Gays and/or women in combat

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:48 pm

[quote="Deacon";p="433295"]
Hey, fuckknuckle, [/quote]

try to keep it clean and civilized dude thank you

Gouf_Custom · Post by **Gouf_Custom** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:33 am

If MB doesn't call a foul, don't sweat it. Besides, you get used to the insults being thrown around quite often on the politics board, especially by Deacon and some others.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:41 am

I personally find the term "fucknuckle" quite humorous, which is why I used it...

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:33 am

I got the impression of hostility towards me and my idea (the response to which that was in response to, by both me and azurain, is still awaiting a response, and hey, I have not used that word enough, response response response! ... sorry)

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:34 am

Gouf_Custom and Deacon, I realize both your points I just want to make sure that some one doesn't take it all out of proportion and turn this thread into an all out flame war. I don't think anyone would but i'd rather not take the chance.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:03 pm

I don't think anyone would but i'd rather not take the chance.

that's exactly what I meant

Dribble Joy · Post by **Dribble Joy** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:31 pm

Given my (frankly limited) experience in the British army, there are a number of reason that I would not allow women in cirtain (primarily infantry/frontline) duites.
The reasons being for the most part physical.
A fully trained male soldier has nearly three times the upper body strength as his female counterpart, men have higher muscle density and more muscle. Physical strength in other areas is also higher (though not to the same extent).
Given the duties to be performed, women are in most cases, not up for the job.
Basic endurance is about the same, but with a 100+ pound burgen (all your normal kit + ammo + grenades + GPMG ammo + mortar rounds) plus weapon and rifle over any given terrain in all conditions, the physical robustness that men, by simple virtual of their genetic difference.
Keeping up will require them to exert significantly more effort and energy and thier physical state at the end will simply be an operational hazard.
It's harsh and can sound 'sexist' but fighting is about winning, and a soldier that can't fight is less than useless, they are a drawback and a hazard.
The other part is the mental side of things, which of course is a conrovertial issue.
Men and women ARE different creatures, both physically and mentally, you cannot deny that.
The question is, does that affect opperational effectiveness the underlying, all pervasive and ultimately most important issue at hand) in combat?
Most of what I could/would say on that matter is effectively conjecture, based on what I know and have seen and what I can deduct. Not enough study by people in a far better position than I, has been done on the subject. Who is willing to risk the investigation though?
The main and most... debatable issue I would argue, is the ability for controlled agression. Can women build up as much and control to the same degree, the agression as a man.
Self restraint in combat is more important than you would think(I could start slagging cirtain forces for obvious failures to do so, but I won't).

Basically, if a woman can do a job/task to the same ability and standard as a man (in all aspects, mental, physical and residual), then there is no reason to stop them.
If they cannot (and depending on the size difference) then they should not.
This does not mean that women should freely be allowed to join any service as a general rule, it means that they must first show they can perform to the required standard, and should be allowed to to if they do.

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:47 pm

[quote="Dribble Joy";p="434234"]
Basically, if a woman can do a job/task to the same ability and standard as a man (in all aspects, mental, physical and residual), then there is no reason to stop them.
If they cannot (and depending on the size difference) then they should not.
This does not mean that women should freely be allowed to join any service as a general rule, it means that they must first show they can perform to the required standard, and should be allowed to to if they do.[/quote]

that was the entire point of the post. I had originally meant it to be a topic about gays/lesbians with women kind of thrown in but the gist of the whole thing is that if a person can show that they can make whatever physical standards are set for a particular job in the military, should they be denied that based soley on their gender or orientaion?

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:11 pm

there's more to a military unit than mere physical strength. as I stated in me posts most of my reluctancy to agree with the people who say they should get the chance is based on logistics and integrating units... and I do not agree with Dribble Joy, I don't think women are incompetent mentally. in that respect I think men and women are alike. you can never know how a man(woman ?) will act in combat until he's in combat for the first time...

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:16 am

"Women have commanded and are currently in command of major commands, combatant ships, aviation squadrons, CEC commands, Special Operations units and numerous shore commands. Enlisted women serve as CNO appointed Command Master Chiefs and as Command Master Chiefs in squadrons and onboard ships." "http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/peo ... fact1.html"
They've shown that they can fight effectively and like MB said the mixed support combat units usually end up fighting, so why are they still restricted? The only major logistcal modification would be taking out a few urinals and replacing them with regular toilets which wouldn't preclude a guy from peeing standing up anyway. If the issue is privacy, how hard is it to weld a sheet metal partition up to separate the existing facilities?

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:37 am

Are you going back to the submarine thing or what?

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:05 am

I mean in general. I use the submarine thing because my primary interest is the Navy and i think its bs that women aren't allowed to serve on them. Especially since the whole "physical requirements" bs thing doesn't hold as much water (no pun intended) aboard ships or subs as it might in land caombat.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:15 pm

You're right. There are never emergencies or any scenarios in which physical fitness and strength may affect the outcome.

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:50 pm

[quote="Deacon";p="434956"]You're right. There are never emergencies or any scenarios in which physical fitness and strength may affect the outcome.[/quote]
Wow. Thats not what I said at all. The emergencies aboard a submarine are not any more physically strenuous than aboard surface ships yet women are alowed to serve in any capacity aboard those. so yes certain situations will arise when fitness and strength may affect the outcome but IF they can measure up to the neccessary standards why are they not allowed?

Edit: The stresses that everyone hears about on submarines is a mental one mostly due to the long deployments and time spent underwater. Not physical demands.

Nyoibo · Post by **Nyoibo** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:54 am

Can women build up as much and control to the same degree, the agression as a man.
Self restraint in combat is more important than you would think

Women have much better control over their aggression than men do, simple fact, men are designed to be more aggressive than women, women are designed to be more controled.

Real Life Forums

Gays and/or women in combat

Who is online