Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 141

Thread: U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

  1. #81
    Advisor Polynikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    02-04-13 @ 01:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    522

    Re: U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    The link Polynikes posted carries little weight. The WND cites one guy from a conservative think tank who claims that men spent their time protecting women instead of fighting the enemy.

    1) The heritage foundation man provided no evidence for his claim.

    2) 1948 was a different time. In the U.S., we still were still segregated in the military. Sexism was rampant, and women faced immense discrimination in most jobs.

    3) Even if you want to accept such unfounded claims, they only would apply to unmounted infantry. Combat positions such as a tank commander or ground attack pilot would not have such problems.
    I did not research the validity of the link because it isn't the centerpiece of my argument, it just highlights and articulates commonly held positions.

    How does 1948 and women being segregated make their role and the adverse effects they have in combat different than right now? This is the same argument Redress was making and I don't seem the validity of it. War is War. Sure the technology changes and the roles change, but psychologically, men have changed very little in in the past few hundred years regarding war.

    And if you had read the original article I was talking about, women are accepted in combat roles such as pilots and tank crews. This however does not correlate to them serving in infantry roles. Being on the ground fighting in the infantry is very different than being in a tank or in a plane.


    I think any implementation of women in infantry combat would have to be done slowly and studied carefully. It is not that I am against them serving, I just would hate to see lives lost so women could have equality. If the data showed they didn't adversely effect the mission or put the soldier's lifes at unnecessary risk, I would be the first to say "Let them in."
    "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Jefferson

  2. #82
    Guru
    F107HyperSabr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Connecticut
    Last Seen
    10-21-10 @ 09:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,617

    Re: U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

    I noticed that some posters have tried to equate the pre 1948 US segragationist policies and the non-inviting of woman into combat as the "same". I do not see an equal arguement when it comes to gender. The differences between fighting men of diferent races has been bown away long before 1948. There are no proven physical characteristics between mne of diferent races regarding how they perform in combat. The diferences as to how genders react, act, pro-act and behave under the stress of combat has never been is unknown but what is known is how woman behave, react, and act in general life and we know that woman act differently than men.

    Therefore not inviting woman into combat is not discrimination.
    I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us f107HyperSabr

  3. #83
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:25 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,351
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes View Post
    Our definitions of combat are different. I am all for women serving in combat roles i.e. Pilots, Tank Crew, etc. The issue I am discussing, and the one the initial article addresses is them serving on front-line, infantry style combat. Women do not regularly see this type of combat. In fact I would say they very rarely do.

    There is no information available to analyze how they have either postively or negatively affected the battlefield. This type of 'experiment' would need to have women in an infantry platoon, walking the streets of Iraq or any other combat environment just like the infantry do now. Any other 'experiment' would not suffice.
    There are plenty, large quantities of examples of women caught in front line situations. There is almost certainly sufficient data to study on the subject. There is no need to experiment. Any other objections?

  4. #84
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:25 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,351
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes View Post
    How does 1948 and women being segregated make their role and the adverse effects they have in combat different than right now? This is the same argument Redress was making and I don't seem the validity of it. War is War. Sure the technology changes and the roles change, but psychologically, men have changed very little in in the past few hundred years regarding war.
    I disagree that men have changed very little psychologically. I think the overall psychology of people and society is not just changing rapidly, but that that change is accelerating. if anyone has any information on that topic, I would love to read some on it.

  5. #85
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,075

    Re: U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Polynikes View Post
    Ministers are to consider changing the rules limiting women's combat roles in the armed forces, the BBC has learned.

    BBC NEWS | UK | Women's front-line role reviewed

    I am curious to the positions held by members of this forum on this topic. Having been in the Marine Corps infantry and experienced combat I think this is a horribly misguided effort of egalitarianism. None of my opinions are sexist by any means.


    1. Women do not have the upper body strength equivalant to that of a man. They physically do not have the strength to effectively carry and then efficiently deploy a weapon in combat such as the Squad Automatic Weapon, AT-4, or any type of additional combat arms outside of their primary weapon. Of course there is exceptions, and I am sure some women are stronger than most of the Marines I served with, but I am speaking in general terms. When I was in Iraq I was carrying on average of 80-90 lbs of gear in 100+ degree heat, sometimes for hours. I am not looking for 'wow' or for people to think I am tough, I am merely highlighting the very realistic circumstances that need to be considered. This is the probably the pill hardest for women to swallow when discussing the debate due to the nature of it basically calling them physically inferior to men.

    2. Former head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, told The Politics Show he believed any change could lead to "concerns that operational effectiveness, particularly in the infantry, could be and probably would be, jeopardised".

    History has shown that the presence of women in combat had very adverse of effect of men in combat.


    For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said.


    Debunking the Israeli 'women in combat' myth

    3. Political ramifications. The United States, or any nation for that manner is simply not ready, and will never be ready, for the sight of mothers and daughters coming home in body bags in large numbers. The obvious question then to be asked is 'What makes it acceptable to have fathers and son brought home in body bags?' The answer is that's just the way it has been, so we've grown accustomed. If women had combat roles all along then it would be a different story.


    I wouldn't want to be the one to tell this Lt. Ripley, but I will sure as hell tell it to Jessica Lynch.
    If the UK military treats women with kids gloves like the US military then this would be a horrible mistake. Anyone who has served in at least the Army or Marines knows this. If the physical and mental standards were the same and the military wasn't all pc like it is today then maybe women should be allowed in combat roles. However the standards are not the same and would be placing a burden on the male soldiers and marines. So I do not think women should be allowed in the military at all,maybe as nurses,cooks, or some other civilian equivalent job but not combat,they should be as far away from the battle field as possible. That whole Jessica Lynch thing was a crock of ****,she basically spent most of her time unconscious in a hospital and got a medal for it just to forward some feminazi agenda,even she admits the whole thing was blown way out of proportion.
    Last edited by jamesrage; 05-24-09 at 09:31 PM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #86
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,051

    Re: U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    We are just going round and round on most of this, so just this one thing. Any study of women in combat in the modern world would not need to be based on experiment, but on what has happened in those situations now. Women do see combat, regularly. We therefore have a large pool of information to draw from.

    What we have is proof that women can handle themselves in a combat situation thanks to Iraq not having a front line (Jessica Lynch being a disgrace to women). Women have had to defend themselves on plenty occassions, due to convoys being attacked with IED's and such. But this is not the same thing as sending a woman into a fight.

    Units that have women in them also have the logistics to accomodate them. The hygiene for women entails a bit more than it does for a man. Also, in Infantry units, the ability to move fast matters, which means that it cannot carry the types of equipment found in headquarters units such as shower units, privacy shelters, and medical specialties.

    People always jump to the upper body strength or the inability of men to play nice with girls in lonely, desperate situations. Of course, there is a measure of truth to such things just like there is truth to the fact that "brotherhood" and mission seems to always take a back seat whenever the brotherhood feels that they have to focus on being big brother protectorates instead of mission accomplishers at all costs. In other words, when it comes time to kick a door in and clear a room, no man is going to send the girl in first, which means that demoralization, resentment, and unfairness would weaken the unit.

    But with these obvious arguments, there is a very real logisitic issue.
    Last edited by MSgt; 05-24-09 at 09:26 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #87
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

    I did not research the validity of the link because it isn't the centerpiece of my argument, it just highlights and articulates commonly held positions.
    I can agree with that.

    How does 1948 and women being segregated make their role and the adverse effects they have in combat different than right now?
    I was referencing racial segregation, to show how different the military was back then, as well as prevailing social values that have since changed.

    War is War. Sure the technology changes and the roles change, but psychologically, men have changed very little in in the past few hundred years regarding war.
    Considering that rape and plunder are not longer accepted as a normal consequence of Invasion, it is safe to say that men have changed the way the operate in war.


    And if you had read the original article I was talking about, women are accepted in combat roles such as pilots and tank crews. This however does not correlate to them serving in infantry roles. Being on the ground fighting in the infantry is very different than being in a tank or in a plane.
    Currently woman are not allowed in armor or artillery.


    I think any implementation of women in infantry combat would have to be done slowly and studied carefully. It is not that I am against them serving, I just would hate to see lives lost so women could have equality. If the data showed they didn't adversely effect the mission or put the soldier's lifes at unnecessary risk, I would be the first to say "Let them in."
    The first place to start would be snipers, as the female snipers fielded by Russia during WW2 were quite effective.

  8. #88
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

    Units that have women in them also have the logistics to accomodate them. The hygiene for women entails a bit more than it does for a man. Also, in Infantry units, the ability to move fast matters, which means that it cannot carry the types of equipment found in headquarters units such as shower units, privacy shelters, and medical specialties.
    How big are the logistics requirements? Everything you mentioned except tampons and medical stuff could be ignored, and I doubt that would have any noticeable impact on supplies. Considering that woman don't need to shave, it is possible they might even come out ahead in logistics.

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 02:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Re: U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Considering that rape and plunder are not longer accepted as a normal consequence of Invasion,
    Both of these happened extensively in Kuwait in '91, so I think your assertion is hogwash.

  10. #90
    wʜɪтe яussɪaи Tashah's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ישראל אמריקה
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 04:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,379

    Re: U.K. Considers Lifting Combat Ban for Female Troops.

    Lol. I think a lot of males here are upset because they would lose the exclusivity to one of their domains. It also seems to me that what the outdated study is grounded upon is the notion that men will place gender-bias ahead of battlefield necessity. You guys better toughen up.

    Lugging around a gun is so difficult? Jeeze Louise. I have an M-4 and a pup-gun and neither is as heavy as my purse. There are certainly military roles which are more attuned to male participation. However, the converse is also true. There are certainly military roles in which females excel. The trick is in finding the proper balance.

    I personally think the current situation in the IDF is just about right. Women are trained in basic as infantry soldiers and then receive advanced training in specialties that play to their strengths. That said, both the IDF and the US military have discovered that the pace and the specialist demands of modern warfare virtually ensure that female soldiers will experience combat situations whether this outcome is intended or not. That's the reality, and a reality that should be exploited rather than feared and dreaded.

    אשכנזי היהודי Белый Россию

Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •