RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Level -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/15/2006 9:57:40 AM)

One thing I would add is that the physical standards were (and may still be?) dropped for women to "qualify". This is something I have a problem with, and not just in the military.




meatcleaver -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/15/2006 10:11:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

One thing I would add is that the physical standards were (and may still be?) dropped for women to "qualify". This is something I have a problem with, and not just in the military.


I forgot about this and this is very true. There have been complaints that physical standards being male orientated have kept women out of the elite forces. Duh!




NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/15/2006 3:19:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedOnMyChain

I was making a point.  What I was arguing was that the potential for rape is an unacceptable reason to deny women the chance to serve on the frontlines if they are capable.


The potential for rape isn't what the descenting voices in the military have complained about in having women on the frontline. It was the general disruption to moral. The affairs, marriage break ups and the pregnancy rates! (and not through rape either)


I believe women who want to serve on the frontlines should be held to the same standards as men.  If they can still cut it, they deserve to be there.  There may not be many who would wish to or could, but I've met some women who fit those criteria.  And, like CrappyDom said, everyone out there should keep it in their pants.  They're there to fight, not get laid, regardless of gender.

And if the men in the armed forces' moral is lowered by having women serve with them, wouldn't you think we'd want soldiers with a stronger frame of mind?  I mean, these guys are expected to kill people, and it's the woman standing next to them that upsets them?  I doubt it.




meatcleaver -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/15/2006 3:27:00 PM)

Actually there was a psychological study done for the British forces which found male soldiers showed too much concern for their female colleagues which interfered with their concentration on the danger of the enemy which wasn't apparent with their male colleagues.

OK These were just studies and not based on reality because I don't think the British Army has any plans for female frontline combatants.




NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/15/2006 3:33:21 PM)

That's not the woman's fault, though.  If they're that affected by it, they need to toughen up a bit.  If a qualified woman is in the frontlines, they should accept what she already has, the possibility that she will die or be injured just as any of them might. 

Ah... were it but a perfect world...LOL.




meatcleaver -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/15/2006 3:48:22 PM)

Theory is one thing but practice is another. Who knows if such responses are hardwired or not.
However, I think the natural inclination for men is to be protective of females, despite rogue elements and this can be a fundemental problem. One can be too protective of ones colleagues in war. It was the Vietcong that said Americans will always come back for a buddy so you just have to sit and wait for them to come.

When the first front line female soldiers get killed or captured and raped or whatever by an enemy, we will have all the song and dance about why women are on the frontline in the first place. Look at many wars, rape is not unusual and its pointless discussing the Genieve Convention and what should happen. It's what happens that counts. Somethings just aren't a good idea.




Quivver -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 5:29:50 AM)

Evolution happens ..... this kind of antiquated responce is simply left overs from a world thought that's well past.  Soldiers protect their male colleagues so why is it such an issue if a colleague ends up as a female?  Rape happens in every city in the world, how is rape in war different?  I'm sure there are some males who are not truly fit for Battle as much as I'm sure there are some females who are. 

I think it's time for Evolution to remove a few toes..

Q

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Theory is one thing but practice is another. Who knows if such responses are hardwired or not.
However, I think the natural inclination for men is to be protective of females, despite rogue elements and this can be a fundemental problem. One can be too protective of ones colleagues in war. It was the Vietcong that said Americans will always come back for a buddy so you just have to sit and wait for them to come.

When the first front line female soldiers get killed or captured and raped or whatever by an enemy, we will have all the song and dance about why women are on the frontline in the first place. Look at many wars, rape is not unusual and its pointless discussing the Genieve Convention and what should happen. It's what happens that counts. Somethings just aren't a good idea.




meatcleaver -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 6:55:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quivver

Soldiers protect their male colleagues so why is it such an issue if a colleague ends up as a female?  Rape happens in every city in the world, how is rape in war different? 



The psychology study said, male soldiers were over protective towards their female colleagues and so put themselves in excessive danger to protect them, to the detriment of a military strategy. I don't think I made that clear. However, it was a study that wasn't based on real combat experience because there are no frontline female combat troops yet.

Willing problems away doesn't make problems go away. Willing the world to be different doesn't make the world different. One has to work with the grain, just like evolution does..




irishbynature -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 7:15:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Female frontline soldiers was always a bad idea. The idea of putting women amongst a gang of men hyped up on fear and adrenalin of being in a warzone, just smacks of naivety to me. Such ideas should never have got past feminist ideology.

You go to war to kill, not to be a social worker.

How many people have died in Iraq today?

This concerns me a bit meatcleaver. A fully trained, combat ready female soldier would be just as trained as a male combat ready soldier..Saying, "You go to war to kill, not to be a social worker" reminds me of the old, "You get married to stay home and have babies."

Everyone one of our soldiers is in danger at war, male/female. I think they both deserve the same respect on an equal footing.

As far as sexual harassment? It happens in non-military careers as well (not that this is an excuse for the behavior).

Respectfully,
Irishbynature




meatcleaver -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 7:18:21 AM)

Equal footing? I remember when two female soldiers were captured in Iraq. Pages and pages of their plight while deaths were barely mentioned.




NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 8:42:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Equal footing? I remember when two female soldiers were captured in Iraq. Pages and pages of their plight while deaths were barely mentioned.


How the media treats them is completely irrelevant as long as the direct contact a female soldier has is on an equal level, as it should be.

Edited to add:  If it bothers you that they received so much coverage, blame the media, not the soldiers.




NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 8:49:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Theory is one thing but practice is another. Who knows if such responses are hardwired or not.
However, I think the natural inclination for men is to be protective of females, despite rogue elements and this can be a fundemental problem. One can be too protective of ones colleagues in war. It was the Vietcong that said Americans will always come back for a buddy so you just have to sit and wait for them to come.

When the first front line female soldiers get killed or captured and raped or whatever by an enemy, we will have all the song and dance about why women are on the frontline in the first place. Look at many wars, rape is not unusual and its pointless discussing the Genieve Convention and what should happen. It's what happens that counts. Somethings just aren't a good idea.


So let me see if I've got this straight:  In your opinion women should not be soldiers (in the infantry, front line sense) because the men can't deal with it?  That's a heck of a reason to deny someone a basic right.

If the same old song and dance happens, let it.  It has to happen sometime, and like you said, it's what happens that counts.  We can't grow into a more tolerant, open-minded culture without overcoming some of our engrained fears and stereotypes.  Of course there will be a bunch of hooplah at the beginning, and even later, but it is necessary for progress to occur.




meatcleaver -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 9:13:52 AM)

In theory I've got nothing against all female frontline units. As for tolerance, I can't help but laugh, we are talking about soldiers going to war to burn, blow apart, disembowel and generally maim and kill people.




Dtesmoac -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 9:17:34 AM)

NakedOnMyChain - the research for the British Army / British forces looked at a wide variety of issues afecting the function of the forces at the front line. The the psychology part found a concern that sodiers were willing to take bigger risks to help female combatants than male combatnts placing themselves and the mission at risk. There was also the aspects about intimate relations developing (see later).
Females are actually used in front line roles to provide support and often as Oficers e.g Engineers, Signals etc & you will often see them on the news in Afghanistan, Iraqi, Bosnia etc but not for the specific role of leaping out of Warrior APC and charging at the enemy with a bayonette (NB the last Britich bayonnete charge was in the 1980s). Remember also the British and American forces are differently armed and equipped. During the Falklands War British shoulders had to physically carry all of their equipment on there backs and walk / yomp for many miles. What was found was that even some of the best infantry units (Guards) had there fighting capability hindered by this - intrinsic fitness was not fully there in modern people !!! This lead to decisions being made that resulted in higher casualties than was perhaps necessary. One of the results is a concern over the physical ability of men and women when conflict becomes low-technology.   
In naval vessels and the airforce females operate in a similar way to men and there have been cases of harrassment and also "flings" but perhaps not as much as the US cases.




Wolfmoon6 -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 9:31:37 AM)

No it is not the women's fault but you can't blame the men either for our instinctive behavior.  Most men instinctively want to protect the female.  It is with us from the cave man days and we all faced threats to our lives.  We can override our instinct but it isn't a easy thing to do.  It is even harder to do under a high stress situation.




NakedOnMyChain -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 10:28:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

In theory I've got nothing against all female frontline units. As for tolerance, I can't help but laugh, we are talking about soldiers going to war to burn, blow apart, disembowel and generally maim and kill people.


LOL.  Good point.  You know what I mean, though.

As to everyone else, I understand perfectly well what meatcleaver's arguments brought to the table (and this does include what the British Forces study covered).  I just don't agree with them.  I don't believe that some archaic instinct is enough to deny a woman the basic right to defend her country in the legal manner of her choosing.

Either way, I'm allowed my opinon.  You're allowed yours.  We most likely won't agree on this issue and that's fine by me.  We can chalk it up to intelligent debate and such.

<Bows and exits.>




meatcleaver -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 10:36:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedOnMyChain

LOL.  Good point.  You know what I mean, though.



I know what you mean.[;)]




Quivver -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 1:55:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NakedOnMyChain

As to everyone else, I understand perfectly well what meatcleaver's arguments brought to the table (and this does include what the British Forces study covered).  I don't believe that some archaic instinct is enough to deny a woman the basic right to defend her country in the legal manner of her choosing.

Either way, I'm allowed my opinon.  You're allowed yours.  We most likely won't agree on this issue and that's fine by me.  We can chalk it up to intelligent debate and such.


I too Agree, yet I also feel going with the flow works better when there's a bit of grit in the water.  [:)]

Someday evolution will win out.

Q




irishbynature -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 1:58:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Equal footing? I remember when two female soldiers were captured in Iraq. Pages and pages of their plight while deaths were barely mentioned.


That was the media's doing.............




Curiossdragnlily -> RE: Female Soldier Dilemma (7/16/2006 2:19:30 PM)

Thank you. It is always good to keep informed on many things as so much is going on in O/our world today.
with respect,
lily, collared and owned slave of Master Curios
srn 308-692-331




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125