Women in Warfare

[bomberboy]

This maybe off topic if any of you were a male soldier and a women held a gun at your head would you kill her? I would because she is treatening my life.

on topic they should be in the army because they choose to fight for their country so let them.

[Lord Bohemond]

In may be more prevalent in the Army then Marines, I have actual heard of female officers putting the squeeze on NCOs so to speak, the staff sergeant I know was married and found the Majors advanceds causing problems at home of him. . The claims that our brought forth usually have a large amount of evidence and corroboration.

The fact of the matter is that if woman or man does not want someone to hit on them the other person should not. Both sexes need to exercise self control
and some discipline, if they cannot the should not be carrying weapons.

Reminds me of the king who ordered his servants to flog the rising tide for disobeying his commands.

You wouldn't keep African Americans and Latinos out of the military because racist dillholes can't keep there mouthes shut , and the same should go for women in the military.

In his autobiography, Gen. Patton stated his belief that the negro doesn't have the wit or the intelligence to keep up with the whites in a battle. But during the Bulge, out of desperation he pressed many of his black truck drivers into combat roles. They performed splendidly, so he allowed them to stay in their new positions. He even defied and fought against his superiors who wanted them reinstated as truck drivers.

The answer to your question is called experience. Experience in real life showed that there was no real problem with mixing white and black. A color blind organization turned out to be the best.

However, experience with women has proven the opposite. Women ARE different from men. There's no denying it. They simply don't work together in a mixed team in a military environment.

It's not a good idea to let ideology blind us to the obvious.

Of course the military is not a democracy and I didn't say that but to fight for American values and human values one should have a few of them and preferably the best ones.

Um, the organization exists to kill and maim people on an industrial scale.

You can approach them and date as long as you do not act like a tool or a chauvinistic pig, just like in the real world.

The term "chauvinistic pig" can mean just about anything the woman wants it to mean. If you get drunk and have sex, you're automatically to blame even if she was equally drunk and agreed to the sex. If you date and break up, she might enact revenge by claiming your raped her or some ******** like that. I even heard of one case (in the civilian world) where a woman filed a complaint because a man complimented her perfume. Even if there's no sexual undertones, she might press charges. For example, an NCO says a harsh word to a woman under his command, she might claim he's discriminating, even if he treats her no different than anyone else.

American society is going through a revolution. Like in most revolutions, there's a lot of anger, uncertainty, confusion, and of course, the urge to start a witch hunt. The witch hunt has existed through out time in different forms. Today is no different. Our culture is going through turmoil, watch your step or you'll get burned.

[Kleos]

You're making no sense at all. What country isn't overpopulated these days? No nation's survival is going to be jeopardised if every last one of their female-fighters are slaughtered.

I addressed this point in my first post:

People may simply point out that there is only a small number of women who are involved in frontline fighting and only a very small percentage of a nation’s population is actually involved in modern warfare. But to me this is beside the point – my reservations lie with the principle and moral side of warfare.

It’s the principle. Child soldiers would be good for an overpopulated country; more easily moulded, smaller, more agile, would have a psychological effect on the enemy, and we young are a drain with our schooling and health care as well…. But by principle I wouldn’t feel that the use of child soldiers is acceptable; and I feel the same with women. You may disagree but it’s my opinion.

I'm against women in combat units for one simple reason. Male psychology puts protection of women at a high priority, above sense and discipline. So if a women goes down injured, men are likely to break discipline and try to help her instead of suppress the enemy. So instead of one injured soldier, you now have two or more.

Very good point; I know I would put the survival of a female comrade even if it possibly jeopardised the mission – I think most men instinctively would.

[jimkatalanos]

Women in warfare is the only beautiful thing during war.

[Lord Bohemond]

Women in warfare is the only beautiful thing during war.

A woman being brutally crippled, or captured and raped, or killed... that's beautiful? What kind of sick fetish is this?

[Lord Bohemond]

WOMEN SHOULD STAY AT HOME AND HAVE MY DINNER READY FOR WHEN I GET BACK!

[hellheaven1987]

I'm against women in combat units for one simple reason. Male psychology puts protection of women at a high priority, above sense and discipline. So if a women goes down injured, men are likely to break discipline and try to help her instead of suppress the enemy. So instead of one injured soldier, you now have two or more.

Completely agree. Personally I am against women in combat units, but for other section, such as supply unit, I would recommand use women as much as possible, and free all male and transfer them into combat units.

[killerchinchilla]

I'm against women in combat units for one simple reason. Male psychology puts protection of women at a high priority, above sense and discipline. So if a women goes down injured, men are likely to break discipline and try to help her instead of suppress the enemy. So instead of one injured soldier, you now have two or more.

Two points, firstly the answer to that is to have single sex combat units, which in itself would stop other none military problems like inappropriate front line relationships.

Second point, I'm not entirely sure how true that statement is, I think when it came to a combat situation they'd be treated no differently to any other soldier. If they are poorly trained and disciplined then yes such a situation might happen. How people behave in combat is totally different to how they might be expected to behave. How many times have American service woman been involed in combat in Iraq and how often does it have a negative effect on the combat unit? When Jessica Lynch's convoy was attacked did all the men rush to her aid and form a heroic last stand around her?

[mightyfenrir]

women troops also double as hot mamas

http://www.maximonline.com/girls_of_...nseForces.girl

Israeli women can be hot sometimes... but as for the question...

Women are indeed a part of the community, so why shouldn't they fight to protect the community same as the men? Or at least have the right to demand that ability.

[Inhuman One]

If a woman wants to defend her country she has that right. And not all men would defend a woman sooner. Some might see a female soldier as a burden, might dislike her for thinking she should not be there, etc. And what about male soldiers that are gay? they might protect one guy sooner than completing their objectives.

I personly do feel that it is a man's job to take care of his wife/girlfriend. A female soldier would most likely be seen as one of the guys, as a friend and companion. soldiers will protect their friends. If your friend would be in danger you would help be they male or female.

[hellheaven1987]

I personly do feel that it is a man's job to take care of his wife/girlfriend. A female soldier would most likely be seen as one of the guys, as a friend and companion. soldiers will protect their friends. If your friend would be in danger you would help be they male or female.

Depends. If you can only save one, would you choose your female friend or male friend?

[Diarmuid]

I have to say that I strongly agree with Kleos. I am very much against women being in dangerous combat situations. Further more, it is undermining to true masculinity, (and harmful to women) to expect women to act and compete with men on the same level in all situations just to be considered equal! That is only saying that women are naturally inferior, and have to emulate males to be considered equal - and that is maddness.

I think that allowing women in the army, and putting them in violent situations goes against the grains of civilized society, and that the brutality on the battlefield will put women in even more danger. Further more it will open the door to more harsh treatment of women, once you view women as targets, or are made to believe they are as legitimate a target as a man, physiologically that will make changes that will be very detrimental to women. Besides, allowing women to be impositions where they could be captured and suffer things that no gentleman should stand to let happen. It also takes away from man’s role in society as a protector. And what better use for masculinity than the role of a protector? It may seem old fashion, but there is really no better channel for masculinity than being a protector/provider. When that role is taken away a man’s path is uncertain and empty, which often leads to frustration and even violence.

The fact that men are often portrayed as ignorant pigs, or incompetent cowards on TV doesn’t help either. The knight in shining armor may be made fun of in our day and age, yet when I hear how some young women are being instructed to yell ‘fire’ instead of ‘rape’ then I question the direction of manhood in our time. Maybe it is time that men find some time to ground themselves, after all, there are plenty of women doing it.

In my personal life experience, I have been blessed to know some very wise and good women. I have enjoyed many good, intelligent conversations with women that has served me well throughout my life. Such conversations true chauvinistic men would miss out on, because they either view the women in their lives as simply objects, or keep them chained to the kitchen or hardly have time to talk to them as both pursue their all-important careers in the grand game of life. As a man, they have been a source of inspiration to me, as well as a foundation for character building. They do not have to go fight or act like men to be equal. By their gentle presence in my life alone have they made a man of me. How? Because I am encouraged to be a protector and provider. I have no “male angst” and certainly no angst or disrespect towards women. Because they showed me what it was to be a lady, I learned what it is to be a gentleman.

In fact, I have been in a deep and loving relationship with a girl for four years, and she is deeply glad that I have these opinions, because I treat her like a lady, which means I respect and cherish her for who she is naturally. Also, she feels secure knowing that I am looking out for her at all times, and I am willing to be the main provider in the family unit. I look on it as my duty as a man, one I am glad to fulfil.

Otherwise what are men good for? If we have superior physical strength what better than to use it to protect that which makes life beautiful? If we have the drive to compete, to go out and provide for our families, that is far better than the kind of guys who just live for themselves and want women only to sleep with.

If we allow the attack on true femininity to continue our society will only become more splintered, violent, and unstable. Men and women are meant to be mutual partners in life, and their differences should be celebrated for they compliment and complete each other. The path to true equality is through respect for our differences, not trying to pretend they are not there. If that makes me sound to old fashion, or traditional, or some sort of “chauvinist pig” then I will gladly let the women of my life attest as to what kind of man I am. By their words let me be judged. Thus I will remain true to my ideals.

[Axe-Battler]

Honestly, I think letting most women join, and most women in military positions are no bigger than 120 pounds... makes the military look weak.

And it's just done out of political correctness.

They should not let 110-120 pound women join, or even women that may be 150-160 pounds.

They should only let women like laila ali, anne wolfe, and female powerlifters join who are as strong or stronger as the average male soldier.

It would increase standards and get rid of the feminized military they have today.

[Feliks]

The path to true equality is through respect for our differences, not trying to pretend they are not there.

But the path to freedom is one that does not levy restrictions based merely uncontrollable differences. We can not allow gender to degenerate into a modern-day caste system.

[Lord Bohemond]

Not true. For example, if you're born with HIV you are not allowed to engage in sexual activity without informing your partner of your condition.

If you're diabetic, asthmatic, or have some other condition, you cannot join the military without informing them first.

You cannot control your aging, yet in many professions you have to take periodic tests and exams to make sure you're still qualified. Old age obviously makes you less likely to pass.

Need I go on?

[Cluny the Scourge]

It’s the principle. Child soldiers would be good for an overpopulated country; more easily moulded, smaller, more agile, would have a psychological effect on the enemy, and we young are a drain with our schooling and health care as well…. But by principle I wouldn’t feel that the use of child soldiers is acceptable; and I feel the same with women. You may disagree but it’s my opinion.

Child soldiers are pressed into soldiering - adult women choose to be soldiers. The moral principle is that volunteers judged to be mentally competent - fight. There's no comparison between the two.

I have to say that I strongly agree with Kleos...

If you're going to set up an alternate account to make posts supporting your own views, Kleos, you should probably do it without that characteristic increased text-size because it's kind of a giveaway.

The Israelis used to have women in front line combat units, but if they were captured they tended to be treated so badly, raped even, it made their continued use impossible. The same treatment has happened for many women in warfare, the USSR's women soldiers being a good example.

Doubtless if Israeli or Soviet male soldiers were captured in front-line combat by their Arab/Nazi enemies they tended to treated very badly, raped even. Their continued use would only be judged to be impossible if you reacted to that poor treatment paternally - oh, poor girl, I must protect her because I'm a man and she can't make her own decisions and be tough and look out for herself as male soldiers can - instead of the way you react to reports of all mistreatment of soldiers - with anger, but with the resigned acceptance that they knew the risks.

[leeho730]

I don't care.

Trained female soldiers are much more efficient soldiers than average males who never received nor experienced hardship of military training.

Women can definitely play roles in logistics, signals, medical support etc.

I've worked with a good number of female soldiers. Sure, majority of them are slower than me when running or doing press-ups, but for forced marching (especially for several days on the field) those trained females soldiers are pretty good, i.e. they're better soldiers than you!

[killerchinchilla]

Doubtless if Israeli or Soviet male soldiers were captured in front-line combat by their Arab/Nazi enemies they tended to treated very badly, raped even. Their continued use would only be judged to be impossible if you reacted to that poor treatment paternally - oh, poor girl, I must protect her because I'm a man and she can't make her own decisions and be tough and look out for herself as male soldiers can - instead of the way you react to reports of all mistreatment of soldiers - with anger, but with the resigned acceptance that they knew the risks.

I'm not entirely sure how many men were raped by the Nazi's or Arabs, I'm sure it happened. But when you have a woman captured in combat the chances of her being raped will increase dramatically, even in wars were both sides respect the Geneva Convention I'd imagine because the temptation is there.

Ok, having checked up on this I can see I was wrong, the IDF nolonger ban women from combat roles, its now voluntary.

[Inhuman One]

Women can be tough just like men, there are many women tougher than the average men, and if you look at some men there isnt any toughness to be seen. Think about fasion designers and such.

I think that many here have the wrong image of female soldiers. They arent all supermodels that are worried about breaking a nail and would let guys carry their stuff. I personly dont think that any overly feminine woman would join the army. Clothing is very important to women after all and a uniform doesnt give much freedom for that. I personly think that female soldiers are usually the kind that would sooner beat up a guy that would try to rape them than scream and run away.

Men cant always be around to protect women, its a good thing if they can stand up for themselves. Sure they can be captured and so can men. I do think that it would be more scarring for a man to be raped by other men than a woman being raped by men. Its both awfull and shouldnt happen but you need to blame those sick bastards that would go as low as to rape others.

I really think that all rapists deserve death. Not all murderers deserve death but all rapists do. Some killings can be justified but rape can never be justified. If someone would kill a relative of yours in front of your eyes its only natural that you want to kill the killer after all, and in war too of course. If you kill your enemies its normal. If you rape them you deserve death.

[Kleos]

If you're going to set up an alternate account to make posts supporting your own views, Kleos, you should probably do it without that characteristic increased text-size because it's kind of a giveaway.

What? Someone with a low post count supports what I say so you accuse me of creating a duplicate account. Oh, whats that ...they used large writing...well then it must be me *sigh*

I don't care that you disagree with me, I like reasoned debate and argument, justified criticism of my opinions; but to accuse me of that for no reason is pathetic.