion, makeup and sleeping late. As your daughter she can shoot because I had the kids out at the range from the age of six upwards so that guns would be no big thrill for them should they encounter them in life.
So can a woman be a pilot? Is it just the Infantry women shouldnt be allowed into?
Tue, 2003-04-01 18:21
#31
quote:
So can a woman be a pilot? Is it just the Infantry women shouldnt be allowed into?
The Soviets had three regiments of women combat pilots who flew night bombing missions against the Nazis during WWII. [url=http://pratt.edu/~rsilva/witches.htm]The Night Witches[/url]
I have a question about the possibility of rape as a deterrent to women serving in front-line combat roles: is rape any worse than any other form of torture like, say, the old electrodes to the testicles trick? Or is this merely a relic of "protecting the weaker sex"?
Tue, 2003-04-01 18:36
#32
So far I am seeing a whole lot of reasons why men arent suited to combat roles [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
They are easily distracted - so what happens if a female enemy slithers up to them?
They cant be objective towards their comrades, but are rooted in archaic sexist beliefs.
Rape is seen as a legitimate weapon to be used against the enemy - male or female.
Men are more likely to be indoctinated into the mentality of following orders without question - take these drugs they will help you fight better, longer ..
Men are territorial and its not a question of the best person for the job, but the best MAN, in order to protect the boys club..
Perhaps it is safe to say male or female, both have limitations and abilities but ultimately it should be an individual choice.
Tue, 2003-04-01 18:50
#33
[quoe]How much combat arms experience have you actually had to qualify you to make such a pronouncement? [/quote]
Very little. But what does that have to do with the fact that there are some women who are bigger and stronger than me.
quote:
There are several other ancient cultures that had women warriors as an accepted matter of course. Women not being suitable for combat is a cultural construct, not a biological one.
YES! Although biology is a factor (theoretically, women cannot gain muscle mass as quickly or as much as men can), it is still a very poor excuse for discrimination.
quote:
So can a woman be a pilot? Is it just the Infantry women shouldnt be allowed into?
Yes, most certainly. I think more women would be qualified to be pilots than to be infantry.
Tue, 2003-04-01 19:23
#34
From reading this thread what's clear is the primary factor holding women back from full and equitable participation in the forces is the prejudicial attitude of the entrenched males.
I know several woman who serve in the Canadian Forces and they are formidable and impressive individuals.
They're here laddies and they're not going back to the kitchen so you'd just better suck it up and get used to it.
Tue, 2003-04-01 19:28
#35
quote:
There has been more than a few incidents of girl gangs beating and killing full grown men. I assume it is useless to point out that I dont mean ALL girl gangs, just as I pointed out I dont mean ALL women in prison. Having worked with youths and families I am well aware of the statistics thank you for sharing though. The fact is there are some hard core female criminals and murderers and to suggest all women in prison are "victims" is incorrect and sexist. Women are as capable of violence as men are.
Kindred: with all due respect, I think you've misunderstood the jist of my post. First, I didn't say that grrl gangs don't kill people. What I said (which was in your quote of me) is that most grrl gang members don't do time in federal prison. Even when they do kill, which does happen occasionally, because of their age they seldom do federal time.
And since when is killing someone in a swarm with 10 of your 15-year-old buddies a highlight on a military job application? If you read my post, you'd see that I pointed out the character defects that are strong counterindications to recommending such women as fit for duty, irrespective of their apparent 'toughness'.
Second, I didn't say that 'all women in prison are victims'. What I said is that most women who are incarcerated for violent crimes have been on the receiving end of violence. If you have the statistics to refute that statement, I would like to see them.
Third, I never said that women are not as capable of violence as men are. What I was trying to convey (which I failed at, my apologies), is that for most women inmates who are in for violent crimes, because of their experiences on the receiving end of abuse and violence (some from birth), when they do strike out, they are not empowered by their actions (unlike their media avatars).
Sure, they act tough. But they do so because they are afraid. They are not nascent GI Janes, empowered and inspired by their own 'grrl power' and chomping at the bit to practice their new-found skills.
There may be a few women in prison who would make better soldiers than the average woman, but very, very few. The best soldiers, the ones who would be reliable to work with and trustworthy in dealing with the enemy, are those who have a [i]healthy[/i] relationship to violence and power. Acting tough or killing someone in civilian life does not automatically make someone a good candidate for the military.
Natalie
Tue, 2003-04-01 20:41
#36
quote:
What I said is that most women who are incarcerated for violent crimes have been on the receiving end of violence.
But this also applies to men who are violent offenders. They have experienced violence directly and have witnessed a great deal of it around them.
I know this is straying a bit from the topic, but a very good book to read is [i]When She Was Bad[/i] by Patricia Pearson. It gives some excellent insights into female criminal violence.
Tue, 2003-04-01 20:49
#37
quote:
But this also applies to men who are violent offenders. They have experienced violence directly and have witnessed a great deal of it around them.
That's true, Aviator. I didn't mention it for two reasons:
1. The original post (which I replied to) was speaking to the notion of women prisoners being good candidates for combat roles, and
2. I have firsthand experience with women offenders; I do not have firsthand experience with their male counterparts.
Natalie
Tue, 2003-04-01 20:56
#38
BTW, Karl Homolka was an equal participant in the crimes that some people felt had "a male perpetrator." She was not manipulated, bamboozled, conned, etc., etc. She was a murderously gleeful and willing co-conspirator. To believe otherwise is simply twaddle!
Clearly Kindred's post was intended to illustrate the fallacy of the "kinder gentler" female gender being incapable of participating in combat.
Tue, 2003-04-01 21:03
#39
You're absolutely right , Aviator, (about Karla Homolka) and I never said otherwise. And if that was Kindred's intention, I completely agree with it. My understanding of Kindred's post is that it was intended to imply that some women offenders would make good candidates for combat roles. I disagreed.
I do however think that women are in general better candidates for combat roles than many assume; my issue is with the notion that either committing a violent crime or doing time make a person a better candidate for the military. I do not think that is true and I object to the suggestion.
Natalie
[ 01 April 2003: Message edited by: Natalie Anne Lanoville ]
Tue, 2003-04-01 22:11
#40
quote:
If a woman can meet the physical requirements to serve and she chooses to do so, then so be it.
Absolutely. But lets not lower standards to please the politically correct.
quote:
-- but I am willing to bet that I can outrun you. That includes speed, distance and time duration.
With a heavy pack and full BDU? Perhaps, but I doubt it.
quote:
Women excel over men, in general, in terms of endurance.
Nonsense. If that were the case, then women would have better times in the marathon and Ironman.
quote:
So kiss my ass, Mr Muscle.
Kiss your own ass Breeder; you certainly have a big enough mouth. You want to be sucker for punishment be my guest.
Zoot, stop posting in this thread. You are out of your league.
Tue, 2003-04-01 22:12
#41
[img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030402/capt.1049246708.war_u...
[url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030402/ap_on_re_mi_e.... Troops Rescue Iraq POW Lynch [/url]
quote:
Lynch, 19, of Palestine, W.Va., had been missing since nine days ago with 11 other U.S. soldiers from the 507th Maintenance Company. The unit was ambushed near Nasiriyah after making a wrong turn during early fighting in the invasion of Iraq. Five other members of her unit were later shown on Iraqi television answering questions from their Iraqi captors.
[ 01 April 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]
Tue, 2003-04-01 22:15
#42
[img]http://www.mqm.com/English-News/Jan-2001/leila-khalid-1.JPG[/img]
[url=http://www.mqm.com/English-News/Jan-2001/leilakhalid.htm]'I made the ring from a bullet and the pin of a hand grenade' [/url]
![http://www.mqm.com/English-News/Jan-2001/leila-khalid-1.JPG[/img]](http://www.mqm.com/English-News/Jan-2001/leila-khalid-1.JPG[/img]){kind=link}
Tue, 2003-04-01 22:22
#43
I have an idea. How about Funk Soul Brother not telling the WOMEN in this thread to stop posting in the feminism forum? How about that?
Tue, 2003-04-01 22:24
#44
I'd like that.
Tue, 2003-04-01 22:25
#45
quote:
I recently took "Women's Studies" as a required part of my nursing training. The Received Word is that women should be allowed in combat trades because a)women are kinder, gentler, etc., and would contribute to conflict resolution by mediation and compromise. and b) women are every bit as capable/aggressive as men. I forbear comment.
The world would be a far better place with kinder gentler armies (although I have my doubts about the founding thesis, as well). But if it is true, perhaps men should be prohibted from service?
Wed, 2003-04-02 03:30
#46
quote:
who were culturally unused to screaming, naked, painted women rushing into battle.
I think this is nonsense. I will concede that Marius reformed the Roman Army to fight the Celts, but this kind of attack would have played right into Roman battle strategy. An undisciplined horde is very rarely a match for massed infantry in depth supported by cavalry on its flanks.
Such a charge would have first been met with a hail of pilums which would have broken up the attacking horde. Legionaries fought in ranks or relays with shields locked. If a legionary was killed or wounded he was immediately replaced by a fresh man. Men were also replaced when exhausted. The Celts fought as individuals. Heroic perhaps. Stupid definitely. Hand to hand combat was unlike anything we saw in the old movies about Greece and Rome. When the Celts realized they could not break Roman lines, they would flee, only to be hacked down by Numidian and Iberian horsemen using the famous Spanish sword.
To show the effectiveness of such a battle array, when the Romans fought the Greeks in Macedonia, they lost only 200 men and yet killed 20,000 of the enemy.
[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Aviator ]
Wed, 2003-04-02 09:14
#47
quote:
I have an idea. How about Funk Soul Brother not telling the WOMEN in this thread to stop posting in the feminism forum? How about that?
HeRe's an even better idea. Make the feminism forum open only to women (no men). That way, you don't have to worry about us pesky Y chromo's giving our opinions.
Or shoW a disclaimer that says posts that only agree with the status quo will be allowed. Now there's a recipe (ooh can I use that word in the feminism forum?) for meaningful discourse.
I showed my gf this thread. She thinks you are all daft.
[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Funk Soul Brother ]
Wed, 2003-04-02 09:23
#48
Only 54 posts, so sad.
Wed, 2003-04-02 09:26
#49
*plonk*
Wed, 2003-04-02 09:28
#50
I'm emailing this thread to Jack, Naomi and Alexa. Should be interesting.
Wed, 2003-04-02 09:28
#51
55.
(Edited to add) 56.
Who are Jack, Alexa and whatsit?
[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]