Women in Combat
Good
58.2% (39)
58.2% (39)
Bad
19.4% (13)
19.4% (13)
Not relevent
22.4% (15)
22.4% (15)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Women in Combat: good idea, bad, not relevant? Is this happening or alarmist?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Friendly Lich:

GunsmithKitten:

Tarrou:

Son, you come on out and try your "game". It's not the top of what you think people can do. We walk a hundred miles, no sleep, no stop and fight at the end. We stay awake for weeks on end. We don't shower for months. We fight every day. If not the enemy, we fight our rival units or each other. We run until the muscles in our legs literally pull our kneecaps off. I didn't even know that was possible until I did it. "Good enough"? Son, we operate on this whole other plane that civilians can't even fathom. Don't tell me about "good enough" unless you've got the CIB to show for it. There is no "good enough", this is survival. And if you can't carry the heaviest guy in your unit at a dead run, you can't play. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but unless you know what is actually involved in being a grunt, don't talk about our standards.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Servicemen get made out to be demigods and ubermensch above us mere pissant civilians, and they WONDER why women would want to join.

We get it, alright, King Kong ain't got shit on you grunts, and us women need to get back to the kitchen. Understood. Just want people to quit wondering why we want a slice of that pie you got in the first place.

Maybe one day I could be a stay at home husband without my mother, father, and female boss thinking I am a scum and/or loser+ piece of shit. It still seems to be a female only role

Lots of men are stay at home parents/husbands these days, though there is a stigma to it.

Funnily enough we (men) are the ones that made that a feminine thing that's unheard of and pathetic for a man to do. So you're basically complaining about men stereotyping themselves .

Friendly Lich:

GunsmithKitten:

Tarrou:

Son, you come on out and try your "game". It's not the top of what you think people can do. We walk a hundred miles, no sleep, no stop and fight at the end. We stay awake for weeks on end. We don't shower for months. We fight every day. If not the enemy, we fight our rival units or each other. We run until the muscles in our legs literally pull our kneecaps off. I didn't even know that was possible until I did it. "Good enough"? Son, we operate on this whole other plane that civilians can't even fathom. Don't tell me about "good enough" unless you've got the CIB to show for it. There is no "good enough", this is survival. And if you can't carry the heaviest guy in your unit at a dead run, you can't play. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but unless you know what is actually involved in being a grunt, don't talk about our standards.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Servicemen get made out to be demigods and ubermensch above us mere pissant civilians, and they WONDER why women would want to join.

We get it, alright, King Kong ain't got shit on you grunts, and us women need to get back to the kitchen. Understood. Just want people to quit wondering why we want a slice of that pie you got in the first place.

Maybe one day I could be a stay at home husband without my mother, father, and female boss thinking I am a scum and/or loser+ piece of shit. It still seems to be a female only role

Dont' look at me; I haven't dictated what mankind values culturally for centuries, I'm just trying to succeed by the rules I can't change. If you want to do the same, that's up to you.

But if you really want to try and say that a stay at home mom wields as much cultural reverence and power as combat soldiers, well, how many memorials and set apart cemetaries can you find for stay at home moms?

Gold:

Friendly Lich:

GunsmithKitten:

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Servicemen get made out to be demigods and ubermensch above us mere pissant civilians, and they WONDER why women would want to join.

We get it, alright, King Kong ain't got shit on you grunts, and us women need to get back to the kitchen. Understood. Just want people to quit wondering why we want a slice of that pie you got in the first place.

Maybe one day I could be a stay at home husband without my mother, father, and female boss thinking I am a scum and/or loser+ piece of shit. It still seems to be a female only role

Lots of men are stay at home parents/husbands these days, though there is a stigma to it.

Funnily enough we (men) are the ones that made that a feminine thing that's unheard of and pathetic for a man to do. So you're basically complaining about men stereotyping themselves .

For all the complaints about society somehow cowtowing to PC feminism, ain't it funny that someone "Acting like a man" is a compliment, but acting "like a girl" is still a put down? Funny, neh?

GunsmithKitten:

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Servicemen get made out to be demigods and ubermensch above us mere pissant civilians, and they WONDER why women would want to join.

We get it, alright, King Kong ain't got shit on you grunts, and us women need to get back to the kitchen. Understood. Just want people to quit wondering why we want a slice of that pie you got in the first place.

Read what was written above that. Tell me why women need their own sports? If we're talking purely physical ability, why on earth do we have Title 9 bullshit mandating female sports? Because some women surely can hack the male standards, and it's sexist to exclude them. So let women go out for the NBA, and if they don't make the cut, tough! When women oppose sex standards on principle, instead of only when they provide exclusive male space, then I'll join them with enthusiasm. But don't tell me that women need to be let into the military in the name of equality when 96% of divorces end in female custody of any children. That's a much more salient bit of society than who wears the blue cord. I'm not totally opposed to it, in fact, but I oppose hypocrisy in all its forms, and I recognize from brutal personal experience that the green grass of Infantryland is not the place for social experimentation. Mistakes here cost lives, this is not about money or prestige.

Macomber:

Read what was written above that. Tell me why women need their own sports? If we're talking purely physical ability, why on earth do we have Title 9 bullshit mandating female sports? Because some women surely can hack the male standards, and it's sexist to exclude them. So let women go out for the NBA, and if they don't make the cut, tough!

I've no issue with a move like that, actually.

I'm not totally opposed to it, in fact, but I oppose hypocrisy in all its forms, and I recognize from brutal personal experience that the green grass of Infantryland is not the place for social experimentation. Mistakes here cost lives, this is not about money or prestige.

And I could agree with you on substance, except that society and receruitment advertising shoves it in our face on a daily basis how badass, PRESTIGOUS, AND PROSPEROUS ("stupid becky, I joined the military and it paid for my college!") is to be a soldier. All that PR hype, and people wonder why it WORKED?!

GunsmithKitten:

I've no issue with a move like that, actually.

Then shall we say that you support my suspension of support for women in combat until such days as women voluntarily eliminate their exclusive space in the much less risky and life-threatening areas?

And I could agree with you on substance, except that society and receruitment advertising shoves it in our face on a daily basis how badass, PRESTIGOUS, AND PROSPEROUS ("stupid becky, I joined the military and it paid for my college!") is to be a soldier. All that PR hype, and people wonder why it WORKED?!

And women can totally join the military and get their college paid for. What's the problem? I think you overestimate the power of advertising, but let's say it's all-important. Any reasonably fit woman can join up, and well qualified ones can even have certain combat roles (pilots, Air Force Security, MP, etc.). As it is now, they aren't allowed in Artillery, Armor, Infantry and SF. And I'd support them being in Artillery right now, with the single exception of artillery Forward Observer, which are embedded with infantry units, generally.

I look at the issue in terms of what the Army needs, can use, and would benefit from. Females, for instance, have better multitasking and fine motor control than men in general. Pilot is a no-brainer. That's a good reason, it's a combat role, and good on any woman who can fly those birds. Artillery is a rear-Ech position, its inclusion in "combat arms" is a holdover from teh days when cannon were short range, now it's ten miles. Even here though, being artillery means having to lug some eighty- or hundred-pound shells about. It's gonna be a rare woman that can hack it. But if they can, good on them. Infantry is different, we have to carry all our gear. We have to carry each other. Even one weak member hurts everyone immeasurably. The vast majority even of men can't hack that. We shuffle the "shitbirds" off to S3 or other light duty all the time. The middle NCOs transfer out to other MOS' all the time, because infantry life breaks your body. If you can't hang, you are a drag on your unit. And to my mind, one dead infantryman is not worth all the "female empowerment" in the world. Women want to serve? Great, love to have you. I still think mixed units are bad for morale, but I fully support women being included in as many roles as possible within the bounds of readiness and combat effectiveness. But it is my informed opinion, based on eight years of grunt experience as a lower enlisted and an NCO, that place is not in the Infantry, SF, or Armor. And it is my moral position that to ask soldiers to risk their lives in the name of female equality while society at large is more sexist (no pay gap in the military, son) is an insult to the forces, and the rankest bullshit.

I dont see the problem necessarily. The idea a child needs a mother more than a father as an excuse for anyhting I think is flawed. the only problem I can see is in countries where women are treated as less than equals ot men in a very large degree and could be much worse off if captured by the enemy (torture and execution on a worse level than what they may give a man just cause shes a woman) but tat could happen in any country really and all torture is torture and thus bad on some level.

personally i think its a bout time, and I hope they hsould be forced to fill out their service card when tehy turn 18 and be eligible for draft. just cause youre a woman doesnt mean you shouldnt be forcibly picked by your country to fight and die for it should the need call like a healthy male can.

Besides, they out populate men, so really we should be saving men more than we should women, especially since if you listen to some science reports the male chromosome will cease to exist in the next 10K years or so.

I think it's beyond absurd, unless they up the female fitness requirements to equal as the men.

Sure, not as many women would be physically capable enough to enter and keep up, but that's what needs to be done.

If you get shot and need someone to drag or carry your ass, the last thing you need is someone physically incapable of doing so or doing so effectively.

It's an incredibly dangerous thing to allow just so the military and government can flaunt that they promote gender equality.

...Maybe they'll let me be a pilot despite my eye sight being terrible without glasses. I mean sure I don't meet the physical requirements that they have outlined as necessary to operate in that role, but what about my special snowflake feelings?

GunsmithKitten:

Macomber:

Read what was written above that. Tell me why women need their own sports? If we're talking purely physical ability, why on earth do we have Title 9 bullshit mandating female sports? Because some women surely can hack the male standards, and it's sexist to exclude them. So let women go out for the NBA, and if they don't make the cut, tough!

I've no issue with a move like that, actually.

You should, because such a move would incredibly damaging to women. Title IX ensures that men and women have roughly equal opportunities at academic institutions receiving federal funds, this applies to all aspects of the educational experience, but athletics is particularly significant because at the collegiate level that means scholarships. Eliminating Title IX would result sports once again being dominated entirely by men, and deprive tens of thousands of women the chance to compete, along with all the opportunities that come with it.

Title IX has no applicability outside of educational institutions, incidentally, so you can't blame the WNBA on that.

cobra_ky:

GunsmithKitten:

Macomber:

Read what was written above that. Tell me why women need their own sports? If we're talking purely physical ability, why on earth do we have Title 9 bullshit mandating female sports? Because some women surely can hack the male standards, and it's sexist to exclude them. So let women go out for the NBA, and if they don't make the cut, tough!

I've no issue with a move like that, actually.

You should, because such a move would incredibly damaging to women. Title IX ensures that men and women have roughly equal opportunities at academic institutions receiving federal funds, this applies to all aspects of the educational experience, but athletics is particularly significant because at the collegiate level that means scholarships. Eliminating Title IX would result sports once again being dominated entirely by men, and deprive tens of thousands of women the chance to compete, along with all the opportunities that come with it.

Title IX has no applicability outside of educational institutions, incidentally, so you can't blame the WNBA on that.

Big whoop. Exclusive women's only leagues didn't, and never will get the same respect or prestige anyway.

GunsmithKitten:

cobra_ky:

You should, because such a move would incredibly damaging to women. Title IX ensures that men and women have roughly equal opportunities at academic institutions receiving federal funds, this applies to all aspects of the educational experience, but athletics is particularly significant because at the collegiate level that means scholarships. Eliminating Title IX would result sports once again being dominated entirely by men, and deprive tens of thousands of women the chance to compete, along with all the opportunities that come with it.

Title IX has no applicability outside of educational institutions, incidentally, so you can't blame the WNBA on that.

Big whoop. Exclusive women's only leagues didn't, and never will get the same respect or prestige anyway.

But the education these women get on their scholarship as an athlete is no less prestigious than that of their male counter-parts. What cobra_ky is talking about is not whatever or not women's leagues in sports are important, but rather that Title IX is important to keep giving thousands of young girls a shot at a college education through a scholarship. So yes, you really should care about Title IX remaining in place, because it if doesn't we'd see a large drop in scholarships given to girls.

Denholm Reynholm:
If you get shot and need someone to drag or carry your ass, the last thing you need is someone physically incapable of doing so or doing so effectively.

If you get shot and injured so badly that you need to be dragged or carried, then you're pretty fucked unless medical treatment or a car is close enough. Anything less than that and a woman can still help you.

Not to mention that even men who are let in under existing standards aren't expected to be carrying an adult male plus full body armour and gear, so the point is moot as a man isn't going to be able to do that much better than a woman.

It's an incredibly dangerous thing to allow just so the military and government can flaunt that they promote gender equality.

There's this wonderful thing out there, it's called technology. It's used to mitigate danger. Might want to look into all the advances in robotics and how the military is looking to create machines designed specifically for the example you brought up.

...Maybe they'll let me be a pilot despite my eye sight being terrible without glasses. I mean sure I don't meet the physical requirements that they have outlined as necessary to operate in that role, but what about my special snowflake feelings?

Apples and Oranges. The technology exists or is being researched and development to nullify the risks you mentioned, and having the upper body strength to carry the addittional 20 lbs or so of kit is in the long run not that vital to being a soldier, especially considering how making things lighter is an area of interest in many different fields of research, especially military.

Having good eyesight is about half/a third of being a pilot, on top of hand-to-eye cordination and expertiese in flying. The two situations aren't comparable considering that the difference in what the military expects women to carry is fairly insignificant since they're held to the same standards of accuracy, following orders, shooting, and you know, that whole conducting war business. And you brought up one situation where the standards of upper-body strength being lower for women could possibly be detrimental in an incredibly specific situation where someone is wounded enough to not be able to move under their own power but healthy enough to not need immediate medical attention (so worse than a broken ankle where the soldier can still assist with moving, but less than a shattered leg where blood loss is going to be lethal).

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked