Org Mobile Site
Thread: Women In The Military
What has happened to my poor thread?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Allowing women into your infantry school is one thing, allowing them to deploy another.
I doubt women will ever be allowed to deploy into a combat zone as frontline infantry soldiers, for reasons that should be obvious.
The instant I saw this article I remembered this thread, and the above comment in particular.Allowing women into your infantry school is one thing, allowing them to deploy another.
I doubt women will ever be allowed to deploy into a combat zone as frontline infantry soldiers, for reasons that should be obvious.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...5e7_story.html
Originally Posted by :
Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has decided to allow women to serve in combat roles, a watershed policy shift that follows years of calls for a fully inclusive military.
Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, are expected to formally announce the change on Thursday, Pentagon officials said. The Army, Marines and other services will then develop plans to open jobs in ground combat units, such as the infantry, to women.
The decision comes after a decade during which women have been pushed closer to the front lines than ever before. Panetta, who is expected to step down in coming days, has long said the Pentagon is exploring ways to open more career opportunities for women.
Female veteran groups say that even though the number of women who would pursue combat jobs might be small, having the option is a long overdue step that would bring the United States in line with several of its allies.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, issued a statement endorsing the move.
“I support it,” Levin said. “It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations.”
Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has decided to allow women to serve in combat roles, a watershed policy shift that follows years of calls for a fully inclusive military.
Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, are expected to formally announce the change on Thursday, Pentagon officials said. The Army, Marines and other services will then develop plans to open jobs in ground combat units, such as the infantry, to women.
The decision comes after a decade during which women have been pushed closer to the front lines than ever before. Panetta, who is expected to step down in coming days, has long said the Pentagon is exploring ways to open more career opportunities for women.
Female veteran groups say that even though the number of women who would pursue combat jobs might be small, having the option is a long overdue step that would bring the United States in line with several of its allies.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, issued a statement endorsing the move.
“I support it,” Levin said. “It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations.”
Women have served and still serve as front-line soldiers in several armies, including the norwegian army. No complaints yet.
As usual, the anglosphere is lagging behind the civilized world. No surprises there.
As usual, the anglosphere is lagging behind the civilized world. No surprises there.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Women have served and still serve as front-line soldiers in several armies, including the norwegian army. No complaints yet.
As usual, the anglosphere is lagging behind the civilized world. No surprises there.
Not really true and you know thatWomen have served and still serve as front-line soldiers in several armies, including the norwegian army. No complaints yet.
As usual, the anglosphere is lagging behind the civilized world. No surprises there.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Not really true and you know that
What part isn't true? The part about women as front-line soldiers or the one about the anglosphere lagging behind?Not really true and you know that
I've personally served with women who have fought front-line in Afghanistan, so that one doesn't get any truer. The second point is one I'll defend to the death!! The world is moved forward by the French and the Germans! You know this, frags.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Women have served and still serve as front-line soldiers in several armies, including the norwegian army. No complaints yet.
As usual, the anglosphere is lagging behind the civilized world. No surprises there.
I bolded the line I guess he disagrees with. Women have served and still serve as front-line soldiers in several armies, including the norwegian army. No complaints yet.
As usual, the anglosphere is lagging behind the civilized world. No surprises there.
I for one have a load of complaints from experiencing women in the army. The major ones would be that I found that less is expected of women than men, and also, women had a negative effect on group cohesion and effectiveness IMHO.
With that said, no reason they cant run a radar or something. The female flyers of WW2 are also generally seen as quite successful, no?
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
I bolded the line I guess he disagrees with.
I for one have a load of complaints from experiencing women in the army. The major ones would be that I found that less is expected of women than men, and also, women had a negative effect on group cohesion and effectiveness IMHO.
With that said, no reason they cant run a radar or something. The female flyers of WW2 are also generally seen as quite successful, no?
Military Logic dictates that Kadagar wins - because he was an Officer.I bolded the line I guess he disagrees with.
I for one have a load of complaints from experiencing women in the army. The major ones would be that I found that less is expected of women than men, and also, women had a negative effect on group cohesion and effectiveness IMHO.
With that said, no reason they cant run a radar or something. The female flyers of WW2 are also generally seen as quite successful, no?
Aside from that - GC is basically right. There's nothing inherently wrong with women fighting, but that doesn't mean that allowing them to do so won't harm the effectiveness of your combat arm.
Swedes are barbarians when it comes to feminism and equality.
They should learn from the civilized and more successful nations.
They should learn from the civilized and more successful nations.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Women have served and still serve as front-line soldiers in several armies, including the norwegian army. No complaints yet.
As usual, the anglosphere is lagging behind the civilized world. No surprises there.
So Canada isn't part of the Anglo sphere? A country that has had women in combat arms since the late 90's. Who's entire military mission in Afghanistan had women in combat roles. Seems to me that your thesis is completely and utterly wrong.Women have served and still serve as front-line soldiers in several armies, including the norwegian army. No complaints yet.
As usual, the anglosphere is lagging behind the civilized world. No surprises there.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Swedes are barbarians when it comes to feminism and equality.
They should learn from the civilized and more successful nations.
That'll be the small voice telling me to hold you down while Kad cuts open your chest and offers up your innards to the All Father, than.Swedes are barbarians when it comes to feminism and equality.
They should learn from the civilized and more successful nations.
Wondered where that came from.
Originally Posted by :
So Canada isn't part of the Anglo sphere? A country that has had women in combat arms since the late 90's. Who's entire military mission in Afghanistan had women in combat roles. Seems to me that your thesis is completely and utterly wrong.
Well, there's Québéc, mon ostie de vierge de tabernak.So Canada isn't part of the Anglo sphere? A country that has had women in combat arms since the late 90's. Who's entire military mission in Afghanistan had women in combat roles. Seems to me that your thesis is completely and utterly wrong.
EDIT: That câlice of a quote function isn't working.
By that logic the US is Spanish.
Used to be a portable phone was only possessed by your hook-up, now every adolescent has a phone permatached to his palm. This policy change only recognizes the existing condition. Personally I'd be concerned were I an adversary of U.S. armed forces, cause some of them womens fight ugly.
Originally Posted by lars573:
By that logic the US is Spanish.
My Spanish textbook listed the US as a Spanish speaking country.By that logic the US is Spanish.
Originally Posted by lars573:
By that logic the US is Spanish.
Yeah, well, I never said it was a good comparison.By that logic the US is Spanish.
Women serving in the millitary? Fine, all for it, as long as they know what theyre getting into.
Women serving on the front lines physically alongside men? Not fine, most things I've read on the subject says it has a habit of inducing a load of natural impulses making the male soldiers act irrational to protect thier female counterparts and soldiers have a habit of going berzerk more frequently when female comrades are killed.
If you will excuse the crude source: Remember that mission in COD: Modern Warfare where the player's helicopter disregards a code black nuke warning to save a female pilot? Loads of other millitary personel were in the same position but they turned back because this one was a female and as a result they dont escape the blast radius in time killing the entire group. Think players, let alone hardened millitary personel, would have considered it worth the risk if the pilot was male?
Women serving on the front lines physically alongside men? Not fine, most things I've read on the subject says it has a habit of inducing a load of natural impulses making the male soldiers act irrational to protect thier female counterparts and soldiers have a habit of going berzerk more frequently when female comrades are killed.
If you will excuse the crude source: Remember that mission in COD: Modern Warfare where the player's helicopter disregards a code black nuke warning to save a female pilot? Loads of other millitary personel were in the same position but they turned back because this one was a female and as a result they dont escape the blast radius in time killing the entire group. Think players, let alone hardened millitary personel, would have considered it worth the risk if the pilot was male?
Originally Posted by lars573:
So Canada isn't part of the Anglo sphere?
Canada is just America's hat.So Canada isn't part of the Anglo sphere?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
That'll be the small voice telling me to hold you down while Kad cuts open your chest and offers up your innards to the All Father, than.
Wondered where that came from.
Sweden had Olof Palme, we had Gro Harlem Brundtland.That'll be the small voice telling me to hold you down while Kad cuts open your chest and offers up your innards to the All Father, than.
Wondered where that came from.
That means we're a bunch of racists, while they're a bunch of misogynists.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
Women serving in the millitary? Fine, all for it, as long as they know what theyre getting into.
Women serving on the front lines physically alongside men? Not fine, most things I've read on the subject says it has a habit of inducing a load of natural impulses making the male soldiers act irrational to protect thier female counterparts and soldiers have a habit of going berzerk more frequently when female comrades are killed.
If you will excuse the crude source: Remember that mission in COD: Modern Warfare where the player's helicopter disregards a code black nuke warning to save a female pilot? Loads of other millitary personel were in the same position but they turned back because this one was a female and as a result they dont escape the blast radius in time killing the entire group. Think players, let alone hardened millitary personel, would have considered it worth the risk if the pilot was male?
Not sure I can agree with this. I haven't read anything about this, but I probably played COD:MW more than you did so my opinion has greater validity.Women serving in the millitary? Fine, all for it, as long as they know what theyre getting into.
Women serving on the front lines physically alongside men? Not fine, most things I've read on the subject says it has a habit of inducing a load of natural impulses making the male soldiers act irrational to protect thier female counterparts and soldiers have a habit of going berzerk more frequently when female comrades are killed.
If you will excuse the crude source: Remember that mission in COD: Modern Warfare where the player's helicopter disregards a code black nuke warning to save a female pilot? Loads of other millitary personel were in the same position but they turned back because this one was a female and as a result they dont escape the blast radius in time killing the entire group. Think players, let alone hardened millitary personel, would have considered it worth the risk if the pilot was male?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Canada is just America's hat.
No the US is Canada's toilet.Canada is just America's hat.
Now that women can serve in forward combat roles, can I finally ask Prole on a date?
Europeans consider you all to be ***hats.
Women in the army - sure.
The very very few women who can handle working in an efficient combat team being allowed in combat teams - sure.
Women in the army - sure.
The very very few women who can handle working in an efficient combat team being allowed in combat teams - sure.
Why people complaining about women in the fighting parts of the Armies don't go to check where women were used in fighting? All these stupidities about men want to protect women... Men want as well rape women, sometimes... So, guys, do research on the use of the Female Units of the Red Army, as Fighter Pilots, snipers, machine-gunners and tank crews etc. They were FEARED by the Germans, Italians, Croatians, Rumanians, Hungarians and others Axis Forces involved in the Eastern front.
As the physical aspect of the grunt’s job, as my instructors in the Infantry Combat School tough me long time ago, it is in your mind, the will to push the limits, to ignore pain, to carry on. Men stronger than me failed where I went.
As the physical aspect of the grunt’s job, as my instructors in the Infantry Combat School tough me long time ago, it is in your mind, the will to push the limits, to ignore pain, to carry on. Men stronger than me failed where I went.
I'd rather have soldiers not be deployed in danger zones, but sometimes it needs to be done.
Women have proven to be very capable in warfare, especially when handling long range weapons. Many Russian women snipers, Russian and British anti-aircraft gun operators were very effective during WWII.
I've never been to the army so I don't know how exactly it's like there. I heard that a lot of women in the US army get unequal treatment and get abused. I think women handling the danger zones with the men will show that the women aren't weaklings to be looked down on. It will develop a sense of comradery.
Women have proven to be very capable in warfare, especially when handling long range weapons. Many Russian women snipers, Russian and British anti-aircraft gun operators were very effective during WWII.
I've never been to the army so I don't know how exactly it's like there. I heard that a lot of women in the US army get unequal treatment and get abused. I think women handling the danger zones with the men will show that the women aren't weaklings to be looked down on. It will develop a sense of comradery.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
You're totally right, of course. I was just re-reading some of my old comments in this thread from way back, and I could see how my comments might be misconstrued as Sexist.
So, to clarify my position, i think women are just people, and the quality of a Soldier (regardless of gender) depends entirely on their level of discipline and physical fitness. Now, the bad news is that women in the US Army are held to an incredibly low standard and that is unlikely to change as long as women are held exempt from basic disciplinary measures (like getting yelled at and getting the crap smoked out of you). This is not the fault of women, but of men who are cheating these women by not holding them to the highest standard.
Hope that's clear.
That's probably correct, the biggest problem about women in the army are men.You're totally right, of course. I was just re-reading some of my old comments in this thread from way back, and I could see how my comments might be misconstrued as Sexist.
So, to clarify my position, i think women are just people, and the quality of a Soldier (regardless of gender) depends entirely on their level of discipline and physical fitness. Now, the bad news is that women in the US Army are held to an incredibly low standard and that is unlikely to change as long as women are held exempt from basic disciplinary measures (like getting yelled at and getting the crap smoked out of you). This is not the fault of women, but of men who are cheating these women by not holding them to the highest standard.
Hope that's clear.
Maybe they should remove men from the army then.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
In Combat Units, where women are only temporary attachments (Communication specialists, mechanics, whatever) things get awkward super fast because nobody knows how to deal with them.
Ship them with a manual then?In Combat Units, where women are only temporary attachments (Communication specialists, mechanics, whatever) things get awkward super fast because nobody knows how to deal with them.
I get the problem, but to some extent it exists in almost every workplace. And I am also deeply convinced that some women have a much softer skin that they expect men to have regarding comments about body parts and stuff like that. For example when our top-feminist Alice Schwarzer talks about men having small penises it's apparently okay, but as a moderator recently pointed out, a similar comment from a man would be regarded sexist by many. The different rules for men and women regarding fitness seem stupid, at least if the gap is very big.
As for the issue of carrying wounded men that some always bring up, there are different opinions.
Interesting poll results on the issue. As expected, support for women in combat is significantly higher amongst Dems than Reps, but even Reps give it a thumbs up by nearly 20%. Surprisingly, veteran support levels appear to be right at about the national average with support at a 2:1 level.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
...Personally, i would like to see conventional infantry done away with anyway--to do the job right in todays environment you need highly trained professionals, not kids.
Aren't you calling for a different standard of training and perhaps an altered skill set -- a new convention FOR infantry -- rather than their abolition?...Personally, i would like to see conventional infantry done away with anyway--to do the job right in todays environment you need highly trained professionals, not kids.
I am part of the set that is fine with women serving in combat. At first, co-ed units will generate more casualties as males take chances to aid a fallen female soldier that they would not have taken for another male. However, I suspect that the realities of combat will end such well-intentioned though mis-guided gallantries pretty quickly. At which point, assuming conditioning and training standards are set that ignore sex in favor of capability, then the gals can backstop incoming just as well as the guys.
Societally, medical advancement means that we no longer need to preserve all females from harm so that they can absorb their 33% breeding casualties, thus freeing women up to participate more broadly (the previous sets aside the moral/ethical equality discussion. That side of it is a no-brainer).
If women know the risks and can do the job, then fine.
I found an article that expresses a female veteran's opinion against women in the army.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/2...emale-veteran/
Maybe form an all-women sniper division. Less muscular women could be included if they don't have to carry a huge load.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/2...emale-veteran/
Originally Posted by :
......First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy......
I know that there are women who are physically strong as men because I saw one before, but I also know that those physically strong women are very few. I agree with Rory that if women know the risks and can do the job, then fine.......First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy......
Maybe form an all-women sniper division. Less muscular women could be included if they don't have to carry a huge load.
Originally Posted by :
First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions.
Which is a great way to de-sexualize cohabitation - for most of us...First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions.
Originally Posted by :
until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission.
What better way to do it than through decades of successful integration? What better time than a period of relative peace?until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission.
Originally Posted by :
women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome
Standards.women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome
Originally Posted by :
women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy......
Because no war will ever be a symmetric linear conflict against a standing military that is also gender-integrated.women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy......
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO