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 It also seems to me that what the outdated study is grounded upon is the notion that men will place gender-bias ahead of battlefield necessity.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.
You volunteering?If they wish to fight, let them fight.
Once again it is important that you understand the difference of an IED hitting your convoy, the convoy stopping and everyone taking up security positions until those in the hit vehicle are evacuated to another vehicle or airlifted out and then the convoy proceeding on to what I am speaking of as front-line infantry combat patrols.
Granted some of those convoys may come under further small arms fire, but I bet there is maybe a handful of instances where the female soldiers dismounted and conducted maneuvers to neutralize the small arms fire.
Sitting behind a sheet of armor in a humvee shooting a .50 cal is not the same doing a 2 hour patrol, taking contract and then being in a running gunfight for the next 4 hours.
This distinction is very important.
Therefore there has not been any accurate information (Or VERY little that can not be applied to such a broad issue) that could be used to judge how females would perform in front-line combat situations. Once again, infantry style combat is only comparable to infantry style combat. Serving in artillery is NOWHERE near the same experience as serving in the infantry.
.
Yea, that is all I lugged around in Iraq. I went out naked with just my M-4. They were like 'Hey, shouldn't you have on the 4 different armor plates, 120 rounds of ammunition, 14 M203 grenades, 2 fragmentation grenades, helmet, gloves, kneepad, radio, that we provided?'
I responded, "who needs 95lbs of gear?, I am quicker when I'm naked."
Oh, and we only went on 20 minute patrols....rrriiigght. Go carry your M-4 for 3 hours, I bet it gets heavier than you think.
The question is, should we allow women to specialize as infantrymen?
I assumed you would be able figure out that I was referring to the U.K./U.S. since we were discussing the role of women serving those two countries, but clearly you were wrong.
Let clarify my statement just for you. Although rape and plunder were once condoned as typical behavior for men at war, in certain countries times have changed. The U.K. armed forces now will actively punish soldiers who loot conquered nations or sexually assault women. This is a clear indication that the social behavior of men at war has changed, mirroring general changes in society at large.
Clearly you are wrong, again, because as soon as you make your bold sweeping claim, you again change to "men at war", and that includes Saddam's Republican Guard and Sudan's Janjaweed. The behavior of U.K. and U.S. soldiers might have changed, but your sweeping generalizations are simply factually inaccurate, since other nations also have war fighters.
Its true the many men still go around raping and plundering during war, but that has nothing to do with the countries we are discussing here. Stop throwing up smokescreens and post an actual argument.
Not a good move in my opinion. Seems like a further move to total war ideals. By keeping women from such roles, to me seems like a small respite from a total war mentality. Your saying in effect one section of the community has some sort of protection from the all encompassing needs of the military, whether or not having women in combat roles actually is good for military efficiency. It seems to me like also like a further blurring of distinctions for the sake of politically correct egalitarianism, often with vague promises that "it'll turn out alright" or "change must come".
One notes that it was such societies as the USSR and Communist China as well as Israel, societies of revolution and/or total war footings that are most known for the liberal use of women as soldiers.
So, let me see here. You don't want to study the current situations with women who are in combat, because it is the wrong type of combat and might not prove the point you want to prove. Why are you reacting so emotionally to something that should be analytical. You post a link to a way out of date study as justification for your position, I call for a new study with modern data, and you all of a sudden don't want to use actual, honest to god data, you just know you are right
Despite your dismissiveness of women who have fought and died in service to our country, they do an incredible job, in combat. There is no shortage of data that can be gained from this, and a logical decision made about the future of women in combat.
All the arguments seen so far all sound very much like why "don't ask, don't tell" was not going to work, and why blacks could never serve in integrated units, and so on. This raises questions for me, and makes me seriously want to have some good, modern data to make a decision off of, which is hopefully what the British are using to make their decision
Well, at least we made it to post # 101 before we got to the "women just are not good enough" argument that you had to know was behind all this.
You didn't do him any favors, you just don't know any big words. :lol:Let me suggest you go back and read the whole of my post. It's not long, it should be pretty simple. I even used small words. Here, let me quote myself so you cannot miss the important part I want you to see:
So, I talk about one small part of a post, specifically stating that I don't know enough to comment on the rest, and what do you do but complain that I do not comment on another part, that I already said I don't know enough about. And the best part of all is you did not actually comment on what I said that you felt the need to quote.
The sniper role is considered a front line infantry position,
Considered By Whom ?
Ahh, so considered by you, from layman's definitions.Snipers always fight dismounted, making them infantry. They need direct-line of sight to perform their duties, making them front line.
Ahh, so considered by you, from layman's definitions.
Well snipers are not infantry, they are special forces.
Infantry is not about whether you fight on foot or not, as artillery personnel are on foot, so are mechanics in the Motor Pool and MP's.
You are applying an inaccurate usage of the term infantry to the context of this discussion. I hope this clears up your error.
Some snipers are part of special forces
No, you are trying to nitpick my terminology and failing at it.
I think it is both.I dont think its so much about "politcal correctness" as it is about being desperate for more recruits. I remember reading a year or so back that they,re relaxing the weight limit for new recruits quite dramatically.
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.
Have you any of the other females in your unit ever carried around an Israeli equivalent to a M240? Unless you put alot of things in your purse this is a lot heavier than a purse.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.
Obviously, you've never lugged around a well-stocked woman's purse in one hand while carrying a screaming toddler in the other. :2razz:Have you any of the other females in your unit ever carried around an Israeli equivalent to a M240? Unless you put alot of things in your purse this is a lot heavier than a purse.
I do not know about the Israeli Military but in the US military there two different standards when it comes to males and females.
1) What evidence do you have that putting women in front line infantry units would lower military effectiveness? Since you chose not to defend the link you posted, the 48 study is not valid.
What duties do you think make infantry duties more of an issue than armor or artillery? The combat load is irrelevant, as objective physical standards would ensure that soldiers have enough strength to carry out their.
3) Be more specific about what roles you are worried about women having. The sniper role is considered a front line infantry position, yet Russian women during WW2 excelled in such a role. Clearly, not all infantry jobs have the same requirements.
4) How exactly do you suggest studying the effects unless you test them
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?