It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Why is "women in combat" still a debate?(194 posts)(194 posts)
(194 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 29, 2013
Why is "JCD-Bionicman" still on GOG?
Posted January 29, 2013
My wife would kick my ass any day of the week, I would be happy to see her kicking someone elses ass for change :)
Posted January 29, 2013
avatar
amok: Am I the only one who keep thinking about God Emperor of Dune each time this debate comes up?
avatar
tinyE: No but thanks to you I'm now thinking about that movie.

There goes my good mood. Thanks for nothing!

Sting! Yeah that was brilliant casting!!! Oh and lets make 90% of the movie inner-monologue; that won't be too confusing or boring!
did they make a movie out of it?

I have only seen Lynch's "Dune", based on the first book, and the tv films - the first based on Dune and the second an amalgamation of Dune Messiah and Children of Dune. I never thought a screen adaptation of God Emperor of Dune will work due to how the narrative in the book is. I might check it out, just to see.

Edit - double negative in a sentence is bad... BAD!
Post edited January 29, 2013 by amok
Posted January 29, 2013
I feel much like the others who say "fine, but the requirements ought to stay the same".

I think some of the comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat#Issues are interesting, though. I don't know how much evidence there is for the various claims. But the stuff about how the male soldiers might perform less well when female soldiers are injured and such is at least a very relevant issue to consider.
Posted January 29, 2013
I was talking about Lynch's take on the 1st one. Sci-Fi channel (I think it was them) later made a mini-series out of it and while it had the standard 'made for t.v.' cheese to it, it was still pretty good.

I have to add, yes I know I'm trolling, that I quit on Herbert after he ripped Iron Maiden a new asshole when they asked if they could name one of their songs "Dune". I'm not saying he should be a metal fan but to blindly call all hard rock 'noise' and 'garbage' kind of pissed me off.
Post edited January 29, 2013 by tinyE
Posted January 29, 2013
Women have as much fair rights as men do, so I don't really see the problem. Not to mention women have a much stronger tolerance for pain than the male population, i.e. going through extremely painful labor. Many see them as dainty and neat, therefor it's no wonder why there is a debate. And while, yes, a fair number of them are like that, why not just make the women who actually WANT to be in war, well... fight in war?

Now, the main issues I have seen is with women being the victims of sexual assault in the army camps. That's about it. That could easily be remedied by placing them in separate camps, however. So yeah, if women want to fight in the army, so be it.
Posted January 29, 2013
avatar
gameon: 250 pounds is around 18 stone in english weight.
Ahaa! That makes it about 4.3 Attic (Greek) talents, or 7500 Swedish lods then.
Post edited January 29, 2013 by timppu
Posted January 29, 2013
Only a few years of brutal combat in a warzone will tell who's qualified or not, after that I don't think a lot of people (male or female) still pass and those who do, well let's just say those are rarely the model military types.

Other than that, what do I care, if women are allowed that only means more meat into the grinder, the more the merrier.
Posted January 29, 2013
avatar
gameon: That would be tough! It's hard enough to lift someone, carrying them is another matter! 250 pounds is around 18 stone in english weight. Ridiculous amount.
While you can drop some of their gear should you need to move someone, even a moderate sized, healthy person with gear is going to weigh that much. 250 pounds isn't really a ridiculous requirement.
avatar
CthuluIsSpy: If she's suitable for combat and willing, then let her.

I do not understand the reluctance to let women fight, I really don't.
There's 2 reasons which aren't really anyone's fault but we don't know how to deal with them:
1) The physical requirements are quite high and 10 military men will be able to meet them for every military woman who will (guessing at the proportion but it will likely be something like this). Some worry this could lead to demand to reevaluate these requirements with too much pressure on removing or lightening them.

2) There are psychological implications, will men take risks under fire that they should not have because it's a woman by their side? This is part hard wired and part cultural. Survival as a species demands every single vagina possible, but only a few penises will do if things get bad. Yes, we're long beyond that actual need as a species but nature hasn't really caught up. Wasn't the gal's name Jessica Lynch that we "rescued" (possibly anti-heroically) in Iraq? Would the same be done for a man? Dead sons are hard enough for the public to take in a war, but the US as a culture doesn't value male life in nearly as much (there's a lot on statistics of this regarding our media, etc.), but dead women might cause an absolute shitstorm.

I see why we're having the conversation, perhaps it's actually sad, the only reason it is a conversation is because of our glorification of war in the US.
Post edited January 29, 2013 by orcishgamer
Posted January 29, 2013
avatar
Red_Avatar: , women were allowed in the ranks but turns out that almost none could pass the exam (written and physical).
Exactly what was keeping the women from passing a written test?
Posted January 29, 2013
avatar
orcishgamer: 1) The physical requirements are quite high and 10 military men will be able to meet them for every military woman who will (guessing at the proportion but it will likely be something like this). Some worry this could lead to demand to reevaluate these requirements with too much pressure on removing or lightening them.

2) There are psychological implications, will men take risks under fire that they should not have because it's a woman by their side? This is part hard wired and part cultural.
That is true, but combat doesn't necessarily call for brute strength. I recall reading somewhere that women make better pilots. Its been a while, though, so I could be wrong.
And of course, there's always the case of the Russians in World War II; they used quite a few women in their ranks as Tank Operators and especially snipers, so there is a precedence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipers_of_the_Soviet_Union

The psychological and cultural aspect is interesting though, and that had not occurred to me. I suppose with adequate training you could eliminate any chance of there being unnecessary risks, but it won't be easy.
Post edited January 29, 2013 by CthuluIsSpy
Posted January 29, 2013
avatar
orcishgamer: 1) The physical requirements are quite high and 10 military men will be able to meet them for every military woman who will (guessing at the proportion but it will likely be something like this). Some worry this could lead to demand to reevaluate these requirements with too much pressure on removing or lightening them.

2) There are psychological implications, will men take risks under fire that they should not have because it's a woman by their side? This is part hard wired and part cultural.
avatar
CthuluIsSpy: That is true, but combat doesn't necessarily call for brute strength. I recall reading somewhere that women make better pilots. Its been a while, though, so I could be wrong.

The psychological and cultural aspect is interesting though, and that had not occurred to me. I suppose with adequate training you could eliminate any chance of there being unnecessary risks, but it won't be easy.
Right, like I said, there may be answers to all of these, but it's worth examining everything dispassionately and addressing. If it takes psych drills for everyone, then so be it, the rewards may outweigh the costs.

I've not heard the pilot thing, I'll have to check that out, I didn't think the US Air Force allowed women pilots, but surely someone with modern planes does.
Posted January 29, 2013
Just to clarify: is the 250 pounds carrying requirement straight off the bat or at some point in training?

Back when I was in the Finnish army we slowly worked our way up; first carrying each other with no added weight and then slowly adding more combat gear.

Women have been able to enter the Finnish military since 1995 and attend military service in the same units as men and no major problems have been reported. I don't know what kind of rules there are for real combat situations.
Posted January 29, 2013
avatar
CthuluIsSpy: That is true, but combat doesn't necessarily call for brute strength. I recall reading somewhere that women make better pilots. Its been a while, though, so I could be wrong.

The psychological and cultural aspect is interesting though, and that had not occurred to me. I suppose with adequate training you could eliminate any chance of there being unnecessary risks, but it won't be easy.
avatar
orcishgamer: Right, like I said, there may be answers to all of these, but it's worth examining everything dispassionately and addressing. If it takes psych drills for everyone, then so be it, the rewards may outweigh the costs.

I've not heard the pilot thing, I'll have to check that out, I didn't think the US Air Force allowed women pilots, but surely someone with modern planes does.
Yeah, apparently women are better at resisting G-Forces than men, and they supposedly have slightly faster reflexes.
Posted January 29, 2013
avatar
Jonni: Just to clarify: is the 250 pounds carrying requirement straight off the bat or at some point in training?

Back when I was in the Finnish army we slowly worked our way up; first carrying each other with no added weight and then slowly adding more combat gear.

Women have been able to enter the Finnish military since 1995 and attend military service in the same units as men and no major problems have been reported. I don't know what kind of rules there are for real combat situations.
I believe your combat status is reevaluated every so often, but I suspect they'd demand you qualified by the end of boot camp.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Why is "women in combat" still a debate?(194 posts)(194 posts)
(194 posts)