You sexists

[Balagor]

Well, "G.I.Jane". It seems that the only ones who have emotionel problems, are the men, wanting to protect "week" women. They are the issue and you pay the price.

I wish you good luck in the Canadian Infantry, Lehcar :thumbsup:

[RZ1029]

I'd also just like to mention that the Mossad's female agents/assassins/whatever you want to call them were some of the most effective agents when hunting down Nazi war criminals after WWII. Even though they weren't allowed to serve on the front lines, they were more than busy in other departments.

 

As for the US Military, while some of the reasoning has already been mentioned, especially regarding the psychological study, there's the simple fact that the American culture has grown up on the 'damsel in distress' theme. From our movies, to our books, to society in general, it was only fairly recently that you began to see the acceptance of female leaders. It was only last year (AKA: 10? months ago, or so) when the Navy began to allow women to serve on submarines. (Please note, I do realize there are some exceptions and there are a few genres in particular that have broken that much earlier than others, but look at it as a generalistic whole.)

 

I'd also like to note, it's not JUST Americans. Only about a dozen nations allow women to serve in active combat roles, Canada and Israel included. The UK also lets them serve in artillery divisions, but not a dedicated infantry role. Then the US and a few other nations allow them as combat pilots.

 

There are also some issues with female soldiers when it comes to combating nations where females are seen as inferior. Case in point, the Middle-East. It's fairly well-known that, in the culture of Iraq and neighboring areas, females are generally considered inferior. (Generally being the key word.) With that, they're less likely to surrender or retreat because they are fighting individuals they see as inferior. That could, in effect, result in larger casualties where they might have retreated when they saw a dozen guys come charging after them with their rifles.

 

Could they be effective in combat? I say yes. Should we let them serve in combat roles? I also say yes. Should they be segregated? Maybe. It would solve some of the issues that have been brought up regarding the male 'instinct' to protect the females. I can't say for sure, but I'd imagine they would get along a little better than an integrated unit, at first. Integration would probably be the eventual goal, but it's usually better to approach things like this slowly, or you can have some disastrous consequences.

Edited January 3, 2011 by RZ1029

[Aurielius]

Speaking from personal experience I have found that at least in aviation, women are just as capable as men, faster reflexes, coolness under fire and measured judgment are attributes that I have observed. With the exception of our undersea arm women have all posts available to them in the Navy. The second point is that the Israeli's have had women in front line units for a decade and seem to be quite satisfied with their performance. If a woman can hack it then let her try, if not wash her out like any man who couldn't do the job.

 

Lehcar if you want to serve your country, then go ahead and ignore preconceptions and prove the chauvinists wrong. In combat the only real concern that matters is "Can I trust my back to you?" if the answer is yes then I think that you will find acceptance in whatever service you pick.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Aurielius

[DeadMansFist849]

I think the "save the precious damsel" thing might be what's keeping them from allowing women into active combat--I've heard that it's possible to do even more disgusting things to a female combatant than a male, because of anatomy. Now, I really don't know for sure, but I somehow doubt that a female being tortured is worse than the exact same thing happening to a male. People are people, and if a horrible thing happens to a person, they could get real messed up, regardless of gender--and, as I've learnt from volunteering, you don't play "can you top that" with disturbing experiences.

 

Yes, physically speaking, a woman isn't generally going to be as strong as a man of the same height/weight. However, given that new technology is fast replacing the need for hand-to-hand combat, I don't think the matter of a difference in upper body strength is going to be a major issue for much longer.

[antonkr]

Some of the greatest military aviators and snipers were women because women usually have more patience on average. Note I am not talking about every woman. The reason most military of the world do not accept women is simply because most man are stronger then women on average. Note once again I am saying most not all. Imagine an average family from 13th century while the country is in the war. Men would usually be on the war fighting while women would be home taking care of the children. That stereotype was out there for ever. I do not agree on military not allowing women to enlist and if ever am in the military I would want to have at least one woman to be on the squad I am on due to them on average being more precise then men and the precision can be crucial to the mission.

[DeadMansFist849]

Like I said, with technological advances, brute strength is less of an issue. It makes a lot less sense now to bar women from serving in active combat than it used to--we don't really need people who can heft halberds and mauls.

[HappyHerring]

The specific subset of the military at the start of the discussion was the infantry. Now in both the past present & future one of the main things the infantry are famed for is lugging around a lot of weight in packs, water supplies, body armour and weapons. I've read that one of the occupational causes of being invalided out of the paras is the deterioration of knees through the continual bearing of excessive weight.

Infantry may often 'ride to work' in an apc but the whole point of the existence of such troops is surely to get out there & dominate the environment. Whilst a tank or apc can do many very destructive things they are not going to do compound searches or man the walls when there are hostiles at the wire. They will never be replaced by button pushers, much as we might regret the fact.

Sure let anyone fight but let there not be any diminuition of physical & mental quality in aplicants or in training as it only lets down the military in the end.

Oh I was also under the impression that a chauvinist is someone who judges without knowledge of the individual. Thanks for your analysis of our personalities.

[DeadMansFist849]

I do hope you're saying that to the OP rather than me. I never mentioned any specific subset, my comments were general (though yes, new technology meaning less need for brute strength could extend to lightweight weapons/ammo, hell, we might even get real power armour one day!) and I never called anyone anything. :unsure:

[HappyHerring]

BlackBaron2 of course I in no way meant to disparge you nor did I in anyway mean to imply any derogatory intent toward you or to suggest that you had any such intent toward anyone.

 

My concern was that as a body our beliefs and personality traits were assumed as being negative toward women in the infantry by the originator of this strand. If anyone feels insulted by my statements in the forums I am prepared to reflect and if necessary modify my opinions but in this instance I was only pointing out that the strand started with a passionate statement that many would question.

[Vindekarr]

Scientificaly speaking a woman has less muscle density and a higher percentage of fat tissue than a man.

 

In real world terms this amounts to very little. Women can, with extreme conditioning, equal and surpass men. The emphasis is on extreme. And everything about the military is extreme.

 

Frankly I found your initial few posts offensive and disapointing Lehcar, and I think your cause for joining the military is unacceptable and almost laughably foolhardy.

 

Because the last thing the military wants is an overzealous, reckless hyperfeminist with everything to prove and nothing to lose. Trust me on this: it's very easy to sit outside the military and say "oh your just a bunch of sexist bastards, how dare you keep me out because of sex! Im going to join the army to prove you wrong!"

 

Say that when you're face down in foreign dirt, having been awake for 38 hours straight, surrounded by the corpses of everyone you've known for the last five years, about to be killed fighting for a faceless corporation's foreign oil inerests. This is not a role you take on to spite people, fool, and in times of war the last thing a commanding officer needs is an agro greenhorn champing at the bit for a chance to be superwoman.

 

Frankly I have nothing against women in the armed forces. I do however firmly believe that the armed forces are for patriots, not fools seeking glory or the dienfranchised seeking to hammer home a point. If the army was made up entirely of those with the talent for it, we wouldnt need so many suicide grunts.

 

:down: