Okay, let's examine a situation in a war zone when you have a section of barracks with 200 men in it. If you shove a few women into that zone, it wouldn't be practical to seperate them from the men. The women would have to sleep in the same area as the men to maintain efficiency. You cannot tell me that a hundred men will just accept the women as normal soldiers. They will do SOMETHING to the women, wether it be one of those situations where the men just whistle, crack jokes, and act like asses in general... Or it be a serious situation where sex starved men decide to harass or rape the women in their altered state of mind. When someone is fighting, their state of mind is drastically altered. An otherwise normal person can be a sex maniac in war. Anything to ease suffering will be employed...
And on the subject of women being equal to men, do you know any women who can bench their body weight plus about 20 pounds? I don't, and I don't want to meet any that can. I'm sorry, but women just don't have the same physical attributes as men. It just doesn't work that way.
Gays and/or women in combat
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
-
naval_aviator_2040
- Redshirt
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: NY Capital region
- Contact:
Bigity, yes gays are allowed to serve but not openly, If the are openly gay, at least for males, they can still be kicked out of the service under the Uniform Code of Military Justice because the UCMJ defines sodomy as a crime.
Everyone who asked When in the late 1940s, President Truman gave an executive order integrating the armed forces there was a huge outcry. one of the most used reasons for this was that people thought that blacks and whites would never be able to get along together and said that it would be detrimental the the unity and morale of whichever unit was integrated. And for a few years after that it did happen that way but with the examples like the tuskeegee airmen and Carl Brashier who showed the whites that blacks could serve just as well as whites if not better (the tuskeegee airmen never lost one of the bombers that they were escorting, a claim which no other bomber escort squadron can match). These are the same reasons being given for keeping women out of combat and keeping gays and lesbians from serving openly.
And flamechocobo, no I do not know any women who can do that but i do know one who, if you told her she had to to be in combat, would easily be able to train to that standard. She's a Cadet at the US Military Academy at West Point.
Everyone who asked When in the late 1940s, President Truman gave an executive order integrating the armed forces there was a huge outcry. one of the most used reasons for this was that people thought that blacks and whites would never be able to get along together and said that it would be detrimental the the unity and morale of whichever unit was integrated. And for a few years after that it did happen that way but with the examples like the tuskeegee airmen and Carl Brashier who showed the whites that blacks could serve just as well as whites if not better (the tuskeegee airmen never lost one of the bombers that they were escorting, a claim which no other bomber escort squadron can match). These are the same reasons being given for keeping women out of combat and keeping gays and lesbians from serving openly.
And flamechocobo, no I do not know any women who can do that but i do know one who, if you told her she had to to be in combat, would easily be able to train to that standard. She's a Cadet at the US Military Academy at West Point.
Last edited by naval_aviator_2040 on Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
i don't hate everyone equally, there are levels. but none of them are the traditionally thought of standards for predjudice. its not based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation its based on how much the person annoys me personally. i count you as a friend since you annoy me very little. brittney spears is an enemy because even though i don't know her/care about her at all she still finds a way to annoy me every time i turn on the tv
The idea of women in combat is not a new one. Throughout history, women have led battles, fought, and died for their country, religion, or their beliefs.
I am a woman and have absolutely NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to engage in combat. On the other hand, I don't find any reason to prohibit women from doing so, if that is what they want and they're physically capable.
As far as biology, strength, and all that, I am by no means anywhere NEAR equal to my husband or my son. In contrast, there are grown men with weaker body strength than me. Humans are, by design, all unique. There are men incapable of combat, too. This does not make them any less male.
Hormones? Not much people can do about those aside from learning how to control your own reactions to them, since it would be unfair to any sex to manipulate those with drugs or surgery.
"Being on the rag?" Don't tell me that men don't ever have mood swings. Don't tell me they don't ever become irrational if something doesn't go the way they want.
I have to say, though, that it's no wonder some women get all feminist about being able to go into combat and such. When they have to listen to some of the sexist remarks that men use to describe women, even I want to go into combat just to prove them wrong. "Pushing pencils is best for my health?" Maybe so, but it's my own choice to do that or not. If a woman is capable and wants to go into combat, she would have to understand the ramifications of that choice, including such things like capture, torture, rape, and death. If she understands that and still wishes to fight, that is her choice. Men can be captured, tortured, raped (yes), and killed, too. Do you really think that men can "handle" that better? Regardless of your sex, things like that will scar you for life. Period. It's the nature of being human.
When it all comes down to it, men and women are different. While I agree that certain sexes may be better equipped to handle certain activities and situations, this does not preclude the other sex from being able to perform those same functions. (For the sake of simplicity, we'll leave childbirth out of this.) I like to think that when I die (preferably of old age), I'll be satisfied by having led my life by being true to myself and my beliefs. If I wanted to go into combat, I would hope that if I die on the battlefield, it would be with honor and pride.
I am a woman and have absolutely NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER to engage in combat. On the other hand, I don't find any reason to prohibit women from doing so, if that is what they want and they're physically capable.
As far as biology, strength, and all that, I am by no means anywhere NEAR equal to my husband or my son. In contrast, there are grown men with weaker body strength than me. Humans are, by design, all unique. There are men incapable of combat, too. This does not make them any less male.
Hormones? Not much people can do about those aside from learning how to control your own reactions to them, since it would be unfair to any sex to manipulate those with drugs or surgery.
"Being on the rag?" Don't tell me that men don't ever have mood swings. Don't tell me they don't ever become irrational if something doesn't go the way they want.
I have to say, though, that it's no wonder some women get all feminist about being able to go into combat and such. When they have to listen to some of the sexist remarks that men use to describe women, even I want to go into combat just to prove them wrong. "Pushing pencils is best for my health?" Maybe so, but it's my own choice to do that or not. If a woman is capable and wants to go into combat, she would have to understand the ramifications of that choice, including such things like capture, torture, rape, and death. If she understands that and still wishes to fight, that is her choice. Men can be captured, tortured, raped (yes), and killed, too. Do you really think that men can "handle" that better? Regardless of your sex, things like that will scar you for life. Period. It's the nature of being human.
When it all comes down to it, men and women are different. While I agree that certain sexes may be better equipped to handle certain activities and situations, this does not preclude the other sex from being able to perform those same functions. (For the sake of simplicity, we'll leave childbirth out of this.) I like to think that when I die (preferably of old age), I'll be satisfied by having led my life by being true to myself and my beliefs. If I wanted to go into combat, I would hope that if I die on the battlefield, it would be with honor and pride.
-
Martin Blank
- Knower of Things
- Posts: 12709
- Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:11 am
- Real Name: Jarrod Frates
- Gender: Male
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
Set one set of physical standards for each role. Male or female, if you make it, you're in. If not, you're out. This is likely to mean that there will be more men than women in combat units, but that's just dealing with natural physical structures.
Women are far less prone to random violence than are men. There are far fewer female murderers, and female serial killers are quite rare (or much more efficient than their male counterparts).
And the presence of women isn't automatically distracting. While I have never seen proof, I have heard for years that part of 1st SFOD Delta (Delta Force) is either an all-women unit or, more likely, a mixed unit. If anyone has more detail, I'd be interested in reading about it.
Women are far less prone to random violence than are men. There are far fewer female murderers, and female serial killers are quite rare (or much more efficient than their male counterparts).
And the presence of women isn't automatically distracting. While I have never seen proof, I have heard for years that part of 1st SFOD Delta (Delta Force) is either an all-women unit or, more likely, a mixed unit. If anyone has more detail, I'd be interested in reading about it.
If I show up at your door, chances are you did something to bring me there.
Re: Gays and/or women in combat
People keep saying things like, “Women on the average…”
This is a meaningless argument. There are plenty of exceptional individuals out there. There should be lots of things that keep people out of the military, but straight-out gender shouldn’t be one of them. There are lots of women who do not suffer from PMS, for example. Should they be barred just because many people of the same gender have that problem? I know this is pretty much what Deacon said, but people keep talking about averages. In various tests of strength, the top of the women’s bell curve is behind then men’s but there is still overlap.
[quote="Volpa";p="432593"]I'm a female, and I readily admit that women are physically far, far less equal than men. That's a simple matter of nature, and there's no point in denying or ignoring it. [/quote]
If you were talking about upper body strength and size, you would be correct. That is *usually* better for combat, and I assume that’s what you mean, but generally speaking women are simply different from men, not better or worse. Women tend to have better night vision and hearing, are more able to cope with pain, have a higher percentage of body fat (good in starvation situations), and are more flexible. Better or worse than having pure strength? Depends on what you do for a living.
By the way, in trained athletes, the physical difference between genders becomes noticeably smaller.
[quote="Phong";p="432595"]
What about rape? I'm not talking about rape of women by men in their own units, but what if a woman is captured?
[/quote]
I’m sorry, but this is one of the lamest arguments. It’s a risk for the individual to decide to take – although if we were speaking of the Draft, it would make more sense. If you’re a guy, there’s still plenty of stuff they can do to you that is equally “costly” to the government.
Hmm, well said, Hatsumi.
This is a meaningless argument. There are plenty of exceptional individuals out there. There should be lots of things that keep people out of the military, but straight-out gender shouldn’t be one of them. There are lots of women who do not suffer from PMS, for example. Should they be barred just because many people of the same gender have that problem? I know this is pretty much what Deacon said, but people keep talking about averages. In various tests of strength, the top of the women’s bell curve is behind then men’s but there is still overlap.
[quote="Volpa";p="432593"]I'm a female, and I readily admit that women are physically far, far less equal than men. That's a simple matter of nature, and there's no point in denying or ignoring it. [/quote]
If you were talking about upper body strength and size, you would be correct. That is *usually* better for combat, and I assume that’s what you mean, but generally speaking women are simply different from men, not better or worse. Women tend to have better night vision and hearing, are more able to cope with pain, have a higher percentage of body fat (good in starvation situations), and are more flexible. Better or worse than having pure strength? Depends on what you do for a living.
By the way, in trained athletes, the physical difference between genders becomes noticeably smaller.
[quote="Phong";p="432595"]
What about rape? I'm not talking about rape of women by men in their own units, but what if a woman is captured?
[/quote]
I’m sorry, but this is one of the lamest arguments. It’s a risk for the individual to decide to take – although if we were speaking of the Draft, it would make more sense. If you’re a guy, there’s still plenty of stuff they can do to you that is equally “costly” to the government.
Hmm, well said, Hatsumi.
-
naval_aviator_2040
- Redshirt
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: NY Capital region
- Contact:
then we'll just have to train them that chivalry, while respectable, is misplaced in that sort of scenario
i don't hate everyone equally, there are levels. but none of them are the traditionally thought of standards for predjudice. its not based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation its based on how much the person annoys me personally. i count you as a friend since you annoy me very little. brittney spears is an enemy because even though i don't know her/care about her at all she still finds a way to annoy me every time i turn on the tv
[quote="Nyoibo";p="432695"]One of the reasons for not having women in combat is because men apparently have trouble dealing with seeing women injured and that they are more likely to try to protect the woman than other team mates in combat situations.[/quote]
This is argument is REALLY close to the no-blacks argument. If standards were the same for both genders, I doubt it would be such a problem.
This is argument is REALLY close to the no-blacks argument. If standards were the same for both genders, I doubt it would be such a problem.
Personally I think the roles should be different, to some degree. Not out of a 'rights' perspective, but sheer functionality. Women excel at some things men do not, and vice versa. Men, for instance, would be better at things that involve focused concentration (like general combat) whereas women would be better at things which require more general awareness of the area (infiltration and such). There are also good arguments for a predominantly female command structure, though that would hinge on men learning to accept female authority figures on a regular basis.
In terms of PMS it's been fairly well documented that the vast majority of "PMS" symptoms are imagined--men believe women are bitchier when 'on the rag' than they really are, and women notice their mood swings more often around their periods, but don't actually have a substantial difference in behavior during that time. The exception to this is women who actually have clinical PMS. And, in any case, unless there are major surprises with the research, it should be seen to be entirely safe for women to remain on various forms of 'the pill' without a break for long periods of time (no periods), which effectively eliminates the objection.
I don't even think it should be a question of equal rights. It should be a question of whether or not we can be egalitarian enough to recognise that women should be allowed to fight in the army just like men, and yet be objective enough to acknowledge that there are substantial differences between how men and women work, differences which can be capitalised on rather than ignored.
In terms of PMS it's been fairly well documented that the vast majority of "PMS" symptoms are imagined--men believe women are bitchier when 'on the rag' than they really are, and women notice their mood swings more often around their periods, but don't actually have a substantial difference in behavior during that time. The exception to this is women who actually have clinical PMS. And, in any case, unless there are major surprises with the research, it should be seen to be entirely safe for women to remain on various forms of 'the pill' without a break for long periods of time (no periods), which effectively eliminates the objection.
I don't even think it should be a question of equal rights. It should be a question of whether or not we can be egalitarian enough to recognise that women should be allowed to fight in the army just like men, and yet be objective enough to acknowledge that there are substantial differences between how men and women work, differences which can be capitalised on rather than ignored.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
[quote="Volpa";p="432593"]I'm not sure I'd want to be fighting next to a man in his late teens/early twenties awash with wildly fluctuating hormones, though. All of the eighteen- to twenty-three year old men I know can hardly take care of themselves, let alone serving and protecting.. so I'm not sure hormones are a valid argument. Although, sadly, I can understand the concern, we get pretty ugly sometimes.[/quote]
in MOST armies soldiers are in their late teens and early twenties.
you'd be surpised how a childish guy - who can't take care of himself suddenly knows how to cook, clean, sew, shoot, duck, protect and serve in matter of months. well... maybe not so much to serve...
this might come as a shock to you, but MOST people in combat think about living through that... trying to survive and doing their best to help their friends survive. you become very mature and responsible when you hear bulets shreaking above your head...
by hormons I do not mean that men will rape women serving with them... but relationships are bound to develop, and that, when dealing with an intense strict discipline could be a disturbance.
to sum up all my points basically is that adding women to fighting units is just not worth it. not to the army nor to the women.
*sorry for spelling errors, not my computer - don't have me babylon*
in MOST armies soldiers are in their late teens and early twenties.
you'd be surpised how a childish guy - who can't take care of himself suddenly knows how to cook, clean, sew, shoot, duck, protect and serve in matter of months. well... maybe not so much to serve...
this might come as a shock to you, but MOST people in combat think about living through that... trying to survive and doing their best to help their friends survive. you become very mature and responsible when you hear bulets shreaking above your head...
by hormons I do not mean that men will rape women serving with them... but relationships are bound to develop, and that, when dealing with an intense strict discipline could be a disturbance.
to sum up all my points basically is that adding women to fighting units is just not worth it. not to the army nor to the women.
*sorry for spelling errors, not my computer - don't have me babylon*
-
Bigity
- Redshirt
- Posts: 6091
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 7:34 pm
- Real Name: Stu
- Gender: Male
- Location: West Texas
[quote="naval_aviator_2040";p="432634"]Bigity, yes gays are allowed to serve but not openly, If the are openly gay, at least for males, they can still be kicked out of the service under the Uniform Code of Military Justice because the UCMJ defines sodomy as a crime.
[/quote]
So? Sodomy is equally applicable to straight men and women in the military. Just don't do it, or in reality, don't tell people about it, and nobody cares.
If a gay wants to serve, then part of his/her sacrifice is to not openly talk about it. Big deal.
[/quote]
So? Sodomy is equally applicable to straight men and women in the military. Just don't do it, or in reality, don't tell people about it, and nobody cares.
If a gay wants to serve, then part of his/her sacrifice is to not openly talk about it. Big deal.
-
D-Mac
- Redshirt
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 11:08 am
- Location: California State Polytechnic Univirsity
I had a friend who joined up after high school. He was at Fort Benning, and he told me about this elaborate plote two guys hatched up to get out. (They wanted out, and were put on a "negative renforcement" program.) Greg also wanted out, and had been doing extra guard duty, cleaning, PT, and psychological harassment as a result.
They snuck into the barracks and made like they were fooling around in one of the beds just in time to be caught by a guard. The guard went to the seargent, whe called a meeting with the two. They were instructed that they could not engage in certain acts, and must choose their lifestyle or the Army's lifestyle. (Didn't take them long to decide.)
The Sgt. kept it really quiet, and arranged for them to be sent home. The weekend before their departure, pride got the best of them. I still can't believe this part. They couldn't just shut up and get a ticket home. They bragged about it.
Well, the Sgt. found out. He was pissed. Greg got one of their spots because he had been honest about wanting to leave from the get go. Greg told me the whole squad was getting yelled at, the Sgt. calling the two guys cowards, liars, etc. He's screaming and goes "At least [Greg's last name] over here was honest! He told me he didn't want to be here! No medical BS... *yelling* ... Well guess what? [Greg's last name]! You get to go home in their place!..."
That's Greg's boot camp story, as told by Greg. (If that sounds like BS, let me know.) Point is, the "gay guys" didn't just get booted. They were taken seriously, treated discreetly, and given the option to stay. (Again, as told by Greg.) That sounds awfully decent to me, when you ignore the no gay-people/funny-sex rules.
Still, the Military isn't club med. I can't speak from expirience, but I'd bet that servicepeople don't want to be worrying about the dedication of their comrades during battle. If the Military believes women and gay people would screw up the ranks, we have to at least acknowledge their concerns.
They snuck into the barracks and made like they were fooling around in one of the beds just in time to be caught by a guard. The guard went to the seargent, whe called a meeting with the two. They were instructed that they could not engage in certain acts, and must choose their lifestyle or the Army's lifestyle. (Didn't take them long to decide.)
The Sgt. kept it really quiet, and arranged for them to be sent home. The weekend before their departure, pride got the best of them. I still can't believe this part. They couldn't just shut up and get a ticket home. They bragged about it.
Well, the Sgt. found out. He was pissed. Greg got one of their spots because he had been honest about wanting to leave from the get go. Greg told me the whole squad was getting yelled at, the Sgt. calling the two guys cowards, liars, etc. He's screaming and goes "At least [Greg's last name] over here was honest! He told me he didn't want to be here! No medical BS... *yelling* ... Well guess what? [Greg's last name]! You get to go home in their place!..."
That's Greg's boot camp story, as told by Greg. (If that sounds like BS, let me know.) Point is, the "gay guys" didn't just get booted. They were taken seriously, treated discreetly, and given the option to stay. (Again, as told by Greg.) That sounds awfully decent to me, when you ignore the no gay-people/funny-sex rules.
Still, the Military isn't club med. I can't speak from expirience, but I'd bet that servicepeople don't want to be worrying about the dedication of their comrades during battle. If the Military believes women and gay people would screw up the ranks, we have to at least acknowledge their concerns.
"With malice toward none, with Charity toward all." - Lincoln
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/lost
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/lost
-
rawkeye
- Redshirt
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 5:30 am
- Location: kent, oh, usa, earth, sol system, milky way, universe, multiverse (3rd dimension)
- Contact:
[quote="Martin Blank";p="432676"]And the presence of women isn't automatically distracting. While I have never seen proof, I have heard for years that part of 1st SFOD Delta (Delta Force) is either an all-women unit or, more likely, a mixed unit. If anyone has more detail, I'd be interested in reading about it.[/quote]
damn, but look what i found:
The 1st SFOD-Delta (Delta force) is one the Federal Government's CT (Counter Terrorist) groups. Also known as CAG (Combat Applications Group) the Pentagon manages to tightly control what is known about this Unit. Their soldiers are recruited from the U.S. Army, mainly from the Special Forces Green Berets and Rangers. Their main compound is in a remote area of Fort Bragg and it is rumored that up to 2,500 personnel are present at this facility.
The TO (Table of Order) for Delta consists of three operational squadrons, a support squadron, a signal squadron, an aviation platoon, and what is termed the "Funny Platoon". This funny platoon is reported to be the only JSOC unit including female operators. Selection for all of these units is rigourous with more focus on mental abilities and toughness than physical.
SOURCE
interesting shit indeed.
damn, but look what i found:
The 1st SFOD-Delta (Delta force) is one the Federal Government's CT (Counter Terrorist) groups. Also known as CAG (Combat Applications Group) the Pentagon manages to tightly control what is known about this Unit. Their soldiers are recruited from the U.S. Army, mainly from the Special Forces Green Berets and Rangers. Their main compound is in a remote area of Fort Bragg and it is rumored that up to 2,500 personnel are present at this facility.
The TO (Table of Order) for Delta consists of three operational squadrons, a support squadron, a signal squadron, an aviation platoon, and what is termed the "Funny Platoon". This funny platoon is reported to be the only JSOC unit including female operators. Selection for all of these units is rigourous with more focus on mental abilities and toughness than physical.
SOURCE
interesting shit indeed.
_President of the RLF Bruce Campbell fan club_-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
Heh, how dare you?!
Sorry, Accer, but this isn't corporate America we're talking about, someone suggesting that women should be relegated to secretarial roles or something.
Sorry, Accer, but this isn't corporate America we're talking about, someone suggesting that women should be relegated to secretarial roles or something.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest