Topic awaiting preservation: new war topic - women in combat. (Page 1 of 1)

some comments on women in combat:

quote:

---

Noncombat positions or support positions used to be subject to something called the "risk rule." It meant that if you were attached to say an infantry unit in the support or supply unit, you didn?t have to go close to the front lines. But the risk rule was eliminated in 1994 by Les Aspen and the C*****n Administration, and it means that women are now at greater risk including three women that we know, one a prisoner of war, two women missing from the same maintenance unit. They were not supposed to be subject to capture or close to the front line, but we know now that they are, because the rules were changed.

---

now, what do you think? what role should women play in war? Please, don't say "there should be no war - there is, and that belongs in a different topic. Just tell me where you think women should be. Should they be:

• on the front line, shooting the guns with the blokes
• involved anywhere up to the front line, in non-combat positions
• involved, but not in high risk situations
• involved, but only administrative
• at home, in munitions factories.

just thought it could be an interesting topic.

Oh man, what a can of worms...I remember when the military enacted these rules, as I was in...it caused quite a furore, I can tell you.

My personal thoughts on the subject - if the woman in question can perform all the battlefield tests satisfactorly, then by all means...however, very few women can...and bullets do not have a concious...they don't care, meaning that whoever is slower as the rest, is more likely to be killed.

The Isrealis have also pulled most women from actual combat roles, due to increased casualties in mixed units...but this mostly came from the men...somehow, it 'awoke' a protection instinct in the men, and placed them at increased risk.

I have had the 'distinction' of training women, in the Army...to put it bluntly, I was not impressed. On rare occasions, there were women who i would consider battlefield compatable...but it was far and inbetween. One main thing to consider, is hand-to-hand fighting...here, almost all women are at a disadvantage.

While I'll probably take heat for my point of view, I firmly believe that in most instances women don't have a place in combat in the armed services. Reguardless of advances in technology, physical strength and speed are vital in combat. Unless women can demonstrate comparative strength and speed to men, they're placing there own, as well as the lives around them in danger.

I'm a firm believer in equal oppurtunity but I believe a person should be qualified for a job, not simply given it based on race or gender.

Jestah

like i could pass this one by...lol

in a perfect world....sure...let women hold whatever position they can achieve in the military.

in the real world....women shouldn't be in combat. is this for the woman's own saftey? not one bit... it's for the saftey of the men. i firmly believe that, like WS said, men would tend to put themselves at risk to save the women. that does no one any good. i'm sure there are women out there that COULD do the job....but just because you CAN do it...doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.
but, then again, i'm all for women being fighter pilots. sorry if that makes no sense....



__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Hold on to your hats! WebShaman, I found myself agreeing with absolutely *everything* you just said word for word, syllable by syllable. WOW!!! What a momentous occasion! We should make a toast.

I am actually shocked at all the agreement on this thus far. I can't wait to read more opinions as they come in.

Toast! *Klinks glass*

Actually, I don't find it all that surprising...my experiences with the subject are drawn from realistic facts...and anyone with the same sense, will draw that conclusion, as well...as you did, for example.

In fact, the only people really screaming about putting women in combat careers, are women officers (because of the career emphasis on combat experience) and fanatic feminists who have no idea of the realities of combat...believe me, most enlisted women do not wish to be in a combat position - because they are the ones going to be shot at.

Consider also, how much gear the average ground pounder is carrying...that's added weight, which can only be offset by strength and mass. This is really an area, where only a small percent of women can qualify, for they must have a build and stature of a man.

As far as being a combat pilot...hmmm. A woman does have much better reflexes, generally, and have all the right abilities to be superb combat pilots...though I'm really not up to speed on the effects of the forces on a woman's body (which can be extreme - these days, G's of up and over 9 are possible). However, the spectre of being shot down and taken prisoner does tend to raise it's ugly head...torture techniques for women are really nasty...and seeing the dead body of a woman soldier dragged through the streets...well, as long as the military is willing to accept that (and the public), I have absolutely no problem with it, in fact, I'm for it.

Women on subs - absolutely no. For outsiders (a good childhood friend is a mariner, a sub driver), that may raise a few eyebrows, and bring with it a few questions...but for insiders (actual experience), there can be no question here...unless the entire crew is female. No mixed crews...the enormous stress, and lack of living space is just begging for problems...imagine the 'fooling around' kind of things that could happen alone...and should a crewmember get pregnant...gonna be hard to get that crewmember off the sub.

WOW! i took a screenshot.....

i think i'll go check to see if hell has frozen over......


__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Woohoo!

Oh, Lacuna...hell froze over awhile ago...when the Eagles got back together!

On a more serious note - this Rescue of Jessica Lynch Raises Questions About Women in Combat

Now, this real situation highlights a lot of what I have been saying - and some of the 'voices' against what I have said

quote:

---

But some don't like the idea of women going to war.
People with the Washington-based Center for Military Readiness say women distract men and endanger the mission.
Chattanooga nurse Bren Luke disagrees.
"I believe that women have just as much of a capability of performing in a wartime situation as a man. There are certain duties that, yes, women just cannot perform as effectively. But I feel that women have alot to give toward their country and the national safety."
But often, young women jeopardize their own safety in the process.

---

What has been totally ignored here, is the torture that this woman went through at the hands of the Iraqis...if one reads the article about how she was rescued, one will pick up clues to this (but it isn't really being stressed in the media) - she had both arms broken, and a leg - now, either she wasn't putting up any resistance before her capture (and the media is lying about that), or she sustained those injuries during...internment. Also, there was a crude torture chamber set up in the basement of the hospital...I don't even want to think about what else could have been done...full article here Rescued private fought fiercely
In ambush, she kept firing despite being wounded, officials say


Now, I don't know about you guys (and gals), but that makes my blood boil, and I'm not even from her unit, and don't know this woman. If I was from her unit, I would have gone down, trying to protect her, trying to prevent her capture, her death, I'm sure of it. What man wouldn't? You know the Iraqis are going to treat her nastily. This, of course, then has the effect of clouding my better judgement, which is deadly on the battlefield. Bad enough when it is a man - worse, when it is a woman. Why do you think that it is forbidden, for children to participate in combat? Because that is the worse case scenario, isn't it? Well, the next up is a woman. Bad enough that men have to do it, for gods sake, why women? Who in their right mind would insist on their right to be wounded, or tortured, or die on the battlefield? It's beyond me...



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-03-2003).]

ya know, the only thing i was/am wondering about, was if she was raped. (no i didn't read either article WS posted, as i'm too lazy right now)
the things that they do to men when they torture them is bad enough, but then you throw a woman in there and it adds a whole other sick list of things that can be done to hurt her.
and, while i'm very happy that they rescued her, i do wonder why no men have been rescued yet....i mean, did they try harder to find her, because she'a woman (and because she's younger).
actually, there was a study a while ago about women fighter pilots....it found that women actually make better fighter pilots than men because they tend to be able to 'multi-task' better and handle stress better. though, i don't recall weather or not they mentioned anything about the physical effects....will have to dig around a bit and see if i can find it.

i don't know, i tend to think that most women who would want to go into combat are only doing it to 'prove' something. that's a bit of a blanket statement, but that's how i see it.

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

I think that most women in the military want to be able to participate in combat if they want to, and have been proven capable of that sort of combat. But I doubt, if you asked a military woman directly, that she'd say she really wanted to go.

It's the fact that it was forbidden that gets women's dander up. (dander - looks funny when it's in writing...)

Personally, I think that if a woman can successfully complete all of the rigorous training and testing associated for combat preparation, she should be allowed to go if she wants to. Most women in the military are fairly intelligent, and hopefully understand all of the risks involved in facing combat. Especially those risks that are particular to women.
That said, I actually agree with everything else that WS said there. I think men do tend towards protectiveness of women, it's ingrained in most men's upbringing (i.e.: women and children first). And that could prove detrimental to the men in a woman's unit on the battlefield for exactly that reason. But it's the fact that women want to be permitted to go into combat, as opposed to being forbidden to go. That gets into the whole double standard issue...

Regarding Private Jessica Lynch, I really want to believe that she was left by the Iraqis for dead due to her injuries, and that the men who were taken with her were simply removed to further imprisonment. I want to believe that the military wouldn't search her out specifically simply because she's a woman, or due to her age, (there's probably men in her unit the same age). But there's probably no way we'll ever know the truth of what happened there... And God help anyone who's in Iraqi hands. Geneva Conventions probably don't mean a thing in this situation...

edit - damn fingers
Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 04-03-2003).]

The world is coming to an end...
WS, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Women should be given 100% the training and chance to succeed, and then allowed to take a position, any position, based on their ability to do the job at hand. We wouldn't put a man who was a complete mechanical moron in charge of fixing tank engines. That doesn't make sense. We wouldn't put a blind person 'behind the wheel' of an F-16. You give each a job they are capable of doing. If a woman (or a man) doesn't have the strengh to life a 100 lb howitzer shell, s/he has no business on a 155mm gun crew. If a woman (or a man) can't carry 85+ lbs of gear and ammo on their back, s/he has no business in the infantry. You don't give the .50 to the smallest guy in the squad.
Fit the person to the job.

I'm against blanket statements (like, 'no woman could ever work in artillery') because I just don't think that is true. I do, however, think that an infantry job (or most combat roles, for that matter) is SO physical in nature MOST women would not be able to perform those tasks adequately.

I've never seen so many people agree on an issue here.

Unfortunately, I also have to agree with about everything that has been said.

Some people would like to believe that there is no difference at all between men and women, and that is simply not true.

I think mobrul sums it up perfectly: Fit the person to the job. Plain and simple.

STOP AGREEING WITH EACH OTHER!!! I CAN'T HANDLE THIS!!! AAAGGHHHH!!!

You are all feckin morons I don't agree with a single thing you've said.

Having said that.

I think women should be given equal chances to meet the exact same requirements that men meet before going into battle. If they meet these requirements slap a helmet on 'em and call 'em canon fodder.

Oh wait, that's what all of you said.

Nevermind.


:::krets.net:::

Ditto the above.

One point I wanted to mention/ask. I heard that physical standards requirments are different for women then they are for men (I assume because of the non-combatancy). Has this been changed since they have been allowed on the front lines? I've seen the pictures of this girl they just rescued. It doesn't look like she could march under full gear, carry a comrade to safety, or do any number of things that soldiers are required to be able to do (I imagine). So have the standards been made into the standard or are they still at the lower threshold for entry into the service?

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

So, should I bother jumping in here and agreeing? Oh... too late.

hmm....
is it just me, or are there some minor discrepancies here, that are passing through undetected?

first of all, there is the generic equality satatement - give both sexes all the training, and give the job to the best suited.

but then other factors exist:
1. POW. there's no denying it - a female POW will be subjected to worse treatment than a male one.
2. 'Distraction factor'. males act differently with females around - either they go into 'protective mode', or 'yay! boobies!' mode - either or both of which will impede their ability to shoot the bad guy.

with these two factors alone, you can see that even if a female is a far better candidate than a male for going into battle, elements exist that may make her perhaps a worse choice.

should these factors be ignored? do these factors not actually exist, or are they negated by other factors?



come on - there has to be some source of conflict SOMEWHERE in here.....

I do beleive those issues have been addressed, haven't they

Where do you get the idea that she was raped...? or had her arms broken after capture...? have you lost your objectivity? I heard many stories too about US troops commiting horrendous acts of brutality in Bosnia but I don't quote it or imply it as fact... and aparently she was not really rescued at all... rather they found her abandoned in an Iraqi hospital... not in a torture cell...

Keep your mind open, not half ajar...

...xpi...


"nuff said"

Well GD, I can't speak for how it's being done now...but back then (Late 80s) as i was training women, they didn't have the same physical standards to meet. This came about because all the women libbers were screaming that the tests should measure porportional strength...which is absolutely ridiculous on a battlefield. The women didn't have to do as many push-ups, sit-ups and run in the same time...it was cut down to a 'porportional' test...whatever that means - kind of like gym class in High School.

I won't even mention some of the hygene problems that I encountered on bivauc...but any women on this board could probably imagine what I'm talking about...

Lacuna, the articles of course did not mention that...why would they? That would be really personal, I would think...better to leave it unsaid IMHO. For the protection of the victim. That would be the last thing she needs...if, at some future time, she feels the need to go public with it, then that's her decision...

Xipirex - this

quote:

---

Where do you get the idea that she was raped...? or had her arms broken after capture...?

---

First of all, I never said that she was raped - please re-read my post.

And as for arms broken after capture, again, I never said that - please re-read my post. What I did say, is either the media is lying (because how on earth is she going to be able to defend herself with two broken arms? Shoot with her feet?) or she sustained these after capture.

Please read the posts, before responding next time.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-04-2003).]

reitsma - no, those factors cannot be ignored. in fact women were forbidden on the old sailing ships for the same reasons WS pointed out about submarines! close quarters!

- what nonsense that some soldiers have a different test - either a soldier meets the phyical requirements or not. basing requirements on gender is absurd.

I agree with a good portion of what's been said.
If a guy and a gal can do the same job equally, then they should both have the right to do it.

reitsma, I don't really agree with this:

quote:

---

1. POW. there's no denying it - a female POW will be subjected to worse treatment than a male one.
2. 'Distraction factor'. males act differently with females around - either they go into 'protective mode', or 'yay! boobies!' mode - either or both of which will impede their ability to shoot the bad guy.

---

Yes, there is denying it... a female POW will not nessecarily be subjected to worse treatment. Sure, a large chunk of countries don't view women in the same light as perhaps the US does, however... there are plenty of laws to "protect" against this sort of thing. You're basically saying that in a hostage situation where international law is being broken, the woman is worse off. I'm sorry, but we can't base our guidelines on the possibility of law being broken.
This is a poor example, but I'm somewhat restricted on time, and it's the first thing that came to mind....
How about we don't let children ride in cars at all. Because if a child doesn't wear his/her seatbelt, they are liable to get thrown further from a car than an adult would.

It's weak, I know... but I think my point is somewhere in there.

As for your second point...
I understand what you're saying, however think about your own work situation...
In the first month or two of working with a new woman in your office, or where ever... You'll likely see the very things that you mentioned...
However.... in time, this sort of behavior works itself out. It depends on the people.

Well, I'd expand a bit more, but I've got some packing to do.
*waves*

Micheal - I understand what you're saying but a precedent(sp?) has already been set in the military with banning all sexual contact/interest during boot camp and punishing infractions of those rules. Someone though of the disruptions that women would cause among male soldiers and knew better than to have them fraternizing while in training. It only makes sense that the issues they were avoiding in training would need to be addressed elsewhere, like the battlefield for instance.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

quote:

---

aparently she was not really rescued at all... rather they found her abandoned in an Iraqi hospital... not in a torture cell...

---

In refrence to earlier last week, when Iraqi soldiers were holed up in a hospital with chemical suits and nerve gas antidotes, just because it was a hospital, didn't mean that it was fully used as one.

GD: Good points, though not entirely true. There are co-ed groups that go through basic training depending on the service.
And I see what you're saying, however I believe there to be a distinct difference between initial training and on-going "work".

Right and the punishments incurred for 'supposed' infractions of the rules is rather severe. From the friends I've talked to that have gone through boot camp that have had female soldiers on site, the penelties for even glancing at them in the way anybody notices anybody walking around sort of a way, are as severe as not having your gear stowed or being late for duty. Whether it was disruptive to the male soldiers because they were actually distracted or it distracted their superiors because they needed to keep an eye on their soldiers for something beyond their training doesn't matter, it's still a disruption.

I would say lets make an all female battalion and let them do their job that way except I see the potential for severe competition and rivalry which is something we don't want to enhance in our own military. I think it is a situation that needs to be addressed. The only reason it hasn't really been touched is because of the severity of reaction that comes out of the feminist groups. IMHO If they would realize that 'equality is good enough' then maybe they would realize that a lot of things are equal or are to women's benefit at this point. Not all things, mind you, but a reasonable amount of them.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-04-2003).]

Check this latest version of events concerning Jessica Lynch. This story gets more interesting by the minute.

Bugs - I heard that on the news this morning and was gonna add my $0.02 on it, but you beat me to the game. dang!
I was wondering exactly how it was that they knew she was there. My first thoughts were that perhaps the hospital had been abandoned and Coalition forces were searching it. But apprently, it's still functioning as a hospital (good thing, probably). I'm glad that fellow had a heart, I know the girl's parents are!

Given the possibility that a woman might have to carry a male comrade off the battlefield, it would probably make more sense to have that woman face the exact same strength and speed trials as a man would for the same job. If she's not able to carry the dead-weight of an unconscious person (male or female) to safety, perhaps she ought to reconsider her military vocation and opt for a non-combat position. Whether the military training procedures will catch up to that thought anytime in the near future remains to be seen.

Takes a long time when changes have to be recorded and re-recorded in triplicate...
"Suit the person to the job" makes an awful lot of sense when you think about it that way.


Bodhi - Cell 617

wow bugs, sounds like we've got sort of an iraqi/us patriot on our hands...good stuff.

michael, one thing i think you're ignoring is that a 9-5 job is nothing like being in the military, especially in a combat situation. to start with you're in much closer, more constant contact with each other, which creates much more potential for compromising situations then checking out at the cute secretary at the water cooler. not to mention that in stressful situations people form extremely close bonds and become very protective of each other; that's part of the reason we see soldier sacrifice their lives for others, they see them as family. taking that into consideration, who are you more protective of, your brother or your sister?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

GD- Well, in basic training, any punishment is "severe", I guess you could say. From my experience, the glance at a female walking during basic training would be no different if a male walked by and dropped something and you glanced over. You'd get the same "ribbing" from the instructors either way. It's all considered a lack of military bearing.

Fig- I'm referring to the military. Although I may have down-played things slightly to seem a little more "non-military" oriented in the previous post, that's because most people are not in the military. However, I am in the military.. and I'm speaking from personal experience.

Webshamen: point taken I sorry if I misunderstood you... Certain statements seemed slighlty suggestive... thankyou for clarification.

Yours Humbly ...xpi...

By the way I have a sister who spent 14 years in the British army and did service in the Faulklands and Northen Ireland. Aparantly she had a fine old time during her service. I have a question though: she eventually married a Major in the army and had to leave the service because she was of lower rank to him. He still serves and is stationed in Germany where they live now with heir family. Why is marriage not permitted between servicemen and women of different ranks, requireing one party to leave the service for it to become legal?... Or does this only apply to Britsh Armed services? Any ideas anyone?

"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-07-2003).]

Well, xpi (apology accepted, np ), that about ranks and marriage - it depends. I've seen and known lots of married servicemen (and women) in the military...but the problem comes when a) they work in the same unit and b) they are officers.

It's a chain of command thing, as well...and the rules for service men and women are in place to prevent favorism...especially in the upper ranks, or combat areas. Though I think that Micheal could explain that all better - he's up to par on how the American military does things now...I'm from the 'old' school...and I went through the 'transition' phase, where women were 'allowed' in the military (and many things had to be changed...).

I'm curious to see how things have turned out...Micheal, what's the poop? How are things now, between the sexes?

Hmm... I guess no one has any idea about that then?


...xpi...

"nuff said"

Well, it seems logical enough.

As WS said, favoritism becomes a big issue. And whether that favoritism is real or perceived is irrelevent. Allowing for the possibility of a person serving under their spouse is just a bad idea, period. It doesn't work in the civilian world, and I can only imagine that any problems would be magnififed in the military world.

There is also the question of undue consideration. If the soldier on the mission is your wife, and you're in charge, your judgement will obvisouly be clouded.

Better to avoid the problem altogether than have to worry about keeping track of it and possibly facing the consequences of it.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 04-16-2003).]

Worse is the problem of direct supervisor, who is rating his/her spouse...what, you going to rate them badly? Wait until you get home...heh. Also, consider that the earlier one gains rank, the more money one earns (rank=more money), so, a married couple in a supervisor/supervisee situtaion, would be inclined to see the benefits of that - i.e. the ratings would be biased (irregardless of whether they are or not, the perception, as DL mentioned, is that it could be). Now, ratings do have an effect on rank, of course, though it isn't the only criteria (it's a complicated system, actually). Thus, with 'perfect' ratings, one has a better chance to gain rank earlier.

We won't go into Officer/enlisted married situations, because they are not allowed. Period. (at least, they weren't when I was in). That would be fraternization, pure and simple, and is actually punishable by military law. One of the two would have to leave the military, to do this.

Wow, thats getting a bit deep, ok thanks people...


...xpi...

"nuff said"