|
Do you think women should be allowed in the infantry?
*Note this is not the same as women in the army/marines/navy. There is no problem with that. This is the front lines and battles of war we are talking about. The grunt work.
So I was watching this thing on MSNBC (or some news channel) this morning and they were discussing the issues of women not being allowed to work in ranks like combat medic, and other physically demanding front line infantry positions.
Some people were calling in to voice their opinion and some brought up good points:
Women/men would be distracting to themselves. Then if something were to happen, there would possibly be emotional damage and even more distraction. Men have an inherent instinct to protect women and that is well known. With women in the trenches of war there is a greater chance of sexual assault/harassment not only just from the fellow infantry units but in the event of capture/pow (this is especially bad in places in the middle east where women have little or no rights). The facilities would have to be overhauled to not be unisex and more accommodating to women instead of just men. Then there is the mess if a women was pregnant in a battle. Health costs for women are greater and injuries are more frequent. In truth, the military budget is taking a colossal hit. and of course, most importantly, men are faster and stronger than women. I'm sure there are many other reasons why, please post those if you think of them.
On the pro side of the argument, people (mostly women/feminists ofc) are saying that women are equal and have equal rights and should be able to/are just as able to fight in a war as men.
Imo this is not a political or social issue, It's just a fact of nature. Nature lays down the laws, we just back them up.
When I was in boot camp more than twenty years ago, my platoon sergeant told of his experiences training women Marines. The idea, at that time, was to subject the best and most motivated women to the same training as men. "They were great women," he said, "but after a few days they were all in tears."
Women cannot endure the same training that men endure.
The United States Army was created for one purpose -- the defense of our country. It was not created as a laboratory for social experimentation. It is not an arena for correcting nature's inequities We already know from common observation that women lack upper body strength. Furthermore, the very advantages that women possess over men -- emotional intelligence and sensitivity -- work against them on the battlefield. At the same time, the very emotional cluelessness and blockheaded insensitivity of men serves them well in the most brutal of all human activities.
Last week I interviewed a retired U.S. Army sergeant. He told me that female recruits often lack the strength to pull the pin on a grenade. No women that he has trained can throw a grenade beyond its blast radius. He said that women give out during forced marches at a much higher rate than men Women cannot carry the heavy gear that men carry. Worse yet, it is unacceptable for military personnel to complain about the danger that women pose to the combat readiness of their units. According to the sergeant, the imperatives of basic military toughness and discipline have been sacrificed in the U.S. Army so that women can get through the training. This cannot fail to have a negative effect on the male troops. Sexual harassment is another difficulty that arises. Disruptions of all kinds mount on every side. In addition, women cost more than men do. Health costs for women are greater and injuries are more frequent. In truth, the military budget is taking a colossal hit.
If motherhood is not a man's right, why should manhood be a woman's right?
Obviously this OP is a little biased, but I am totally open to counter opinions and arguments.
Please don't vote hastily + Show Spoiler +Poll: Women In The Infantry( Vote): Yes ( Vote): No ( Vote): Undecided
+ Show Spoiler [news poll results] +To my amazement the poll was something like 65% yes, 35% no.
|
A lot of these arguments could go with 1000 other topics. LIke in any other area of work, men and women are going to mingle, and it could have a negative effect on their job. But we can't really seperate them. There are a lot of examples that are important, just like in the military.
|
I'm sure there are some crazy bitches out there that could handle it (physically, mentally, emotionally, etc)..... But, how would they affect the rest of the unit they were with? Would it be positive or negative?
I can't see it being a positive..... Hence I vote "no".
However, this does not mean that I don't think women should be in the military. There are a lot of places where they could make a huge impact. Just not on the front lines.
|
On November 12 2009 07:00 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: A lot of these arguments could go with 1000 other topics. LIke in any other area of work, men and women are going to mingle, and it could have a negative effect on their job. But we can't really seperate them. There are a lot of examples that are important, just like in the military. That is a bad argument. There is a huge difference between battling in a war then manning some machines in a factory or whatever.
Losing work proficiency is a business venture. Lives aren't at stake there.
|
Only problem I see with women in the infantry is what happens if a female soldier is captured during a battle and how many are going to get killed trying to get her back. I mean if the enemy, for example the Taliban, know our view on Women they might become more aggressive to capture female soldiers leading to greater harm and danger than there already is for our troops. Knowing as a country we will do everything possible to get them back.
|
If they have the same tests than men yes.
|
On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes. and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous.
|
On November 12 2009 07:05 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes. and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous. So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ?
The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
Men are generally stronger and faster than women, this is true. But I would think that many women meet or exceed the physical requirements for any combat job. If this is the case(and I'd be shocked if it weren't) then any argument from a 'not strong or fast enough' position is tossed out. Set the physical standards, and anyone who meets or exceeds them is physically qualified for the job, gender is irrelevant.
Now, many of the other issues you raised are still very relevant.
EDIT: Haven't you all seen GI Jane!?
(I haven't)
|
I misclicked and voted no but I wanted to vote yes. If unisex doesn't work there's no reason why they can't separate men and women in the military.
|
On November 12 2009 07:07 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:05 CharlieMurphy wrote:On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes. and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous. So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ? The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter.
It's sexist to say that women can't do it.....
|
On November 12 2009 07:07 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:05 CharlieMurphy wrote:On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes. and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous. So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ? The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter. They are recruited for other positions, I don't think you understand the issue here. read the op carefully.
|
I agree with what Boblion says.
|
On November 12 2009 07:03 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:00 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: A lot of these arguments could go with 1000 other topics. LIke in any other area of work, men and women are going to mingle, and it could have a negative effect on their job. But we can't really seperate them. There are a lot of examples that are important, just like in the military. That is a bad argument. There is a huge difference between battling in a war then manning some machines in a factory or whatever. Losing work proficiency is a business venture. Lives aren't at stake there.
you're saying war isn't a business venture?
|
On November 12 2009 07:11 graemej wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:03 CharlieMurphy wrote:On November 12 2009 07:00 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: A lot of these arguments could go with 1000 other topics. LIke in any other area of work, men and women are going to mingle, and it could have a negative effect on their job. But we can't really seperate them. There are a lot of examples that are important, just like in the military. That is a bad argument. There is a huge difference between battling in a war then manning some machines in a factory or whatever. Losing work proficiency is a business venture. Lives aren't at stake there. you're saying war isn't a business venture? that's another topic..
|
In the Canadian army at least, I know the women have different standard than men. Actually, much weaker standards, which is strange if you think about it. The standards should be the same, if you can't pull your weight, why should we rely on you in times of dire need. But the advocates of this are right, women's bodies are different and can't generally handle the same stress a mans can, but to me... this means they shouldn't be allowed to fight, not "give them different standards".
|
I think a lot of feminists completely forget that women and men are not the same. Equality means equal rights and equal opportunity. If a woman can perform as proficiently as is required for men, then they should by all means be allowed to do the same job. If they can't perform what is minimally required for men, then they should not be allowed to do the same job. I mean, equality doesn't mean that everyone is the same.
I mean, if women can't pull the pins off of grenades properly or throw it beyond the blast range or carry the same amount of heavy load as other male soldiers do... while also taking more damage and costing more to deploy, then obviously women shouldn't be deployed in the front because they're just inferior for that purpose. Women should only be allowed out there if they can do everything that is required from the male soldiers.
|
|
On November 12 2009 07:03 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:00 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: A lot of these arguments could go with 1000 other topics. LIke in any other area of work, men and women are going to mingle, and it could have a negative effect on their job. But we can't really seperate them. There are a lot of examples that are important, just like in the military. That is a bad argument. There is a huge difference between battling in a war then manning some machines in a factory or whatever. Losing work proficiency is a business venture. Lives aren't at stake there.
lol, why don't you think a little more about it.
What about having a man and a women in the cockpit of a plane?
What about having men and women in an Operating room during open heart surgery? Im not talking about a fuckin cashier job at a grocery store, im talkign abotu when lives can be lost (and my examples are far more likely to have gendre conflicts then while people are shooting at you :D)
|
On November 12 2009 07:10 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:07 Boblion wrote:On November 12 2009 07:05 CharlieMurphy wrote:On November 12 2009 07:04 Boblion wrote: If they have the same tests than men yes. and they would, if you read the quote at the bottom of OP most of the women couldn't pass them. not being able to pull a pin out of a grenade and then not being able to throw it further than it's blast radius is pretty dangerous. So why are they recruited if they fail the tests ? The army should only recruit those who have the best results in tests. Women or men it doesn't matter. They are recruited for other positions, I don't think you understand the issue here. read the op carefully. So why the Op is about trenche war lol ? There are a lot of paperwork jobs in the army i don't understand what is your problem if weak men or weak women are recruited to do this.
Don't really know how the US army recruitment system works but i guess that you just need to test the physical abilities of people regarding their speciality ( infantry, telecommunications, etc ... ).
If they fail the badass grunt course with the 30kg backpack well maybe they can still apply to work in an office or as mechanic, cook etc ...
|
|
|
|