Women Soldiers

[Andy_Copland 0]

Just curious as to what you guys think, im reading a book right now by Max Hastings called Warriors (my god i recommend this book highly) and right now im reading about the womens role in combat.

Quote

In some societies, women warriors have taken their place on the battlefield for centuries, even if the fifth-century bc Greek historian Herodotus' account of the Amazons is a fairy tale. Women fought for many twentieth-century communist and revolutionary movements, They played a substantial role in the 1941-1945 Red Army, though the fame lavished on its all-female night-bomber squadron owed as much to the demands of propaganda as to military utility. Western armies have been reluctant to employ women in the front line, partly because there are practical difficulties. Women cannot match the load-carrying ability of men. In some modern mixed-sex American units this reality has prompted male resentment of women soldiers' inabilty to bear their fair share of physical labour. The pragmatic argument carries more weight in the contemporary society than the more traditionalist objection voiced by a modern British general "You can't leave a women behind on the battlefield"

Only naive people, however, ignore the inescapable tensions created by sexual relationships between members of combat units. Whether on land or sea. When the British army was debating the rights of gay soldiers to fight in the front line a few years ago, a distinguished gay combat veteran observed, to the surprise of some, that he opposed the presence of actively gay men on the front line, for the same reason he opposed that of women: "There is no closer human relationship than that between men beside each other in battle. It is essential this should be uncompromised by sexual tensions."

Well people?

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[rehmwa 2]

What about just setting a single standard (not biased by gender) set of criteria (physical, practical, etc) for each functional role and then whoever passes the criteria is eligible for whatever defined that criteria?

Why should a strapping and large and strong and committed woman be automatically exempt from combat while some very weak male automatically be qualified? Abilities should be the prereq, not plumbing.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy_Copland 0]

Because even if you done that you'd create mixed groups with sexual tension. Could cause all kinds of problems if 20 guys like the one chick etc. Complicates things i think.

Quote

In some modern mixed-sex American units this reality has prompted male resentment of women soldiers' inabilty to bear their fair share of physical labour.

I dont agree with that piece of text though, everyone has physical limits and when they are reached you have done your fair share. Women can work their guts out just as hard

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

In the 2nd World War, Russia successful used women to help combat the Germans. There is no reason at all that a woman can't fight, kill (and be killed) just as well as her male counter part. So I feel that if a woman wants to be a combat soldier, let her. Now drafting women into the military is a different can of worms. But we're not talking about that right?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Andy_Copland 0]

Not unless you wanna go there

So your saying women can fight an die if they want but as long as they are kept in all women regiments or mixed?

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

What about just setting a single standard (not biased by gender) set of criteria (physical, practical, etc) for each functional role and then whoever passes the criteria is eligible for whatever defined that criteria?

Why should a strapping and large and strong and committed woman be automatically exempt from combat while some very weak male automatically be qualified? Abilities should be the prereq, not plumbing.

BINGO.. we have a winner.

[downwardspiral 0]

Plain and simple, if a soldier cannot lift a 180 pound man with 70-80 pounds of gear over their shoulder, manage to grab both of their weapons, and run 100 yards then they should not be in combat.... regardless of sex.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Andy_Copland 0]

Quote

BINGO.. we have a winner

Do we?

Your not looking at the effect it will have on other soldiers, its a ripple effect.

The main problem here is emotional effect it would have on the male soldiers and sexual tensions. Your still failing to say whether you'd put them in a all female regiment or not

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[billvon 3,118]

> Plain and simple, if a soldier cannot lift a 180 pound man with 70-80
>pounds of gear over their shoulder, manage to grab both of their
>weapons, and run 100 yards then they should not be in combat....
>regardless of sex.

Good idea in theory, but we'd have to bring back the draft to get that to work in practice, because we'd need a MUCH wider assortment of people to pick from.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

So your saying women can fight an die if they want but as long as they are kept in all women regiments or mixed?

Your words not mine. Where in my post did I hint that there should be women-only regiments?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Amazon 7]

So basically the sexual tensions amoung the greek soldiers caused what????

A soldier is there to serve and to fight... they better be able to put their sex lives on hold...no matter WHAT their sexual orientation.

You learn during training to suppress things that do not pertain to the job at hand. Others have seemed to overcome the sexual tensions... are our guys more sexual than other men in other countries????

[shropshire 0]

I heard that women make better fast jet pilots, because (apparently) they tolerate high-G better.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andy_Copland 0]

War is much more psychological than physical. Look at the most decorated American soldier of WW2?

He was 5'5 and 125lbs. He couldnt lift a man and weapons and run 100 yards...

Also you can train people as much as you want but in the end feelings and emotions cant be surpressed for a long period of time, you'd become a shell.

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[Andy_Copland 0]

And i would find that to be very acceptable, i think the simple solution would be to split them up. Im not anti women for joining the forces, i think its a great thing! I just dont think it would work as well being mixed.

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Also you can train people as much as you want but in the end feelings and emotions cant be surpressed for a long period of time, you'd become a shell.

That is why so many people come back from wars... and are no longer whole..... the experience leads MANY to PTSD. A LOT of my generation who went to Vietnam... died there and did not know it till later when they were back in this country.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

> Plain and simple, if a soldier cannot lift a 180 pound man with 70-80
>pounds of gear over their shoulder, manage to grab both of their
>weapons, and run 100 yards then they should not be in combat....
>regardless of sex.

Good idea in theory, but we'd have to bring back the draft to get that to work in practice, because we'd need a MUCH wider assortment of people to pick from.

The USMC uses that practice. At least they did while I was in. No I wasn't drafted.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

He was 5'5 and 125lbs. He couldnt lift a man and weapons and run 100 yards...

He couldn't? Do you have proof of that or are you making an assumption based on his stature?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Andy_Copland 0]

I am making an assumption, but its an educated assumption. Its also irrelivent, e was small, stick skinny and rejected from joining the marines and airborne after failing his medicals for them.

What im trying to get at is how phsycological war is, infact it could even be a good argument for the women if it was proven they could handle more stress than a man (which i have no idea about.)

Its not black and white

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[Plucky 0]

Quote

i think the simple solution would be to split them up. Im not anti women for joining the forces, i think its a great thing! I just dont think it would work as well being mixed.

Do you think separating the genders is a good idea because of:
- The nature of the job?
or
- The fact that it's still male-dominated now?
or ..?

edited for spelling and to say you answered my question in the post above Move along please, nothing to see here.

[Andy_Copland 0]

Quote

Do you think separating the genders is a good idea bacause of:
- The nature of the job?
or
- The fact that it's still male-dominated now?
or ..?

Neither, i just think the male solider would be better able to operate if he wasnt worrying about a women which is in his nature to do, the same guys the other way for the women

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[shropshire 0]

For me it's the uniform

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[downwardspiral 0]

I was 18 years old and 6'1" 160 lbs when i had to do it. Not much difference in stature if you ask me. Also the DI's were pissed at me (seemed like they always were) so I had to do it with the biggest guy in our platoon easily weighing in at 260 lbs with gear. That being said I'm curious about the statment below

Quote

but its an educated assumption.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[Andy_Copland 0]

Well if the Marines required (and airborne) a certain amount of fitness and he failed that? And im assuming being able to do that would be in the criteria.. then you know it kinda makes it clear. Not saying that he never did it in combat but from reading his story i didnt see any acts like that.

Edit: I forgot he was such a sorry weak looking specimen that they also didnt want to give him a combat role in the bog standard infantry

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.

[Andy9o8 2]

Yes, women can and should serve in combat. I have a female relative in the Army who has been in Iraq and her unit was virtually (even if not technically) a combat unit anyway. Are there really any standard "front lines" or "rear areas" there?. Their base would get mortared; they'd drive in convoys in full battle gear through very hostile terrain, etc. Sexual tension is hardly ever much of serious problem, she tells me.

If the draft is reinstated, hell yes women should be eligible alongside men. There are already examples of other countries where they have universal military service for both men and women, and it works just fine.

And yes, women make great fighter pilots. Just look at Battlestar Galactica - the best pilots there were Starbuck and Boomer. There's your proof right there.

[Andy_Copland 0]

Quote

I was 18 years old and 6'1" 160 lbs. Not much difference in stature if you ask me.

I think thats a pretty fucking big enough differance, also the kid was thought to be 17 as he lied about his age.

1338

People aint made of nothin' but water and shit.

Until morale improves, the beatings will continue.