Should women fight in war? (on the frontlines) page 18

832 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:

I’ll bring it a little closer to home BSG. The colorado shooting, 3 men died protecting
women.

Alright, you may have not noticed this, but a movie theater isn’t the same as a war-zone. At all.

Here is some more examples to prove that women have an impact on male performance:
http://www.science20.com/rogue_neuron/blog/effect_women_have_men
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200905/interacting-women-makes-men-stupid

They have real scientific journals behind those articles if you wish to read them

You’re forgetting one major thing in all of this: This is the military, not a bar.

 
Flag Post

tenco

I guess you didn’t read the journals did you – please do this first.

I was merely providing an example of where men have protected women in gunfire, unfortunately I cannot give you an example in a war-zone because women aren’t allowed on the front line.

And please answer with evidence against this rather than ‘This is the military, not a bar’. I did, now you provide counter evidence rather than mere opinion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:

tenco

I guess you didn’t read the journals did you – please do this first.

I already did, when you first posted them.

I was merely providing an example of where men have protected women in gunfire,

And I’m also pretty sure that civilians are not going to act quite the same as military (wo)men.

unfortunately I cannot give you an example in a war-zone because women aren’t allowed on the front line.

And this is where your argument starts to fall apart.

<

And please answer with evidence against this rather than ‘This is the military, not a bar’. I did, now you provide counter evidence rather than mere opinion.

I did, I said that we were talking about the military, where you have to go through a shit-ton of training and discipline before you can actually serve, and with this training and discipline comes an outlook in a firefight than when a civilian gets into a firefight, plus even if there would be problems (though ask me this, if you’re in a firefight, which would you care about more, if the person next to you is a woman, or if they can still shoot?) the training regimen would be changed to make sure that doesn’t happen.

 
Flag Post

Livingrival, you would also have to provide examples of where men have protected men from gunfire by shielding them with their bodies, and examples of where a woman protects a man from gunfire by shielding him with her body.

What you are describing is not the one-sided view of a man automatically shielding a woman, but rather that of an individual of any gender, trying to protect someone they love.

 
Flag Post

vika

That’s the thing I cannot find any examples of women protecting men from gunfire (not saying there isn’t) and there have been cases in wars where another man has shielded another from gunfire.

I used the Colorado example as a statement, as I was making a general point on women effecting behavior of men, I further backed this up with two articles describing psychology experiments that have proved that women influence behavior of men, these articles also do provide links to the actual journals themselves.

Here is another article (based on experiment) providing evidence that women can leave men cognitively impaired
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-interacting-with-woman-leave-man-cognitively-impaired

Tenco

If military have to go through a shit tonne of training a discipline then I admire your faith in them – I’d like to further add there is such thing as military police – even the military don’t trust their discipline – this is where your argument falls apart. Mine doesn’t however because you are only speculating, I am providing you with actual studies.

 
Flag Post

Then that is a problem the men must address within themselves. My rights must not be restricted by what makes an unrelated third party most comfortable.

After all, if we did that, then segregation should still exist, as blacks in places where ‘they ought not to be’ had a measurable derogative effect on the white folk around them, as they could not concentrate on their tasks without keeping an eye on the black.

It is perhaps an extreme example, but it is the same basic idea. The psychological problems of a third party are not somethiing to use to strip rights away from me, or from any of you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Then that is a problem the men must address within themselves. My rights must not be restricted by what makes an unrelated third party most comfortable.

Aha! This is something I do agree with you on….but unrealistic.

I do believe women have a right to serve on the front line, but the problem that underlies it is greater.

Same as stereotyping really, you can have a person saying ‘I have no problem with hoodies, it is just a fashion’ but when they see a bunch of them at night their opinion may sway a little or even a lot.

You can try and reinforce it but it tends to be second nature to men, built into us, as these experiments I presented prove.

 
Flag Post

Then one potential solution is to analyse the performance of all friendly participants of the battlespace environment, and tag those who are unable to keep their eye on the ball, for methods to increase their self concentration.

If nothing else, temporarily removing the libedo of our soldiers would be a way forwards. By removing or restricting the sex dive, you neatly sidestep the whole issue.

I do refuse to accept that it is unrrealistic to expect equality, because a man is unable to control his own urges, and so my rights must be stripped back, to protect him from himself. That is a situation that is completely untenable.

 
Flag Post

Vika

I think it is unrealistic to expect equality. Not everyone has the same mindset. Maybe if as a society we keep promoting it and eventually breed out these judgmental people (a miracle) then its a possibility, but in reality we have to deal with todays society.

Or maybe a compromise…a women’s military? I’m not denying that they couldn’t serve on the front line then, just with males I’m denying they could. But with military cutbacks and government funding as it is. Right now, do you even think that is possible?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:

Vika

I think it is unrealistic to expect equality.

There we may have to agree to disagree. It is one of the core concepts I continually fight for.

But with military cutbacks and government funding as it is. Right now, do you even think that is possible?

Yea, I do. There is an increased push these days for a robotic fighting force, for the political benefits such brings – fewer soldiers lives are placed at risk, and the military benefits it brings – enhanced capabilities, enhanced reaction times. This is the perfect time to push for an inclusion, as we’re adding so much hardware into the situation anyway.

As your articles show, men are too easily distracted. So, if we require a human element to a tactical situation, we have another option available for the control pilot of a bigdog swarm.

 
Flag Post

Vika

A lot of people fight for equality (including myself) but I personally believe that (in my lifetime) I will not see this achieved throughout the world.

If there is a more robotic fighting force then doesn’t that mean less people on the front line as it is (if any in the future) and women aren’t denied access into the military, a lot of them do serve in every area but the front line.

 
Flag Post

Yea, I know, but how would you feel, if it was decided unilaterally that you were not allowed to fight on the front lines because of your penis? Nevermind what your actual capabilities are, nevermind how damn good you are, its your penis that means you cannot fight, because it makes a couple of the other people in your unit uncomfortable, so to make them happier, your penis has to be removed from the front line. Unfortunately, because you are attached to it, you have to go as well. Does that sound fair to you?

Every victory we make for equality is worthwhile. It doesn’t matter whether we’ll live to get them all or not. Every one is worth it.

 
Flag Post

Vika

Personally I’d just accept it. It is like the big story that arose a while ago, a man was denied into the American military because he refused to take his turban off even though that was part of his religion. But it is a safety risk which they are not willing to take, just like women serving next to men on the front line is a safety risk. It is about damage prevention rather than damage control.

But as I explained earlier, if they made a female military then maybe that could work. But as it is right now it just couldn’t. I think you should focus more on that option rather than the option of them serving alongside men on the front line. Wouldn’t that solution be just as satisfying?

 
Flag Post

An all female military is as bad an idea as an all-male military. You are denying yourself access to tactical resources which could be very handy. Same logic as to why we use different vehicles in combat rather than just having endless rows of all the same thing. Different strengths, different weaknesses.

You do need a mix in order to have the best tool for the job.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:

Vika

Personally I’d just accept it. It is like the big story that arose a while ago, a man was denied into the American military because he refused to take his turban off even though that was part of his religion. But it is a safety risk which they are not willing to take, just like women serving next to men on the front line is a safety risk. It is about damage prevention rather than damage control.

You got any scientific sources to back up not having a penis is a security risk. And i don´t mean opinion pieces of some dickheads who claim to not be able to concentrate when a person without a penis is around, because of the emotional challenge this presents.

 
Flag Post

Johnny

I have provided scientific experiments if you would like to read them first.

To deny that social psychology doesn’t exist or has an impact on interaction is just ignorant.

Vika

Sorry I’ll rephrase it, an all female regiment that doesn’t interact face-to-face with male regiments on the front line. I don’t see a problem with that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:


Sorry I’ll rephrase it, an all female regiment that doesn’t interact face-to-face with male regiments on the front line. I don’t see a problem with that.

If this unit is not interacting with regiments that might possibly contain males, then its not on the front lines. Kinda completely defeats the purpose.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:

Johnny

I have provided scientific experiments if you would like to read them first.

To deny that social psychology doesn’t exist or has an impact on interaction is just ignorant.

Considering that denying social psychology would mean deny the basis basis of by Job, Company and Academic Education, it would not cross my mind to do so.
What i do doubt is that the links you have provided so far prove that women on the front line are a security risk. Not only do your source not compare the emotional “stress” being in the presences of a women can cause with other everyday stuff like, being in the presence of a superior, facing a significantly challenging situations and so. But they also do not show that emotional reactions are significantly negative when it comes to important decisions, some of the emotional reactions could actually lead to better performance on the front line.

Nations like my own that have women preforming front line duties have so far not found any evidence for women on the front line being a security risk and certainly not because of not trying to do so(in almost all of the nations the military bureaucracy fought tooth and nails against allowing women serve as Soldiers).

 
Flag Post

Vika

It doesn’t defeat the purpose at all, they would still interact with other males on the front line through communication, difference being is that it would be an all female company in face-to-face terms, unless this is a concept of actually being in the presence of males rather than serving on the front line itself.

Johnny

One of the experiments showed that whilst a male was told that he was being observed by a female actually performed poorly than when they were told they were being observed by a male. This showed that the male was unable to perform their best and make logical decisions better whilst under female observation. (Which is what males would be if they were serving on the front line). And on the front line soldiers are required to constantly be able to perform their best logically and make rash decisions when under pressure.

I’m not saying it is a definite case that women will hinder males making important decisions but due to experiments the risk is there, by eliminating the risk they are not leaving it down to chance of whether that situation will occur. – hence the security risk accusation. Not all male soldiers think the same way, if by chance a situation did occur like that down to possibility then a catastrophe could occur. I understand the military not wanting soldiers to die over something that can be prevented. They do what’s in the best interest of human lives.

 
Flag Post

Your comparison to the turban reveals your fallacious thinking, and is exactly what I used to think. If we eliminate any shadow of a doubt whether a woman, man, or anyone can perform the duties than they should be able to. If the standard of the military happens to be difficult for women by their inability to meet a certain performance level, some women will inevitably still make the cut. If you just say women cannot join the military, you’re arbitrarily excluding them, and a large potential group of soldiers. I would agree, and argue it’s a matter of safety and not rights when there’s basic standards that must be met (like actually determining whether soldiers are less cognizant instead of just assuming they are like you did based on incredibly stupid evidence as has already been shown to be incredibly silly) but when you automatically and arbitrarily define a group as not being able to do something, it’s a prejudice.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:

Vika

It doesn’t defeat the purpose at all, they would still interact with other males on the front line through communication, difference being is that it would be an all female company in face-to-face terms, unless this is a concept of actually being in the presence of males rather than serving on the front line itself.

That does seem to be what you are saying, yes. That the presence of a woman on the front lines, either as a combatant or a noncom, is going to adversely affect our male soldiers’ performance, as they cannot think with both brains at the same time.

So as I point out, your ‘solution’ to have an all female military that is not permitted to engage with males (which means males of either side), and effectively creates a demilitarized zone around them where our males are not allowed to enter (or our females have to move en-masse if a male does move towards them), for the two connecting would cause the men to lose control of themselves in the presence of females.

To be honest, I’m not even really sure where to begin deconstructing this nonsense.

 
Flag Post

BSG

I didn’t claim that women had the inability to serve on the front line….. A blatent misconception. I stated that MEN are UNABLE to perform their best around women in some cases when making decisions. In fact I am probably insulting men here rather than women.

Vika

The women would still contact males over radio, they would just be based in different zones. I didn’t say that men will automatically lose control but the select few of those would not be able to make decisions thus putting the risk of others in danger. I’m talking about collaboration rather than opposition, who cares that the enemies are males, their decisions aren’t what matter to the military that is fighting them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:

I didn’t say that men will automatically lose control but the select few of those would not be able to make decisions thus putting the risk of others in danger.

Ah. Then that’s even simpler, and cases like those are what the military police exist for. Pull them from active duty. If they can’t do the job, they shouldn’t be out there. There’s no reason to penalise others for their problems.

They are going to encounter civilian females in the course of operations, if their decision making process is that easy to compromise, they are already presenting a clear and present danger to the unit.

The women would still contact males over radio, they would just be based in different zones.

You are still creating segregation zones, which will for obvious reasons, have no friendly soldiers in them. That idea of segregation on the battlefield is not going to work, as you are only weakening your own front. Besides, have you seen the chaos of a forward push? Troops get scattered all over the place, specifically when it all goes to hell (and I got to pick up what was left sigh)

 
Flag Post

I’m surprised this is still being discussed.

 
Flag Post

Vika

But its not just going to be 1 or 2 of those in the front line, yes it will still be a minority but it will be a lot of them and for the military police to pull them out of duty they have to see evidence for this – accidents. Are you willing to risk human lives for that or would you settle for the separate regiment idea. In my opinion I’d rather save a valuable life over equality.

Erm… there are separate regiments as there is – doesn’t create segregation at all, they would all still have a home base and interact but when actually serving out on the front line they would be separated, just like the males are anyway.