View Poll Results: Should women be allowed to specialize as infantry

Voters
175. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, and they should be integrated with the males

    101 57.71%
  • Yes, but keep their units seperate from male units

    16 9.14%
  • No, but women should be given some basic infantry skills beyond basic training

    33 18.86%
  • No, women should never serve in a role where they may encounter combat

    15 8.57%
  • Other....

    10 5.71%
Page 44 of 88 FirstFirst ... 34424344454654 ... LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 877

Thread: Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

  1. #431
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,389

    Re: Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Precisely why women SHOULD be in combat.

    p.s. I love what a bad-ass tashah is. It's awesome.
    I know right? She's absolutely fierce!

    *insert profound statement here*

  2. #432
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeJayH View Post
    I would love to specialize in infantry
    playing all day, sleeping all night
    being fed whenever I am hungry and ****ting in my diaper
    being an infant rules
    Heh. You know the term "infantry" derives from the Roman practice of using child soldiers in the front lines?

  3. #433
    Sage
    DeeJayH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Scooping Zeus' Poop
    Last Seen
    06-21-15 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,728

    Re: Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Heh. You know the term "infantry" derives from the Roman practice of using child soldiers in the front lines?
    no way that is either hilarious, or i am gullible

    Human Taxidermist - - now offering his services for all your loved ones
    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    How the hell did you just tie in a retroactive reparative measure with a proactive preventative measure. Not even close to being the same thing.

  4. #434
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,389

    Re: Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    I made this point in the originating discussion thread. When its the survivial of your nation at stake, you need every person you've got, to send rounds downrange. As far as I am concerned, given the rapidly declining birthrates in Western cultures, we need all the women we can to stay out of harms way. So for the US currently, there is simply no need to put our future mothers on the firing line, to satiate some ideal of fairness to the sexes. I did a simple example in the other thread, regarding the logistics of a society that sent females to the fight and one that did not. Men are expendable, women are not.

    That being said, you need to balance the sustainability of your society against the threat of its destruction. When you lean more towards imminent destruction, everybody fights. When you are relatively safe, you look at continuing long term growth or sustainment.
    You actually make a very engaging argument here. I have a couple of questions for you though.

    What do you think it would take to shift the structure of combat arms in order to facilitate the inclusion of female combat troops? Would it be a paradigm shift or something less?

    How long do you think it would take us to make this transformation so that we could actually field capable female combat units? Part two of this question, do you think it could be done effectively during wartime or do you suggest making the changes now so that we can be prepared later?
    *insert profound statement here*

  5. #435
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Snippet of a marching song I learned from a Marine:

    "See that girl dressed in pink?
    She's the one that makes my finger stink!
    Left right left!"

    I wonder if they still belt that one out on the modern integrated Corps?
    Only the grunts.

  6. #436
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
    How long do you think it would take us to make this transformation so that we could actually field capable female combat units?
    Define "capable".

  7. #437
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post

    What do you think it would take to shift the structure of combat arms in order to facilitate the inclusion of female combat troops? Would it be a paradigm shift or something less?
    Basically our society would have to become a drab, colorless world full of androgenous beings where pregnancy could be shifted to one or the other, in the relationship. In that instance, women would be able to serve effectively, and without distraction, as infantry, since there would be no distinguishing characteristics, or societal obligations thrust upon one sex or the other. Physical standards would then be adjusted so as to equal out the physical differences between the rapidly deteriorating sexes. Because physical fitness levels not only determine your strength in battle, but they are also a determining factor in promotions, it would be unfair to promote the traditionally stronger sex, over the traditionally weaker one. So the standards would fall, for what were once considered men, and would become "fair" for what was once considered women. With the genders essentially balanced, there would be no need to fill infantry billets with "male" being a pre-requisite, since the idea of gender would have been eradicated in society and the standards were lowered enough to severely weaken the male population to the point where their musculature would be similar to what females would have had(had we not eliminated the idea of gender). In this state of level playing fields, both physically and socially, those who might have been considered women in the past, will finally have equal opportunity to succeed as infantrypersons. So.... whenever you forsee that happening.



    Now seriously, nothing I can forsee could be shifted in combat arms, for females to serve as infantry. Someone might point to fighter jets, and say "Well women now fly those", but aside from the normal dangers of just flying a fighter aircraft, the technology advantage we have is so great, that fighter pilots are generally safe from attack. Our ground troops would have to essentially have the same level of safety, meaning the only way they get killed is by a lucky shot, or a bad accident, before I think it would be considered an acceptable practice to put women in specific infantry roles. Imagine if you would, the outcry, if 2200 of our 4000+ US deaths in Iraq were female. The number of casualties sustained by US Forces in the amount of time they have spent in Iraq is staggeringly low, but it is still considered too high by many, with the bulk of it being males. If the casualties are split evenly, or hell even 70/30, it would freak people out that our women were being killed. The calls for withdrawal would be even stronger. The technology protecting our ground troops would have to make a substanial leap, like force fields or something, before our society would consider females as grunts.

    My argument is that unless a society is in inherent danger of being destroyed, the society that puts its females in a risk filled situation like the infantry, is making a serious logistical mistake regarding their own sustainability. Unless they are the Chinese. They have plenty of people to throw into the grinder.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  8. #438
    Banned gree0232's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    All over
    Last Seen
    12-30-09 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,341

    Re: Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tashah View Post
    The solution is very simple then. No quarter. Kill them.


    A corpse is a corpse. How it got that way is immaterial.


    That was well before my time. Things have been incrementally changing over the years. As I've tried to explain, modern militaries fight jointly. The pace of modern warfare and the ever-increasing emphasis on technology (specialists) virtually ensure that females will participate in battle at some juncture. Be it as an F18 fighter pilot, an Apache helicopter pilot, firing missiles from a frigate, sniping, working with self-propelled ground guns, or lasing enemy targets right at the front line. Every soldier is an asset and the military must squeeze every iota of talent from its finite asset pool.

    Modern militaries no longer fight hand-to-hand in trenches. Killing zones are typically at a distance of hundreds of meters. As you can see with urban examples such as Fallujah and Gaza, a modern military will destroy the point infrastructure and greatly soften up the penetration lanes previous to the introduction of ground forces. Still, urban warfare is hellish. Be that as it may though, I see no reason at all why female ground units cannot be an effective and positive asset.
    Well, most of what you wrote is definitely an Air Forcish point of view.

    Lets start with some basics, one of which you mention, that of a the 'beta' infantry unit composed of female riflemen. In our Army that would seem to indicate that the 'beta' designation means that it is a different type of infantry. For example, in the US military, we have Ranger, Airborne, Air Assault, Mechanized, Light, and Stryker Infantry. Each of those has a different deisignation, right down to individual skill identifiers to ensure the right skills set to ensure the right qualifications of these infantry units. (i.e. it makes no sense to assign a soldier to an airborne unit that is not parachute qualified.)

    That 'beta' designation lets any would be war planner know that this is not a standard infantry unit, and I would be willing to bet a paycheck that the unit did not see front line action in the latest Gaza campaign.

    It also raises other questions about career progression and inculcation of attitudes. Are these officers competitive for Battalion and Brigade Command? Are the NCO's being culled and trained to become Sergeant's Major? If not, that 'beta' unit is little more than show.

    As for the sexuality portion, here are ust some of the places where either I, or friends (I do have them), have found soldiers engaged in sexual acts in either training or combat:

    Temproary billets, storage rooms, bathrooms, on an LP/OP, in a HMMWV, in the back of an LMTV, on an LOGPAC assault line waiting to corss the border, in the back of a Bradley, inside a tank, inside a water trailer (which subsequently had to be sterilized so soldiers wouldn't drink the resulting sexual fluids), in an out house, behind a rock, in a pile of trash (and that particular incident involved one woman and six men).

    What so many are willing to simply dismiss is something that most military leaders have routinely encountered. It was or Brigade Sergeant Major who caught the couple, both soldiers, going at it in the out house.

    This is not just our military. Years ago, we were suspicious of some police forces in Kosovo, and had our scouts monitor them. Within 24 hours we caught male and female police giving and recieving fallacio in broad daylight. (For some reason, they were catching too many weapons smugglers at the time - odd).

    When you simply dismiss these concerns, you will run smack into the reality that infantry leaders will not budge on. Until a manner or method is discovered that will adaquately discipline such behavior without shredding the constitutional and legal concepts were are sworn to uphold, the ban will be kept in place.

    It isn't about individual qualification, it is about standards that must fit with general trends that can be applied across the board to roughly standardize th resulting unit and its application on the battlefield. The over riding consideration is, and always will be, the likely efficient in battle. No other consideration matters in the slightest.

    Finally, there is the reality of the infantry battle. What Tashah refers to is called conditions setting. It is the attempt to establish condition, such as suppression, that allows the introduction of ground forces in as safe a manner as possible. Make no mistake about it though, our enemies are not stupid. They don't hang out clumped together in large groups in the middle of the desert where you can easily identify them and fire cruise missiles from a frigate, bombs from an F-18, or rockets from an apache at them.

    The enemy is going to hide among heavily populated urban areas, caves in remote areas, under heavy canopy where they will difficult to spot, in sewers and catacombs, underground, and generally in places that denude easy identification, and make the use of massive firepower difficult at best. Simply put, the enemy does not play to your strengths.

    It should comes as no surpise that Al Qaeda is not trying to sink our frigates from Baghdad or Kabul. Instead, they go into places that make our infantry forces more critical than ever before, into areas where physicality and team work are more critical that even to bring about operational and strategic success from a series of small unit, tactical engagements.

    The simplest, most effective means of creating and training a unit up to the standards of cohesion and physicality required to be effective in the small unit battles we are fighting, and are likely to fight, is through single sex, all male infantry units.

    Many women may chafe under rules of exclusion, simply put though, it is not about you.

  9. #439
    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: Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

    Quote Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
    Many women may chafe under rules of exclusion, simply put though, it is not about you.
    No chafe evident here


    אשכנזי היהודי Белый Россию

  10. #440
    Banned gree0232's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    All over
    Last Seen
    12-30-09 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,341

    Re: Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

    Sorry, I just couldn't resist ...

    The Associated Press: Army investigates nude photos at Fort Dix

    By the way, if that is sand in the back ground, then trust me, there is quite a bit of chaffing going on

Page 44 of 88 FirstFirst ... 34424344454654 ... 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
  •