Should women fight in war? (on the frontlines) page 19

832 posts

Flag Post

In all seriousness, if we could use trained war bears, we wouldn’t remove them just because a few idiots on our side can do nothing but stare at them and get shot.

 
Flag Post

I’m willing to risk lives, yes. My own included, for practices and procedures to be put into place, to find those soldiers whose decision making ability is that badly compromised, and remove them from battlespace entirely.


Originally posted by WwarMmachine:

In all seriousness, if we could use trained war bears, we wouldn’t remove them just because a few idiots on our side can do nothing but stare at them and get shot.

Thanks for the laugh. It’s also extremely apt, and true.

 
Flag Post

Vika

And let them have a death on their conscience for something that is essentially out of their control, even though they were very good soldiers before women interaction.

I can’t help but think this is more than a front line discussion to you but more of a fact ‘lets target those who cannot function as well around women’ – now who’s discriminating.

I presented you a very reasonable option that I think the military should consider and what would work well without any risks and yet you want more than that. It isn’t about front line service anymore.

I’m not trying to be rude but it seems to me you’re veering this way and like you to come back on to topic. – front line service.

EDIT: Provide me some evidence that the solution I proposed wouldn’t work.

 
Flag Post

living, on the contrary, it is very much about front line service, and integration rather than segregation. Equal rights for equal ability, not separate-but-equal rights for equal ability.

If one of these men who cannot think straight round women, is confronted by an angry civilian woman, he is going to suffer the self same loss of decision making ability he would if there was a woman serving in his unit. That is very likely to lead to someone being killed who did not have to be – whether friendly or civilian.

So these people are going to face women on duty whether they like it or not. You have three options:

1. Forcibly evacuate every civilian female in the target area, and place them in concentration facilities until the war effort is over – that would go over so well with the local population, don’t you agree?

2. Accept that these men have compromised decision making capabilities, and are going to break down in any confrontation that involves even the sight of females. As a result you are going to get heightened unnecessary casualties of both civilians and your own men. Accept this.

3. Kick the individuals with compromised decision making capabilities off of the front lines, and replace them with competent soldiers of any gender, whose decision making process does not fail completely at the sight of a pretty face or body.

I favor option 3. You seem to be most in favor of option 1; that females need to be removed from the theatre of operations in order to ensure the men remember how adults should behave.

As you said before, you are insulting men. I have much more faith in their ability to exert self-control than you do, at least in the majority of cases. Those that cannot find the ability to get their mind off of sex when they are being shot at, should not be there to endanger the lives of those who can.

 
Flag Post

Vika

It seems that either I have been unclear or you have misunderstood me. These men I am talking about that will have an affect state of decision making are not some vulnerable little boy who will fall to pieces at the sight of a woman.

When confronting a civilian woman – they are not part of the team they are working in so affected decision making will not come into play here. The experiments explain it is not just the mere presence of women it is when they have an impact or involvement in the work that they are doing. Civilian women wouldn’t be seen as this.

I said ‘if anything I’m insulting men’ and it’s not all men that will be affected by this, as I also stated, it would be the minority. It’s not specifically about sex it’s about the in-built attitude of men to protect women as a prirority. You observe a few military speeches or interviews with soldiers about what they serve for, I GUARANTEE that you will find in some of them something along the lines of ‘they are protecting to serve the country and the women and children in it’.

I am agreeing with the fact that women should fight on the front line but just not with men out of risk factor. What does it matter if they serve with men or not, essentially all they will be as a front liner is a body with a gun. (not in a harsh way, I respect all those that are out there, I am merely saying that it is not being discriminating at all to make all females serve together ON THE FRONT LINE and all men separate).

If you cannot find any examples of military motivational speeches including anything along them lines then I will (because I found a few earlier). But for now I am going to sleep.

Thank you for the debate though I have enjoyed it and it has opened my mind a bit more on the whole equality thing, however you haven’t convinced me yet to go along with the idea of women serving directly next to men along the front line. So I will continue this with you tomorrow.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:

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.

Sigh. This hurts.
1. The test setting included a direct focusing of attention(1) of the male on to being the center piece of direct observation(2) of an unknown female(3) during first meeting(4), while preforming an otherwise for the male totally unimportant task(5) with no physical component(6). Totally different from front line duty in 6 individually(!!!) very important aspects of the test setting.
2. This test was is not checked against any other factors. Meaning it just observes the difference between a male and female observer under the specific(not front line) conditions and it does not show how strong the impairment is compared to other factors of daily life. For example being observed by someone who has an actual known and just not an instinctively felt chance to effect, observation by different known females/males, performing a critical task with outcome directly having a potential to effect the future/life of the test taker.
3. Luckly one of your source does take note of this fact:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-interacting-with-woman-leave-man-cognitively-impaired
Sadly you can only find it on page two. So i will quote:

Jennifer Richeson and Nicole Shelton found that Caucasian Americans who hold stronger racial prejudices face similar cognitive impairments after interacting with somebody who is African American. In these situations, individuals who hold strong prejudices must try hard to come across as not prejudiced. In a different study, Richeson and her colleagues found that less privileged students at elite universities experience similar cognitive impairments after being observed by their wealthier peers.

Using your logic, the mixture of different people serving front line duty already includes the supposed “risks”. So the soldiers should be separated by sex, physical traits as well as religious, social, economical and military standing to minimize the possible Risk.


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.

lol mode on: Just make the females the officers and let them make the decions. They in general already preform better at most mental tasks involving important decisions, they are mentally and emotionally more resistant to effects that would lessen their ability to preform mental tasks(as your own sources show).
They also lower the ability of male soldiers under their command to resit suicide orders(got to impress and protect the ladies) and boost the male soldiers physical capabilities(yeay more testosterone). /lol mode off

Seriously if there was a substantial risk that could somehow be shown to be significant, the military forces that were forced by court rulings to let females preform front line duties would have found evidence for that by know. Same if the effect of blacks/gays in front line duty(which your source say lead to similar reactions by closet bigots) was such a risk.
When motivation and resources meet but even after years can provide no substantial evidence, the risk accusation becomes a rather silly stance to base legislation on.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:

When confronting a civilian woman – they are not part of the team they are working in so affected decision making will not come into play here. The experiments explain it is not just the mere presence of women it is when they have an impact or involvement in the work that they are doing. Civilian women wouldn’t be seen as this.

WTF. One of the sources you linked made it expressively clear, that the women(who did not actually even exist) involved were not only unknown first time encounters over a one sided web cams with 0 interaction but that the males would not even get to meet them in person EVER.
The study also showed that just the information/false claim that women would be observing a task later(!) made males perform worse when performing the current(!) task. So just thinking about a possible future encounter was enough.

 
Flag Post

in the first page there were alot of

If they want to, sure! Let them fight!

but i dont see many people acknowledging that men are also drafted into the military where women arnt drafted at all

I think women should be drafted too.
but i know that modern day governments (especially the US) are just not ready for that.
maybe in about 15-25 years this will come true.

 
Flag Post

Men don’t menstruate. This could be unpredictable and problematic on the field of battle.
There will always be national despondency over a female P.O.W. or M.I.A. and it will ALWAYS make the news.

It’s too easy to turn this into a women’s rights issue without considering the undeniable differences between men and women.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

Men don’t menstruate. This could be unpredictable and problematic on the field of battle.

If you just had your first period, maybe.

It’s too easy to turn this into a women’s rights issue without considering the undeniable differences between men and women.

But do those differences actually matter enough to not allow women on the front lines?

 
Flag Post

Is it even worth pointing out that the menstral cycle can be completely suppressed, if you have such an issue with it? Just don’t take the placebo pills. Some women do. Some don’t. It can be good to make sure everything is still working.

Even so, unless you have a heavy period, it’s nothing you can’t just work through, no different to any other day. It’s a bit like claiming a tummyache makes a man too poorly to do any work.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by Azolf:

Men don’t menstruate. This could be unpredictable and problematic on the field of battle.

If you just had your first period, maybe.

It’s too easy to turn this into a women’s rights issue without considering the undeniable differences between men and women.

But do those differences actually matter enough to not allow women on the front lines?

You fancy yourself a master debater. I’m going to have to agree with that assessment.

Jokes aside. Men and women are different. They are different psychologically. They are different emotionally. They are different genetically. And as humanity currently stands, they are different socially.

It’s easy to pretend that men and women are equal behind a computer, because in most ways they are, but put a woman in danger in the company of men and they simply are not going to be able to think strategically. It puts a commanding officer in a compromising position, they are always going to be ‘looking out for the girl’

And if the commanding officer is a girl, the men in her company are going to be overly concerned about her well being. It’s a horror show that will endanger lives.

The U.S. fights in countries where woman are treated like cattle. America won’t stand for the rape and impregnation of it’s soldiers. It’s too barbaric.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

You fancy yourself a master debater.

I do?

Jokes aside. Men and women are different. They are different psychologically. They are different emotionally. They are different genetically. And as humanity currently stands, they are different socially.

Yes, but the big question still stands: is the difference big enough to matter?

It’s easy to pretend that men and women are equal behind a computer, because in most ways they are, but put a woman in danger in the company of men and they simply are not going to be able to think strategically.

And, prey tell, just how do you know this?

It puts a commanding officer in a compromising position, they are always going to be ‘looking out for the girl’

And if the commanding officer is a girl, the men in her company are going to be overly concerned about her well being. It’s a horror show that will endanger lives.

Again, do you have anything more than your words backing you up on this?

The U.S. fights in countries where woman are treated like cattle. America won’t stand for the rape and impregnation of it’s soldiers. It’s too barbaric.

Came a little out of left-field, didn’t it?

Wait… Oh, goddammit.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Look, no matter the gender of the soldiers, war is war. It’s still people going out and dying for some cause they were told to believe in. War. War never changes.

 
Flag Post

I really don’t understand why there must be a huge argument over this. If the women can pass the same test that the men pass, then why not let them serve on the frontlines?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Geenf11:
War. War never changes.

Heh. Fallout.

Heh. References.


Originally posted by javasully:

I really don’t understand why there must be a huge argument over this. If the women can pass the same test that the men pass, then why not let them serve on the frontlines?

Because tits are distracting… Or something.

 
Flag Post

the thing is, while there squad mates might try to protect them more.
The enemy might do so to…
And you can train your squad…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by CrowbarOfJustice:

in the first page there were alot of

If they want to, sure! Let them fight!

but i dont see many people acknowledging that men are also drafted into the military where women arnt drafted at all

I think women should be drafted too.
but i know that modern day governments (especially the US) are just not ready for that.
maybe in about 15-25 years this will come true.

yes thank you. all this crying about how women may not be allowed in some military functions, when men can be forced to.

which is worse? not being allowed to choose some forms of risking your life killing others at the whim of corrupt governments; or being forced to risk your life killing others at the whim of corrupt governments?

that’s “feminism” for ya. the last thing they stand for is gender equality.

and the reason men have a more difficult time making tough decisions when women are involved is the way women always demand priviliges in normal life. “ew, i can’t be expected to do that” is the basic attitude of women regarding any physically exerting or dirty non-routine work. that’s what men have to live with day by day.
by having women in the military you force men to deprogram just that programming you force on them in normal life.

of course, i’m not a sexist no matter what people think, i just see society as it is. if you really wanna be like that, i’ll tell you men are just the same, in saddling women up with other types of job that they feel themselves above.

i’m not a sexist, i’m just a realist. but you can’t blame men for having adjusted to a sexist society you’re a part of too.
feminists are the real sexists. hence the name.

 
Flag Post

“Tits are distracting.” -Tenco1

Joke or not, you hit the nail on the head. Case closed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

And that exactly why we should never let gay guys in the military… Or exactly why we should only let them in the military.

 
Flag Post

Omega, the role of a feminist is to dissolve gender boundaries. Make things as equal as possible for both sexes, and fight for the rights of both. If you are going to use a word, at least check what it stands for before you use it.

A militant feminist is as much an oxymoron as a militant athiest. I suspect you have just been talking to people who claim they know what a feminist is, then proceed to shit all over the perspective. Please don’t tar everyone with that same brush.

 
Flag Post

Omega, the role of a feminist is to dissolve gender boundaries.

Unfortunately the term will always be associated in some people’s (men’s?) minds with the stoney-faced harridans with cast-iron knickers and no sense of humour who used to proclaim in strident voices that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. It’s a bitch, that one, isn’t it?

 
Flag Post

It is really, but the people who refuse to change with the times, are the ones who are their own worst enemy. They fail to grasp that a true feminist organisation will fight for a man’s rights just as hard as they’ll fight for a woman’s, because the goal of feminism is equality for all.

 
Flag Post

Why not let women fight on the frontlines. When fighting a war your fighting for a common goal. Such as for your people,freedom,etc. It shouldn’t matter on your gender.