Women in the Military

[Brownhead]

How does everybody feel about this? Personally, I think that the current regulations are a perfect compromise, only positions where women usually do not succeed in are male only. I wrote a quick essay on it the other day if you care to look at it, I'll attach it (Can't attatch .Doc.. well I uploaded to my file dump, here ya go: Clickie ), and to see some really good discussions on the topic I recommend checking out: This Forum. The thread I found to be most interesting is the longest and is mostly dominated by LTC Bailey (Click Here ). I'm looking for some contradiction on the topic however because I haven't quite developed a very strong opinion.

I think the main evidence for restricting certain positions from women kinda fall into these two topics:
-Women are generally less physically durable than men (Sorry :()
-Men feel a need to protect and fight for womens attention, subconsicly or otherwise, which can create tension. And tension is a BIG no no when it comes to life or death situations

Somebody care to counter my argument?

[fastbow]

Put the women in desk jobs, rear areas, and logistical jobs.

No woman should be in a command position or frontline combat. Sorry, feminazis, but women just usually logically stable enough for command, or physically and mentally ready for combat....

however, any useless state-side job a woman could do, let them have. Heck, let them do work in the rear of the front. Anything that frees up another infantryman is good...

[fli]

At 3/2/07 02:22 AM, Brownhead wrote: -Women are generally less physically durable than men (Sorry :()

Not all women. There are exceptions. And why shouldn't those exceptions not be able to serve if they wish? If they can do it... let them do it.

In all praticality, I would be very hard pressed to find a Paris Hilton type on the front lines... the ones who join up are already tough to begin with.

-Men feel a need to protect and fight for womens attention, subconsicly or otherwise, which can create tension. And tension is a BIG no no when it comes to life or death situations

Yes, because a smelly, greasy, dirty gal in camoflauge fatigues is so overtly sexualized that men CAN'T control their impulses.

For the most part, men already know how to interact with women in the workplace.
Why should it be different in the armed forces?

[Brownhead]

Fastbow, I think that women are just as intelligent (if not more so) than men, and would undoubtedly make great command positions. In fact, they can pretty much to most of what men can, but there is a slight line that is a little difficult to cross. Theres just to many years of evolution working against them (Sorry for the religios out there but you gotta admit, darwin's theorys make sense in alot of places... anyways, sorry, I don't want this to become a religios discussion) for them to be as physically built as men (There are definetly exceptions).
But I'm kinda feeling a strong sense of sexism rather than logic in your argument, but I may have very well misunderstood you. Do you believe women are generally less intelligent then men?

----

Not all women. There are exceptions. And why shouldn't those exceptions not be able to serve if they wish? If they can do it... let them do it.
In all praticality, I would be very hard pressed to find a Paris Hilton type on the front lines... the ones who join up are already tough to begin with.

Of course there are exceptions, but because of the second reason, and many other small abstract reasons, I don't think its really worth the trouble even if they do succesffully complete the physical requirements. I really reccomend reading the thread (or at least part of it.. took me about an hour and a half to get through it) that I sent, it brings up many very valid points, for both sides. And LTC Bailey is a much better writer than me and can convey the points I'm trying to make much better..
And when you say toughness I'm assuming you mean physical strength (Mostly endurance but also basic strength tests), and a surprisnly low amount of women successfully passed the physical tests required to get into the Special Forces, Rangers (I think... I'm not sure of the list of positions that are male only... I should definetly look into that), I think it was 2% though I'm going off of a secondary source here.

Yes, because a smelly, greasy, dirty gal in camoflauge fatigues is so overtly sexualized that men CAN'T control their impulses.

For the most part, men already know how to interact with women in the workplace.
Why should it be different in the armed forces?

If I hadn't seen a women (that wasn't either very afraid of me or shooting me.. or w/e.. I htink you get me) in months I don't think I'd really care what condition she's in. But alot of it would be subconcious, most girls (Unless there downright repulsive) have some physical attraction in them, and as long as there not complete whiners or what have you, your probably gonna try to compete for her attention whether your aware of it or not. Your body does it for you.

[fastbow]

At 3/2/07 03:13 AM, Brownhead wrote: Fastbow, I think that women are just as intelligent (if not more so) than men, and would undoubtedly make great command positions. In fact, they can pretty much to most of what men can, but there is a slight line that is a little difficult to cross. Theres just to many years of evolution working against them (Sorry for the religios out there but you gotta admit, darwin's theorys make sense in alot of places... anyways, sorry, I don't want this to become a religios discussion) for them to be as physically built as men (There are definetly exceptions).
But I'm kinda feeling a strong sense of sexism rather than logic in your argument, but I may have very well misunderstood you. Do you believe women are generally less intelligent then men?

No I do not believe women are less intelligent than men, I just believe we think diffrently. Men are logical. Women are emotional. They are two diffrent kinds of thought processing. If I ever have to deal with a superior, I want them to be able to easily, clearly, and quickly make logical decisions. Face it, war is full of nasty decisions. Do we bomb the school to get the AA gun? Do we launch the attack in an area with endangered animals? Do we order 1000 troops to their deaths somewhere in a feint so that the real attack can be successful?

Men can cut emotional ties and logically consider situations better than many women. Women can be very creative, but the creativity is better used elsewhere. Supply corps? Yes. Medical staff? Yes. Logistics? Yes. PR? Yes. Special Forces Command? No. Tactical Missle Command? No. Field command? No. Joint Chief? No.

Now do you see where I'm going?

[fahrenheit]

At 3/2/07 03:31 AM, fastbow wrote: Now do you see where I'm going?

From what you are saying it sounds like you cant be persuaded, so why bother coming on her and arguing?

[Brownhead]

No I do not believe women are less intelligent than men, I just believe we think diffrently. Men are logical. Women are emotional. They are two diffrent kinds of thought processing. If I ever have to deal with a superior, I want them to be able to easily, clearly, and quickly make logical decisions. Face it, war is full of nasty decisions...

I haven't seen any real data to support this besides the general feeling that women are emotional, but this could simply be because I have not delved into the topic. But until I'm actually confronted with hard evidence then I don't think I'll change my mind on the subject. But I definetley where you coming from, most girls I know are much more emotional than guys, but that could simply be because that is how they where taught to be raised. Again I'm not sure of the subject and I'd definetley like to take a better look.

----

:From what you are saying it sounds like you cant be persuaded, so why bother coming on her and arguing?

He simply has a strong opinion, it may be your opinoin that he's wrong but were all entitled to one, and debating opinions help bring up a better understanding of the topic. Personally, I welcome any oposition, I find it extremley refreshing to have to rethink my ideas and create a better understood concept... I htink you get what i'm getting at even if my wording is really crappy ;).
Even really angry arguments can lead to positive results (every once in awhile ;) )

[Brownhead]

I've gotta go, but I'll be back on in about 14 hours (Supposing I have nothing to do after school..). Sorry for leaving so quickly, I hope the argument continues in my absence and I look forward to debating the issue some more when I come back.

[zendahl]

Wow people who have never served in the military talking about who should be allowed to do what. Tell you what, when you've finished a stint or two in the military I'll be glad to here what you have to say on who should be able to serve. I've worked alonside women in the military and you know what? They get the job done as well as a man. They don't just get all emotional and cry all day. I've actually seen more men act that way than women. Untill you've been in a combat situation, or you go on deployment, you can't see how things work and therefore have no basis on which to found your oppinion. Try again when you know what you're talking about.

[InsertFunnyUserName]

At 3/2/07 03:31 AM, fastbow wrote: No I do not believe women are less intelligent than men, I just believe we think diffrently. Men are logical. Women are emotional.

No. The way you think is based on the way you were brought up.

And stop stereotyping. Not all women are weaker than men. A lot of them are, but some of them aren't. And to solve this problem, all you have to do is let in the women who are as strong as the other men in the army.

And when you're being shot at, I really don't think that you're worrying all that much about your female partners appearance. You're worried about not dying and getting the hell out of there.

And men and women already work fine in other workplaces, why not the army?

[fastbow]

Yay. Everybody missed the complete point of my post.

Whatever. People can believe what they want. That's cool if you've served alongside women in the military, but from what I have seen, women are not suited to the nastier jobs in the military. Some may be, but I have yet to really see that. However, I have seen many women that could take the job of a man sitting behind a desk somewhere....

I can be persuaded, but seriously, take some other opinions seriously besides your own.

[Eoewe]

If they can get the job done, what is the problem? My sister is in Iraq right as a driver and she sees combat frequently and she kicks ass at what she does.

[Draconias]

The key problem with preventing women from holding certain positiions in the military is that you are making judgements based on blatant sexism. You make generalities about what "all women" are, and then assume that they are entirely correct.

Your excuses are that women are: too weak, low endurance, too emotional, somehow less capable, and targeted by sexism. But that's all crap for one simple reason: you're assuming them, and not actually testing them.

The procedure you should use is, for example, to say that all Marines must be at least 5'6", be able to walk 5 miles with 200 pounds of equipment on, be able to sprint 100' in 10-25 seconds, be able to coordinate with other soldiers, and be able to aim with at least 50% accuracy on a target at 100'. If 99% of women fail these tests but 99% of men pass, then it is entirely fair and totally unbiased because this is what a soldier needs. It's not saying "you're a woman, so leave," it's actually testing everyone to see who is truly qualified.

Objective tests to determine quality are the way to determine military positions. Sexism should have nothing to do wtih it at all. If women can qualify, or if men can qualify, it's fair and encourages high quality recruitment. Sometimes physical differences can get in the wa, but they are not an excuse for across-the-board sexism.

And yes, th draft should include women too to be totally non-sexist.

[xscoot]

At 3/2/07 12:12 PM, Draconias wrote: The key problem with preventing women from holding certain positiions in the military is that you are making judgements based on blatant sexism.

That is true, but there is a different problem with women in the military. Unless they are in a women-only military sector, sexual harassment from men may insue. This creates a hostile invironment. This is what some politicans are trying to exploit to keep women out of the army. Same goes for why they are trying to keep homosexuals out too.

[Togukawa]

Yes, sexual harassment from men may ensue. This is a rampant issue in any job, and especially in the military. The only solution is to prevent women from doing any job. Since they are obviously the problem.

[N-Antichrist]

I don't see why women shouldn't be able to do what men do, as long as they put as much effort in as a soldier of any gender would.

[fastbow]

Ok. I agree that some kind of testing should be used. But I still feel women would do better freeing up men in the rear than in frontline combat.

However, I still see no arguments for women in command positions. I still hold most women can't make objective decisions in a way required to command a military...

[Cheekyvincent]

woman dont fight as well. They dont have the courage to. They do well as nurses and things that take care skills etc

[Durin413]

Keep in mind that the vast amount of sexism in itself is a good enough reason to keep them out of such a vital position. Sexism affects how people act. Especially with the perception of women being weaker, that alone makes them unsuited for command, or for frontline position (because of how superiors/inferiors would react). Forced sexual integration in the army would cause a time of weakness in us, when there are many who would try and attack if they thought they saw weakness.

As for the strength thing, no shit theres gonna be exceptions to every rule. But biologically, the male body is more prone to strength and size development (testosterone) and is less likely to be prone to emotional things (lack of estrogen +other female hormone who's name escapes me at the moment).

[capndamit]

You know, women were trained as snipers for the Nazis during WWII. They said that the women were more patient and resilient that most male snipers....*whistles and walks away*

[Gunter45]

Anybody who completes basic training is supposedly qualified for actual combat. Why should that be different for men or women? Your reasoning only says that men are more likely to be able to complete the required training by the Armed Forces in order to handle the rigors of combat, not that men, and men alone are capable. If a woman can hump gear, fire a gun, and handle extreme stress, then I'm all for her going out into the shit.

[morefngdbs]

At 3/2/07 12:36 PM, Togukawa wrote: Yes, sexual harassment from men may ensue. This is a rampant issue in any job, and especially in the military. The only solution is to prevent women from doing any job. Since they are obviously the problem.

;
Sexual harrassment by anyone (any gender) it is the person who is doing the harrassing who is the damn problem ! PERIOD
There is absolutely no way you can convince me that some asshole who cannot control themselves is somehow not to blame. They are the problem, and that's who should be kicked the fuck out.
The bar for certain positions in the military is set at different levels , depending on the job.
If a woman can fly a fighter jet at or above the standards, then let her. Just like it is for the men, many try few are chosen.
Same with anyother position, if they can do the job & they want to serve, then who are you or any asshole with such an idiotic opinion to try to deny them their right to do a job they have proven they are capable of.

[xscoot]

At 3/2/07 03:14 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 3/2/07 12:36 PM, Togukawa wrote: Yes, sexual harassment from men may ensue. This is a rampant issue in any job, and especially in the military. The only solution is to prevent women from doing any job. Since they are obviously the problem.

;
Sexual harrassment by anyone (any gender) it is the person who is doing the harrassing who is the damn problem ! PERIOD

That is true, but a politician that doesn't want women in the military will use this fact to stop them from getting into the military. That's all I'm saying.

[morefngdbs]

At 3/2/07 03:24 PM, xscoot wrote:

That is true, but a politician that doesn't want women in the military will use this fact to stop them from getting into the military. That's all I'm saying.

;
To bad behavior by a politician isn't grounds to just throw them out of their elected position.
Maybe its time to attempt a change in that direction.
What I wrote about women ,I feel the same way about Gay , Lesbian . Bi sexuals as well. If they want to serve, if they can do the job, LET THEM.

[Draconias]

At 3/2/07 01:33 PM, fastbow wrote: Ok. I agree that some kind of testing should be used. But I still feel women would do better freeing up men in the rear than in frontline combat.

However, I still see no arguments for women in command positions. I still hold most women can't make objective decisions in a way required to command a military...

So in other words, your sexist attitudes can't be entirely overcome by your reason? Women are just as or more capable than men, depending on which individuals you choose. Was Britain any less capable of conquering the world under Queen Victoria or Elizabeth than France was under King Louis (any)? Was Egypt any weaker under Cleopatra than China was under the Nationalists (males)? Being a woman has nothing to do about whether or not she can command effectively unless sexism from inferiors gets in the way. In that case, the inferior and the social attitudes as a whole are the problem.

Your argument is the same one used to keep Blacks out of political offices, white workplaces and schools, and most of the military for a century or more. It's just bigotry, and thus total crap.

[TheMason]

At 3/2/07 09:27 AM, fastbow wrote: Yay. Everybody missed the complete point of my post.

No we got the point, it is not exactly like you were all that subtle...

Whatever. People can believe what they want. That's cool if you've served alongside women in the military, but from what I have seen, women are not suited to the nastier jobs in the military. Some may be, but I have yet to really see that. However, I have seen many women that could take the job of a man sitting behind a desk somewhere....

What I love here is that you say it's "cool if you've served alongside women in the military" and then really show some arrogance: "...but from what I have seen...". Now 'cmon...what have you really seen? Are a military brat? If you are then maybe you've "seen" some stuff, but its all be second hand from a parent. If you are not then all you've most likely seen is media reports that only capture the most sensational aspects of the issue.

Now I have served with women in combat and command & control specialties. They can focus in the war room and make intelligent, logical decisions. The type of thinking that a commander needs is a combination of something someone is born with and military training & conditioning. Yes you are right men tend to think more logically and women tend to think more emotionally. However, it is the person not the gender who joins the military and often when people pick their specialties they go into jobs that are in keeping with their temparment. I have seen women I would follow into hell and I have seen men whose greatest contribution to the war effort would be to take out a landmine rather than take on command.

Also in some of the nastier jobs out there actually requires a person who can operate in an emotionally charged environment. In combat the most primal-logical course of action is run like hell in the opposite direction from the fire. There is a line of thought that the maternal instinct may work better in combat in that women may have a stronger survival instinct, higher pain tolerance (I watched my ex-wife give birth to our child, and while I'm not a feminazi sympathizer, I know I wouldn't want to try to squeeze a golf ball through my penis) than men. That is why many other countries use women in combat.

Oh yeah I was on the rifle team in college. Did you know women are more natural marksmen than men? It's true, we said it was because they have hips and a shelf. In the sitting and standing position they can rest the elbow of the arm holding the rifle's forearm on their hips and resting the rest of the stock on their breasts. This forms an exceptional stable natural shooting stand.

Also lets talk about physical ability. Women are actually better equipped physically to fly frontline, highly manueverable aircraft. You see a person with a higher level of body fat can take more G-forces, and women typically have more body fat. This is why when a woman takes to the cockpit she is often a "Top Gun" and one of the best. Furthermore, women are bet equipped mentally to fly. Today's military aviation requires the ability to multi-task an incredible amount of things going on all at once. Women are natural multi-taskers and even have better color-vision then men. So according to your logic we should only allow females to fly our frontline, highly manueverable aircraft.

I can be persuaded, but seriously, take some other opinions seriously besides your own.

I do take other people's opinions seriously, but a rational person also takes into consideration the other person's credentials. Afterall, you don't go to a bum to get retirment advice...

[TheMason]

At 3/2/07 04:57 PM, Draconias wrote: Was Britain any less capable of conquering the world under Queen Victoria or Elizabeth than France was under King Louis (any)?

Joan of Arc is representative of the first law of French warfare:

"France cannot win a war when led by a Frenchman."
-Le Doctrinaire Armee Frances 2005

[TheMason]

At 3/2/07 01:33 PM, fastbow wrote: However, I still see no arguments for women in command positions. I still hold most women can't make objective decisions in a way required to command a military...

That's because you've never seen war at the command level and therefore what you hold to be true is irrelevant, and therefore highly subjective.

[YHWH]

Military? Bitches should be in the kitchen makin' me a sammich.

just kidding

[fastbow]

Let me say then, I have never met a woman, military or otherwise, that I would trust with a command position, and very few I would put in a frontline position.

Just because I haven't been in the military doesn't mean I cannot formulate opinions on certain things. Maybe my philosophy on war in general is diffrent from yours. Whatever. I guess I'll leave this thread to eliteist military bastards who think just because a person CAN'T serve even if they wanted to, thay can't hold any informed opinion on war.