Should women fight in war? (on the frontlines) page 27

831 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Geenf11:

The amount of stupidity going on in this thread is slowly sapping my sanity.
Look: It doesn’t matter about strength or gender: If you pull the trigger, bullets come out of the gun and kill people they hit. There’s no need for any sort of discrimination in the armed forces, it doesn’t matter who it is pulling the trigger or getting the trigger pulled on them. And to get past training, they HAVE to be fit both physically and psychologically for combat. Durr. If women want to go out and die for their country as well as men, so be it. War doesn’t care. War never cares.

to not send women is stupidity. Most of our population is made of women. By not tapping into that human body of resources; we are merely giving ourselves unnessecary limitations. As Geen pointed out, women can pull triggers like men, and they have to pass the same tests anyways. So they are all equal and give us more people to fight; which is an advantage that other countries may not have cuz some of them are quite sexist still and so lose out on this potential.

 
Flag Post

Look at the injuries that female wrestlers sustain, as opposed to male wrestlers. That’s one of the big things that nobody notices; women have weaker structures than men. Menstruation is and always will be an issue for women. There is also going to always be a psychological aspect when you’re putting women on the front line, I’m sure that this thread has a post saying this on all 27 pages now, but nobody wants to see a dead woman on the ground, much less wounded substantially. Typically, when someone is deployed with a new unit, they are given the shittiest job possible; squad machine gunner. I never carried it because I was only allowed to use “defensive” weapons, but the guy I walked with was carrying 200lb+ of gun and equipment on him, and there was a lot to be asked of him. After having been through AIT and BCT with a bunch of women, I honestly can say that if they aren’t sterilized before entering the military (they probably won’t ever be) there will always be cases of pregnancies in the military. I used to walk around the FOB at night on “patrol” looking for people having sex in the latrines. Women are valuable when it comes to dealing with pressure and other factors, but men are more powerful of a tool when it comes to being on the front lines. There are plenty of jobs that they could be of use of and every job in the military is important.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

Menstruation is and always will be an issue for women.

I would recommend speaking to a person with a medical qualification – which you clearly do not have after making such a statement. The menstral cycle is piss easy to stop with modern medication. The standard pill cycle has 20 active pills and 8 placebos in the strip. The placebos are taken so as to not interrupt the habit of taking a pill a day.

If the standard pill is taken continually, the hormone cocktail inside will prevent the lining from thickening in the first place. The period never occurs and the menstraul cycle never occurs. It is put on indefinate hold. You can do the same thing with an implanted pump if you wish to prevent any chance of failure.

but nobody wants to see a dead woman on the ground, much less wounded substantially.

Whereas nobody gives a shit if a man in the squad dies? Just walk on by, leave the stupid thing to rot. Nothing to see here folks, just walk on. Men are two a penny and easy to replace. We’ll pump another one out and if he dies, tough break. Let’s have a beer and play ‘kick the corpse’. Right?

After having been through AIT and BCT with a bunch of women, I honestly can say that if they aren’t sterilized before entering the military (they probably won’t ever be) there will always be cases of pregnancies in the military.

Why then do we not forcibly sterilize every man in the military? If what you are saying is true and the sex drive is out of control and causes problems, that would surely be an excellent solution. An intense blast from a targetted gamma ray irradicator the same as is done for canned food, would kill every cell in the region permanently. If we sterilized every troop on the ground of both sexes (rather than just the females as you are proposing) it would solve the problem wouldn’t it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

Menstruation is and always will be an issue for women.

I would recommend speaking to a person with a medical qualification – which you clearly do not have after making such a statement. The menstral cycle is piss easy to stop with modern medication. The standard pill cycle has 20 active pills and 8 placebos in the strip. The placebos are taken so as to not interrupt the habit of taking a pill a day.

If the standard pill is taken continually, the hormone cocktail inside will prevent the lining from thickening in the first place. The period never occurs and the menstraul cycle never occurs. It is put on indefinate hold. You can do the same thing with an implanted pump if you wish to prevent any chance of failure.

but nobody wants to see a dead woman on the ground, much less wounded substantially.

Whereas nobody gives a shit if a man in the squad dies? Just walk on by, leave the stupid thing to rot. Nothing to see here folks, just walk on. Men are two a penny and easy to replace. We’ll pump another one out and if he dies, tough break. Let’s have a beer and play ‘kick the corpse’. Right?

After having been through AIT and BCT with a bunch of women, I honestly can say that if they aren’t sterilized before entering the military (they probably won’t ever be) there will always be cases of pregnancies in the military.

Why then do we not forcibly sterilize every man in the military? If what you are saying is true and the sex drive is out of control and causes problems, that would surely be an excellent solution. An intense blast from a targetted gamma ray irradicator the same as is done for canned food, would kill every cell in the region permanently. If we sterilized every troop on the ground of both sexes (rather than just the females as you are proposing) it would solve the problem wouldn’t it?

Man don’t have to put up with 9 months of puking

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Man don’t have to put up with 9 months of puking

Because a lot of women are going to be pregnant while on duty?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Man don’t have to put up with 9 months of puking

Because a lot of women are going to be pregnant while on duty?

Plenty of women do end up pregnant while in service.

And Vika, do you realize how hard it is to get medication into the military, as well as maintain a system of handing that medication out to every single female on the front lines? Shit, we’re not opening up pharmacies on the side of the roads over there. As for your comment about seeing a woman die vs seeing a man die, while both are unsettling I’ve met the opinion of plenty of other people on the front lines who would more than agree with me on the fact that seeing a dead woman is more nerve-racking. Go ahead and sterilize everyone in the military, I have no objections, but men aren’t screwing each other when the women aren’t around.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

And Vika, do you realize how hard it is to get medication into the military, as well as maintain a system of handing that medication out to every single female on the front lines?

True.

God forbid you do it the sensible way and use an implant mandated by the army when they sign up.

The common argument made by those arguing against females in the military is that male soldiers cannot control themselves, and will screw anything they find whilst on the front lines – civilians are fair game, so female soldiers would be even more so. Thus before you inevitably use that in your arguments, I will say again, the solution to that would be mandatory forced permanent sterilisation of both sexes as part of basic training. If you ensure that none of our soldiers have a sex drive, you avoid the problem all together, whilst simultaneously increasing their attention on the job at hand.

 
Flag Post

Give them condoms and tampons. PROBLEM SOLVED.

 
Flag Post

Everybody has a sex drive over there, I know from personal experience. Not once did I encounter rape, but moreso seduction as well as some small relationships that people drove. Sterilization would occur in MEPS though, that is before you are 100% committed for military service as well as where you are looked over, given background checks, documents, etc. BCT just trains on how to use different weapons and other basic means of survival. Like I said, I walked the FOB at night looking for people screwing in the latrines, so there is plenty of sex occurring in the military. I steered far away from female crowds in BCT / AIT unlike fellow recruits who were even caught having sex.

 
Flag Post

Then drum the ones that are having sex on duty, out of the military. Dishonorable discharge. The gays will be doing it just as much as the straights.

There is absolutely no reason to punish someone for what they have not done, but could plausibly one day do.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Then drum the ones that are having sex on duty, out of the military. Dishonorable discharge. The gays will be doing it just as much as the straights.

There is absolutely no reason to punish someone for what they have not done, but could plausibly one day do.

I don’t know what you mean by punishment towards things that have not been done yet. Could you elaborate?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

I don’t know what you mean by punishment towards things that have not been done yet. Could you elaborate?

She means the punishment of not letting women into the military because they may or may not have snu-snu with someone.

 
Flag Post

You are punishing women by denying us the right to serve in a combat situation, because some of us could plausibly have sex. Since a man will not have sex unless there is a woman around (even if he is gay, apparently), one gender has to be punished because of the possibility they might one day commit the crinme.

Guilty unless proven innocent and all that jazz.

So we have to decide which gender arbitrarily to punish. There are currently more men than women in the military so we’ll decide men are more valuable as army employees than women. It doesn’t matter how capable the individual is. Even if they can outperform the men in the unit in every training exercise and is a sharpshooter with skills bordering on the supernatural, the fact that she is a woman means we must punish her for being a woman, and we must absolutely, with malicious intent, prevent her from gaining any active combat role. Mustn’t have women in combat. She must be coddled and protected. Wrapped in cotton wool as a precious china doll, and kept away from the fighting, precisely because of her sex.

Any other abilities are completely secondary concerns. It is her sex, and only her sex which makes her completely unfit for service.

THAT mass above is EXACTLY what I mean by punishment for things you have not done. You are being punished for what you are, not who you are. Your skills don’t matter if you were born with the wrong set of genetalia.

THAT attitude is what I’m against. What is so wrong with judging each individual’s merits on a case by case basis? Look past their birth status, their gender, their socio-economic class or their race. Judge each individual’s capability for service on the capabilities of that individual.

What is so wrong with that?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

I don’t know what you mean by punishment towards things that have not been done yet. Could you elaborate?

She means the punishment of not letting women into the military because they may or may not have snu-snu with someone.

I wouldn’t say that is punishment, and women are encouraged to join the military. I know a pretty damn smart girl who scored a 98% on her ASVAB and is going to be a nuclear engineer for the navy after a few years of training. I’d be glad if the army looked out for me and said I couldn’t be in a combat-oriented job because I potentially could open myself up to a relationship and other things. But that’s not to say women don’t serve in combat, but instead of being an infantry*man* they could have a different MOS (68W, perhaps) that operates in a combat environment.

Anyway, I haven’t had my argument against body structure countered. How shocking that it was looked over.

 
Flag Post
Anyway, I haven’t had my argument against body structure countered. How shocking that it was looked over.

Because it doesn’t apply. Your argument is based on denying women access to the front lines, period. Thus even if the woman has a heavy duty combat exoskeleton permanently wielded to her upper body, and can bench-press a tank, she will be denied service in an infantry position, because her genetalia are the wrong way round to qualify.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Anyway, I haven’t had my argument against body structure countered. How shocking that it was looked over.

Because it doesn’t apply. Your argument is based on denying women access to the front lines, period. Thus even if the woman has a heavy duty combat exoskeleton permanently wielded to her upper body, and can bench-press a tank, she will be denied service in an infantry position, because her genetalia are the wrong way round to qualify.

What the fuck? I seriously hope that was deliberately a foolish post made by you. I am not simply saying “NO, DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT GENITALIA,” but if that is how you interpret my argument then I suppose we could just terminate it.

 
Flag Post

It’s a retarded argument because other countries (ie. Canada) have women serving in active combat roles, including submarines, with no catastrophic problems. If we can do it, so can the US; they’re just too damn pig-headed, hence the endless bullshit arguments about pregnancy and weight class.

 
Flag Post

What the fuck? I seriously hope that was deliberately a foolish post made by you.

No, I was basing it on your argument. Your entire argument has been that we cannot allow women to serve on the front lines, because women have an inbuilt reproductive system, and a man might have sex with her and get her pregnant. Therefore it would be better to ban women from the front lines.

Thus your entire argument is entirely about us having an inappropriate reproductive system for military combat.

What you are then in fact saying is whatever skills the woman has, however damn good she is at killing the enemy, she is still a woman, and could potentially get pregnant from having sex with another soldier, so its best she is excluded from the combat zone, y’know, for her own protection and all that rot.

The skeletal framework issues and upper body musculature issues are a complete non-starter, because we don’t lower the bar any. If a woman wishes an infantry position, she must meet the same damn physical standard the men do. That is possible. It is harder for us to build up muscle mass, but it is indeed possible. Our joints, especially at the hip are hinged differently, but all that means is our bodies must move in slightly different ways to accomplish the torque needed for the same tasks – we can still achieve them, still carry as much if we’ve trained and built our bodies up.

The women who will have an interest in such positions, will understand the requirements, and build themselves up accordingly. Excluding them because of their gender is completely foolhardy. You are denying yourself access to good soldiers, talented soldiers, for no good reason.

 
Flag Post

You’re right, Vika. It has been entirely up to me to decide whether or not women serve on the front lines and I have been a stubborn ass. Yeah, I have been denying myself access to good, talented, soldiers. But what makes a soldier “good” or “talented”? The training they receive in BCT and AIT dictate that not, their gender.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

What the fuck? I seriously hope that was deliberately a foolish post made by you.

No, I was basing it on your argument. Your entire argument has been that we cannot allow women to serve on the front lines, because women have an inbuilt reproductive system, and a man might have sex with her and get her pregnant. Therefore it would be better to ban women from the front lines.

Thus your entire argument is entirely about us having an inappropriate reproductive system for military combat.

What you are then in fact saying is whatever skills the woman has, however damn good she is at killing the enemy, she is still a woman, and could potentially get pregnant from having sex with another soldier, so its best she is excluded from the combat zone, y’know, for her own protection and all that rot.

The skeletal framework issues and upper body musculature issues are a complete non-starter, because we don’t lower the bar any. If a woman wishes an infantry position, she must meet the same damn physical standard the men do. That is possible. It is harder for us to build up muscle mass, but it is indeed possible. Our joints, especially at the hip are hinged differently, but all that means is our bodies must move in slightly different ways to accomplish the torque needed for the same tasks – we can still achieve them, still carry as much if we’ve trained and built our bodies up.

The women who will have an interest in such positions, will understand the requirements, and build themselves up accordingly. Excluding them because of their gender is completely foolhardy. You are denying yourself access to good soldiers, talented soldiers, for no good reason.

I’m sure enemy combatants will love to capture your women then.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

You’re right, Vika. It has been entirely up to me to decide whether or not women serve on the front lines and I have been a stubborn ass. Yeah, I have been denying myself access to good, talented, soldiers. But what makes a soldier “good” or “talented”? The training they receive in BCT and AIT dictate that not, their gender.

No, the policy is not up to you. But you are responsible for your ridiculous chauvinist arguments. Seriously, before you prattle off any more nonsensical excuses (ie. that no woman could possibly measure up to a man in BCT), actually take a look at the countries that already have women serving on the frontlines. Look for possible problems they have, compare that to the problems you assume would exist, see if it matches up. All the objections you’ve conjured up are hypotheticals; other countries have actually field-tested them.

I can understand why punisher talks the way he does. His country’s views on women are about 50 years behind Western standards. It’s a lot more difficult for me to understand why a (theoretically) progressive country like the US thinks it’s entirely logical to forbid women from taking equal share of the risks based on a perception of gender that is, to be kind, an anachronism.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

You’re right, Vika. It has been entirely up to me to decide whether or not women serve on the front lines and I have been a stubborn ass. Yeah, I have been denying myself access to good, talented, soldiers. But what makes a soldier “good” or “talented”? The training they receive in BCT and AIT dictate that not, their gender.

No, the policy is not up to you. But you are responsible for your ridiculous chauvinist arguments. Seriously, before you prattle off any more nonsensical excuses (ie. that no woman could possibly measure up to a man in BCT), actually take a look at the countries that already have women serving on the frontlines. Look for possible problems they have, compare that to the problems you assume would exist, see if it matches up. All the objections you’ve conjured up are hypotheticals; other countries have actually field-tested them.

I can understand why punisher talks the way he does. His country’s views on women are about 50 years behind Western standards. It’s a lot more difficult for me to understand why a (theoretically) progressive country like the US thinks it’s entirely logical to forbid women from taking equal share of the risks based on a perception of gender that is, to be kind, an anachronism.

Refer to my previous post

 
Flag Post

I saw it. That’s why I referenced you in my post.

As I understand it, if the US ever invaded Pakistan, male POWs would be in just as much danger of getting raped as females.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I saw it. That’s why I referenced you in my post.

As I understand it, if the US ever invaded Pakistan, male POWs would be in just as much danger of getting raped as females.

Yeah, gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyysssssssss…..

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I saw it. That’s why I referenced you in my post.

As I understand it, if the US ever invaded Pakistan, male POWs would be in just as much danger of getting raped as females.

Yeah. Sexual assault is not and never was the exclusive action of males doing it unto females. Females can sexually assault males. Males can sexually assault males, females can sexually assault females.

Pretending that it can only happen with a male assailant and a female victim, does justice to nobody. Rwb’s argument is based off of the additional fact that women can get pregnant after being assaulted in such a manner whereas most males cannot. What it fails to address are a few minor points:

  • Not every female can get pregnant even if she wishes to.
  • We can stop a pregnancy occuring via basically what amounts to a simple insulin pump loaded with a different chemical, which prevents the menstrual cycle from taking place. If no egg is released by the ovary, then there is no egg for the sperm to fertilize in the first place.
  • Not every sexual encounter results in an automatic pregnancy anyay.
  • Even if such takes place, we can always chemically abort it anyway.

There is absolutely no reason to ban females who wish to fight from fighting, using the case of “well, this might possibly happen if you do. Slim chance, so better be safe and not allow you to have the same right to fight on thefront lines, as a man would have.” as your main argument.

There are individual barriers such as the woman not being fit enough or strong enough to meet the requirements of the job, but if so then it disqualifies that woman only, not all women automatically. After all, would we disqualify all men from serving in the millitary just because one was too tubby to pass the fitness test?

As you point out Janton, its not even a hypothetical exercise. Other countries have done it, and hard data is going to be available on what they have found.