|
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
What's the problem really? Social constructs are ever changing and we re-create reality all the time in social relations. Would it be so bad if the male/female discourse would become more about different individuals regardless of biological gender?
Chivalry, self-sacrifice and duty are all quite the "male" characteristics. Are you afraid that your own identity would change? Why can't these characteristics apply to both men and women? In a post-modern world more and more of these earlier considered male/female characteristics will loosen up over time.
But yeah, I get your point about loss of identity in general. It's an issue because we need some sort of identity in order to be considered "sane" by the norms of society. But these roles don't have to be about male/female but more individual.
|
I had women in the army with me, as grunts i guess. Of course there were far less of them than then men and some did wash out quickly. Most of the ones who stayed were fine though. Some shit ones, but that's also true for the men.
Norway allows women into any position in the military afaik (maybe submarines or something has other rules, but i doubt it). We do however have some ....elite squads i guess you could call them. Navy seal kinda similar thing. They have entrance exams which quite a few women have taken, but as far as i know non have passed, ever. If one were to pass, she'd be on the squad.
Actually, let me do this properly.
1) 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. 2) 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). 3) The facilities would have to be overhauled to not be unisex and more accommodating to women instead of just men. 4) Then there is the mess if a women was pregnant in a battle. 5) 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, 6) men are faster and stronger than women. I'm sure there are many other reasons why, please post those if you think of them.
1) Yes women are a distraction to a certain point..... However this sounds a lot like the arguments against gays in the military as well as the one used against blacks in the past in the us. It would be distracting and detrimental to unit cohesion etc. And frankly... any frontline unit (which is what we're talking about here correct?) has a solid instinct to protect each other regardless. I really don't think this will be amplified/lessened/skewed by women's presence.
2) Sexual harassment, yeah... sure. Any situation that puts men and women that closely together over long periods of time will have this kinda problem. I don't think it's enough for exclusion. And the capture/pow thing is ...sorry, but utter crap. If they're willing to rape a female pow im sure they aren't nice to their male pows either.
3) Facilities? As you repeatedly say in the op these are grunts we're talking about. It's the outdoors.. a bag... that kinda thing. They'll make due like everyone else. Next.
4) They get pregnant, they go on leave. Not ideal I guess, but hey.
5) To be honest, i know little about health costs and frequency... but I imagine this to not be properly backed up with facts (keeping in mind we're not talking about an entire nation here, just soldiers, which excludes and whole bunch of ages and conditions etc). So I will concede this... sorta. Since I know next to nothing about it.
6) In general yes... but have you seen some of the "female" weight lifters? Hey that would also fix the whole sexual harassment problem. No one wants a piece of that:D The point is some women are capable of such work even if the percentage is clearly larger on the male side. If they can do the job, let them. Treat them the same, expect the same from them, boot them out the same if they don't deliver. Simple in my mind.
Hopefully my argument isn't too packed with bs^^ I'm sure someone will quickly call me on it if it is though. In short, I see no good reason why they shouldn't be able, if they indeed are able.
|
On November 12 2009 07:59 NicolBolas wrote:But they don't have to. The requirements for an infantry soldier can be applied equally. And anyone who meets them, men or women alike, can so serve. It could be. But it's not.
|
Taliban and the like would capture and rape the shit out of GI Janes. And release them when the rapebabies are born. How is that for morale.
|
If women are able to satisfy a certain standard that is required to be met by all, I see no reason why they should be disallowed from fighting in the front lines.
Health care costs? Women who risk life for duty is a greater benefit to the country than any costs for incorporating them into the system.
Sexual harassment? Men are just as much at fault as the women are. If each side contributed equally to this problem, it seems pretty unjust to place the entire burden of preventing this on only the women (by disallowing them to fight).
POW problem? This is a risk that they assume when signing up. This harm doesn't extend beyond herself so shouldn't be a concern at all since it doesn't endanger other soldier's lives. Seems a bit paternalistic to hamper someone's freedom of choice simply because it may seem to be a "bad" decision for her.
|
On November 12 2009 08:05 lvatural wrote: POW problem? This is a risk that they assume when signing up. This harm doesn't extend beyond herself so shouldn't be a concern at all since it doesn't endanger other soldier's lives. Seems a bit paternalistic to hamper someone's freedom of choice simply because it may seem to be a "bad" decision for her.
Except we are kinda obligated to go out and rescue her, so it isnt really only a bad decision for her.
|
On November 12 2009 08:04 KaasZerg wrote: Taliban and the like would capture and rape the shit out of GI Janes. And release them when the rapebabies are born. How is that for morale. Men get raped too dude.
|
On November 12 2009 07:57 ShaperofDreams wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:39 Boblion wrote:On November 12 2009 07:25 CharlieMurphy wrote:On November 12 2009 07:24 Boblion wrote:On November 12 2009 07:22 CharlieMurphy wrote:On November 12 2009 07:19 Boblion wrote:On November 12 2009 07:10 CharlieMurphy wrote: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 ... I AGREE, you do not understand the point of this thread. The point of the thread is to start an useless argument i'm right ? and btw 'trenches of war' is a figure of speech. stop trolling man, (or learn english better). you are really missing the point. And what is the "point" ? That women are creatures inherently weaker and thus should not be allowed to serve in the army even if some manage to get the same results in tests than their male counterparts ? It seems that you are the troll Charlie, especially if we take a closer look at your ban history. You really are ignoring other stuff said in the OP. You mean the lame excuses like " they could be harassed or raped", "they get injured more often" ( sources ? ) or " they can distract our good boys" ?
If those guys can't control their libido eh i don't think that they can be trusted to obey orders and they would not be good soldiers anyway.
edit: an army of sexual harrassers and rapists lol.
|
On November 12 2009 07:53 Physician wrote: "Do you think women should be allowed in the infantry?"
only if there is no men left to do the job..
I suspect that we are thinking in terms of outdated models and examples. Today war is a savage experience imposed on entire societies, sparing neither woman nor child.
For my own country, in so far as the duties of our armed forces are limited to peacekeeping, police and rescue duties, there is no reason to include women in the armed forces. If some national emergency besets us, it would depend on the threat and its gravity. I see no reason for us to be in Afghanistan so I am excluding participation in NATO nation-building wars.
For Western Europe and the United States, I would apply similar criteria and expectations.
The issue is that the standards are not neutral.
Is that the only issue at stake? My personal impressions of many of the rank and file of the American army is that worse cannot be expected from impressed sailors. Their behaviour and morals are in many instances repulsive, and one gets the impression that they are scraped up from the dregs of society, men who have no interest in the army other than seeing it as an employer of last resort.
Officers tend to be more civilized, but in general, one suspects that there is something terribly wrong with the woman who hires herself to serve a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan. Looking at the matter more broadly, I take back what I said earlier, and I will give the same advice to men as to women: do not join the army.
|
On November 12 2009 08:04 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:59 NicolBolas wrote:The issue is that women have more lax requirements than men But they don't have to. The requirements for an infantry soldier can be applied equally. And anyone who meets them, men or women alike, can so serve. It could be. But it's not.
That's a non sequitur, however.
|
On November 12 2009 08:07 Chen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:05 lvatural wrote: POW problem? This is a risk that they assume when signing up. This harm doesn't extend beyond herself so shouldn't be a concern at all since it doesn't endanger other soldier's lives. Seems a bit paternalistic to hamper someone's freedom of choice simply because it may seem to be a "bad" decision for her.
Except we are kinda obligated to go out and rescue her, so it isnt really only a bad decision for her.
Are women more susceptible to getting captured than men?
|
On November 12 2009 07:46 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:38 Foucault wrote:On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: 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. Yeah, you're saying this from a male perspective. I don't see you arguing that men shouldn't be in some places where women might be better suited for the tasks. I'm thinking communications in general (although I believe this is the result of socialization to a large degree). I actually believe that there would be alot less wars in the first place if women were more dominant in important positions. So one could argue that men bring about all the violent and stupid stuff to begin with. You are basically saying that if women can live up to the higher male standards of functioning, they are welcome up on the male piedestal. Otherwise they should remain in their inferior position. If men can't perform some tasks as well as women, then obviously they shouldn't be sent to the sheer front of the work since they're inferior performers. I'm not saying this just in a pure gender way. In any kind of specialized profession only those who perform the best should be used up in the front. The only reason I divided the whole thing into men and women is because the topic was about how women are generally worse soldiers than men in the front lines of battle. Regardless of gender, age, race, social class, etc., if you're worse at something then obviously the better performers should be prioritized in use in front of you.
Yeah in theory it should be like that.
However men have grabbed pretty much all the positions of power historically regardless if women could possibly do these tasks better. So there's a powerful discourse that hints that men are better at "important" things than women in general. My point is that women don't really get the chance to show that they are better professors, or engineers or what not because men have already claimed these positions and aren't considering the fact that women might be better at these things. The historical western discourse of men being more practical, decisive, more intelligent etc live on to this day, although less outspoken and less clear-cut.
Also you're saying "if men can't perform some tasks as well as women" implying that it's not certain that those tasks exist. At the same time you're assuming that there ARE tasks that men simply do better than women.
|
On November 12 2009 08:07 Chen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:05 lvatural wrote: POW problem? This is a risk that they assume when signing up. This harm doesn't extend beyond herself so shouldn't be a concern at all since it doesn't endanger other soldier's lives. Seems a bit paternalistic to hamper someone's freedom of choice simply because it may seem to be a "bad" decision for her.
Except we are kinda obligated to go out and rescue her, so it isnt really only a bad decision for her.
We are just as obligated or not obligated to rescue men.
Again, an uncultured barbarian like Genghis Khan back in the middle ages had women in his army. If he can grapple with the logistics of it, why can't so-called more modern armies? Or are the organization of our current armies more backwards nowadays?
|
On November 12 2009 08:08 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:04 koreasilver wrote:On November 12 2009 07:59 NicolBolas wrote:The issue is that women have more lax requirements than men But they don't have to. The requirements for an infantry soldier can be applied equally. And anyone who meets them, men or women alike, can so serve. It could be. But it's not. That's a non sequitur, however. Yoda.
|
On November 12 2009 08:10 lvatural wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 08:07 Chen wrote:On November 12 2009 08:05 lvatural wrote: POW problem? This is a risk that they assume when signing up. This harm doesn't extend beyond herself so shouldn't be a concern at all since it doesn't endanger other soldier's lives. Seems a bit paternalistic to hamper someone's freedom of choice simply because it may seem to be a "bad" decision for her.
Except we are kinda obligated to go out and rescue her, so it isnt really only a bad decision for her. Are women more susceptible to getting captured than men? Its a much bigger media event when a woman is captured/tortured/whatevered as a POW. Plus it looks alot worse when a woman is captured.
|
On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past.
Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures.
This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home?
Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home.
Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc
I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now.
P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
|
On November 12 2009 08:10 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:46 koreasilver wrote:On November 12 2009 07:38 Foucault wrote:On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: 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. Yeah, you're saying this from a male perspective. I don't see you arguing that men shouldn't be in some places where women might be better suited for the tasks. I'm thinking communications in general (although I believe this is the result of socialization to a large degree). I actually believe that there would be alot less wars in the first place if women were more dominant in important positions. So one could argue that men bring about all the violent and stupid stuff to begin with. You are basically saying that if women can live up to the higher male standards of functioning, they are welcome up on the male piedestal. Otherwise they should remain in their inferior position. If men can't perform some tasks as well as women, then obviously they shouldn't be sent to the sheer front of the work since they're inferior performers. I'm not saying this just in a pure gender way. In any kind of specialized profession only those who perform the best should be used up in the front. The only reason I divided the whole thing into men and women is because the topic was about how women are generally worse soldiers than men in the front lines of battle. Regardless of gender, age, race, social class, etc., if you're worse at something then obviously the better performers should be prioritized in use in front of you. Also you're saying " if men can't perform some tasks as well as women" implying that it's not certain that those tasks exist. At the same time you're assuming that there ARE tasks that men simply do better than women. wut. now you're just being absurd.
On November 12 2009 07:17 koreasilver wrote: 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 08:05 lvatural wrote: If women are able to satisfy a certain standard that is required to be met by all, I see no reason why they should be disallowed from fighting in the front lines.
Health care costs? Women who risk life for duty is a greater benefit to the country than any costs for incorporating them into the system.
Sexual harassment? Men are just as much at fault as the women are. If each side contributed equally to this problem, it seems pretty unjust to place the entire burden of preventing this on only the women (by disallowing them to fight).
POW problem? This is a risk that they assume when signing up. This harm doesn't extend beyond herself so shouldn't be a concern at all since it doesn't endanger other soldier's lives. Seems a bit paternalistic to hamper someone's freedom of choice simply because it may seem to be a "bad" decision for her.
Finally a good counter argument.
The point is the costs are X now, and if women (who are fewer) are incorporated here the cost goes up by a larger percentage than the women making the cut. It's not efficient. All the other reasons about them being weaker etc is just more side bullshit basically to justify this main point imo.
2) These are true, but we can't account for the enemy soldiers and foreign civilians.
You still can't really argue against the distraction between the sexes in the same ranks though imo.
|
On November 12 2009 08:12 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:42 MoltkeWarding wrote: There no argument one can make against the inclusion of women in the armed forces, which would stand for a moment against post-modern scrutiny. It cannot be proven that certain virtues or duties are exclusive to either sex. And yet, should all boundaries between the sexes disappear, I feel that this would serve not to strengthen, but weaken a society's virtues, both masculine and feminine, and the pride the respective sex takes in them. If we were to eliminate from our social consciousness exclusively "masculine" or "feminine" virtues (and this may well take place, to the same extent that the notions of "gentlemanly behaviour" or "piety" have now been reduced to cynical caricature,) I cannot help but suspect that this will lead to a coarsening of our morals, and, in tandem with our declining manners and abilities to remain civilized, lead us down some hideous hedonistic path, where chivalry self-sacrifice and duty will only be words to be laughed at, as the gullible constructions of a self-deceived past. Your historical perspective on this issue is frightfully limited. You're speaking as if humankind has always had the kind of gender distinctions we now experience throughout all of our history and among all our cultures. This is not true. Fighting in war does not break down gender differences. That's just a construction Western civilization created. Just as "women shouldn't have jobs" was a retarded Western byproduct of the Industrial age. Do you see some earth-shattering change and coarsening of society since women started having jobs outside the home? Nearly every single argument I've seen against women in combat is the exact same argument that was used in the past to rationalize why women shouldn't work jobs outside the home. Sexual harassment. Distraction of the male workers. They aren't intellectually/physically rigorous enough for the work. They are mentally inconsistent and can't be trusted. It will break down the family unit and thereby destroy the fabric of society and morals. etc etc I've heard all these arguments before. They sucked then and they suck now. P.S. Sorry Moltke. I quoted you but the arguments I listed were ones I read through the course of this thread and not particularly posited by you.
I think society was nice and just gave them the benefit of the doubt though. When we are talking about a well oiled war machine we can't afford to take these risks. This isn't a social experiment it's war. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
|
On November 12 2009 07:43 ArmOfDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 07:21 StorkHwaiting wrote:
Sorry Charlie,
This is complete hogwash. There is nothing inherent or "human nature" about what you're saying.
Mongolian women fought in Genghis Khan's army in large numbers. Women from the steppe tribes joined in on tribal raids and full-scale wars all the time actually. Not just during Genghis' time.
Chinese women from the military aristocracy were trained since birth and fought as soldiers/officers for centuries.
Shaka Zulu had complete corps of all-female troops. Although, later on, he did use them in odd and sexually demeaning ways, especially after his mother died. But then one could make an argument that Shaka was half-nutty by that point. African women soldiers were pretty common outside of this as well.
Scythian women went to war just as often as the men.
I could probably dig up an entire book's worth of other examples but these are the ones just off the top of my head. There is absolutely nothing that makes women less combat effective. Especially in an era where all you need to do is carry guns, combat gear, and a 25 lb pack. Peasant women of the past regularly carried much heavier things like hauling water from a river or carrying huge basins of wet laundry back home.
Just because the modern era (and Western society) have made it seem like women are these soft, effeminate, frivolous creatures doesn't make that their "nature." Women can be some seriously BAMFs.
You OBVIOUSLY can quote history, but you don't have a clue as to what is needed in an actual combat situation now a days. "all you need to do is carry guns, combat gear, and a 25 lb pack" This quote basically makes you lose ALL credibility, because it is complete BS. I'm a retired Marine, and I can tell you FOR A FACT, that the men doing patrols over in the middle east carry AT LEAST 75 lb packs, plus rifles (if you're lucky enough to even carry a light 8 lb rifle compared to a 17 lb SAW) plus extra ammo, plus anything else that is necessary. I'm not even telling you all the extra things that they have to carry for even longer partols. Before you start spouting nonsense, you might want to actually read up or even ask someone that knows what they're talking about concerning these things. Now, onto the real matter. I personally think that women should not be allowed on the front lines, because of many of the reasons that were stated by the OP. They are in fact the truth. Take the Marine Corps for example. Physical standards for men and women are different. Women have more lax standards, and are given special compensation for certain things. This is not saying that SOME women can't compete with the men, because there are, it's that the majority of them can't. Now, as for the mental part. That depends. Some women can hack it, just like some men. Others can't. But you'll find a LOT more men that can than women. Don't ask me why, but that's just the way it is.
My apologies on getting the specifics wrong. Although, I think it would be idiotic to try debating which was more physically strenuous, war in the medieval ages as a Mongol cavalry archer or as a US Marine now. I think it's pretty short-sighted to think there is a definitive answer, though.
Btw, before you start spouting nonsense you should understand allowing women on the front lines doesn't mean you're recruiting the majority of women to stand on the front-lines. This is basic reading comprehension here. Do the majority of American men serve in the US Marines?
|
|
|
|