Women combat now true,guess who can be drafted?

Originally posted by RSF77
The fact of the matter is that women introduce a sexual and emotional dynamic into a highly disciplined area. Men will break apart and in-fighting will ensue among a team that is supposed to be highly unified. This just does NOT work, not with the military, not on a construction crew, not anywhere. This is why there are certain hard jobs that for the most part only men do.

Do you have anything to prove this actually happens ? Personally as a man i find it offensive that its being presumed we cant remained focused because theres a woman in the room.

I hope Kim Kardashian gets drafted, I would pay money to see her on the front lines.

For the record,I didn't think women couldn't do the job.I just wouldn't want to see them blown apart and wounded with PTSD and what will they do emotionally with killing to a point where they don't feel, because if they try they die.That is the dirty secret about combat arms.Nobody helps you carry what you are ordered to with out deviation.There is no think about it when you are in action.

reply to post by babybunnies


Hey,

I think that is a joke, but history has given us some pretense for situations where lovers were encouraged to be in combat together.

Ancient Thebes (Greece, not Egypt) had an elite fighting force called the Sacred Band of Thebes. Plutarch wrote of these warriors being 150 homosexual couples (forming 300 men). The theory was that a warrior would fight more heroically for someone they loved, rather than just a battle comrade. This is ancient (They were wiped out by Phillip the Great, Alexander's father) and wikipedia leads with a complete different idea that Plutarch was wrong or that the writings were falsified by later authors.(?) Anyway, I gave the link to Fordham U. site that has a good translation of Plutarch's "understanding" of the Sacred Band.

That being said, the last great war that women took a major part in the frontline combat was for the USSR in the Second World War. Are there statistics that show the effectiveness, accurately, of female combat units?Soviet Women in War

I am not ignoring the very valiant Israeli women who have been supporting their nation for many years, but the "official" ruling for women being combat pilots was in 1996 and finally in 2000 for the right to serve in all of the IDF. Not to say these women haven't been fighting for Israel since before the founding in 1948. Israeli Women in the IDF

Finally, women provided amazing and heroic resistance fighters, partisans, in the Second World War and the Vietnam War. As another post mentions women have taken on sizable military forces in history and been successful.( Boudica, Trung Sisters)

I believe it is societal in nature. I am a 31 year old male (not young, but not old I hope) and the thought of my wife or mother being drafted is shocking, but I am totally not against equality because it is just as shocking that a woman that has the same occupation as a man can be paid less. It is very difficult to be objectively introspective regarding social mores.

reply to post by irsuccubus


Sorry, I wrote my post without giving you props for the mention of the Trung Sisters and other women that have been darn effective in battle.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Women shouldn't be in combat

Have you ever known a hoodrat? If a woman chose that path she is probably more than capable.

I was always under the impression that it was a male weakness rather than a female one that was the deciding factor in allowing women into direct combat situations. That weakness being the, I want to say inante, desire of a man (most men I hope) to protect women. Regardless of the motivations of that urge whether it be an emotional response or an egotistical or sexist one. That this desire could jeopardize a mission or that this emotional or basal motivation would be utilized by an enemy to gain an upperhand particularly with those in a hostage or POW situation. That an enemy may under threat of torture or action thereof against a women would gain information or resources that would have proved more elusive had the enemy not been given the oppertunity.

I don't know if it is a good thing that the military must no longer feel that this is the case.

I have a problem seeing where a women dying in combat would be any worse than a man dying in combat. they both have futures that would like to live out, both have loved ones at home waiting for their return, both feel pain....
if this was a war, being fought on our soil, ya know a real war, with real honorable justifications....well, I doubt if this argument would even be made. I bet when the indians came and attacked a settlement, the men weren't taking the guns away from the women and telling them to back to the house and go about their womanly business.

I don't care if you are talking about men or women, for them to be dying in a war that has no real honorable justification to it, well, it is a crime in my book!!! and like I said, the wars that have real justification, well, their wouldn't be much argument, it would be all hands on deck, ready to fight.
but, cheer up, both men and women, soon they will have drones and robots doing it all, and neither will be in war.....
till the program running the drones and robots goes nutty and it's us against them, then I bet none of you will be taking the guns away from the women either!!!

Israel is the only nation with real-world experience putting women in combat. Having gained that experience, Israel has banned women from combat units since 1950. Israel’s lessons were hard-won; the feminists in Congress have yet to learn them.

The first lesson is that men could be taught to kill strangers, but they would not stop caring for women. That is as it should be: civilized countries want to create soldiers, not savages. During the 1948 War of Liberation Israeli men would abandon their missions to come to the aid of women in distress, thereby endangering their missions, their units and themselves.

Lesson Two: The Israeli public was deeply distressed by maimed, disfigured and dead women soldiers. Israelis were horrified at the thought of their women in enemy captivity. In 1979, in testimony before the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services, Brigadier General Andrew J. Gatsis recalled that Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan had told him that during the War of Liberation “we had a constant fear of what the Arabs would do if they captured them [the women],” and that the men could not stand the psychological stress” of watching women being killed or captured. He recalled that Dayan felt that women in combat units “knocked down their effectiveness.”

Lesson Three: Women really are the weaker sex. It takes twice as many women to lift heavy equipment. That’s twice as many targets for the enemy, twice as many mouths to feed, twice as many women to transport. It takes women longer to accomplish physically challenging tasks such as digging a foxhole or a gun emplacement. Therefore, large numbers of women in combat would be a logistical nightmare.

Lesson Four: When the Muslim opposition discovered that they were fighting women, the Arabs spontaneously chose to fight to the death. The very thought of being defeated by a band of women was so shameful to them that it made them implacable. They would not surrender to women. Every encounter became bitter and protracted. For a small country surrounded by millions of hostile neighbors, these drawn-out struggles were a formula for national ruin.

www.weirdrepublic.com...

reply to post by cavtrooper7


I'd like to see the Homecoming Queen drafted into the military against her will and enlisted as a fighting warrior. What interesting times those will be. What interesting battles will ensue. This might be the end of war as we know it.

reply to post by Shred

Originally posted by Shred
Israel is the only nation with real-world experience putting women in combat. Having gained that experience, Israel has banned women from combat units since 1950.

Because of the MEN'S actions, not because the women couldn't handle it. The women did fine. It was the men who failed. Perhaps men should be banned from combat roles if they can't handle it... Why should women be excluded because of men's emotional weaknesses?

Women in Combat

The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.

In fact, female soldiers did as well if not better than the male soldiers.

Many military women are more physically capable of meeting performance targets then men in combat roles. In general, it is easy to find, recruit, and deploy women who are in better shape than many men we send into combat. If a level performance target is set across genders, it would not be difficult to find women who could meet these standards, even if the proportion of women capable of doing so may be smaller. The key point is that some women would be capable of meeting these standards, thus making it unjustified that all women should be banned from combat service on the basis of lower physically abilities compared to men.

This all boils down to the fact that women can make the decision for themselves, just like men can. I don't know why men think they are more capable if making this decision for women. Can you explain this?

www.weirdrepublic.com...

From your source, which seems to think that if a woman wants to ber in combat, she must be a lesbian...

The vapid bravado of chair-bound bean-counting feminists ...
...
The admiring Times reporter, Ruth Marcus, notes that Wilson “speaks briskly, her voice low and . . . full of controlled fury;” she is careful to include that “pictures of her children [are] flashing on a computer screen behind her,” which is coded TimesSpeak for “She’s not a lesbian.”
...
Putting a woman in such an environment could only raise questions about her sexual identity.

Jesus! Really?

Bottom line - The decision for whether or not I go to war is MINE, NOT yours.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Shred

 

Originally posted by Shred
Israel is the only nation with real-world experience putting women in combat. Having gained that experience, Israel has banned women from combat units since 1950.

Because of the MEN'S actions, not because the women couldn't handle it. The women did fine. It was the men who failed. Perhaps men should be banned from combat roles if they can't handle it... Why should women be excluded because of men's emotional weaknesses?

Women in Combat

The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.

In fact, female soldiers did as well if not better than the male soldiers.

Many military women are more physically capable of meeting performance targets then men in combat roles. In general, it is easy to find, recruit, and deploy women who are in better shape than many men we send into combat. If a level performance target is set across genders, it would not be difficult to find women who could meet these standards, even if the proportion of women capable of doing so may be smaller. The key point is that some women would be capable of meeting these standards, thus making it unjustified that all women should be banned from combat service on the basis of lower physically abilities compared to men.

This all boils down to the fact that women can make the decision for themselves, just like men can. I don't know why men think they are more capable if making this decision for women. Can you explain this?

www.weirdrepublic.com...

From your source, which seems to think that if a woman wants to ber in combat, she must be a lesbian...

The vapid bravado of chair-bound bean-counting feminists ...
...
The admiring Times reporter, Ruth Marcus, notes that Wilson “speaks briskly, her voice low and . . . full of controlled fury;” she is careful to include that “pictures of her children [are] flashing on a computer screen behind her,” which is coded TimesSpeak for “She’s not a lesbian.”
...
Putting a woman in such an environment could only raise questions about her sexual identity.

Jesus! Really?

Bottom line - The decision for whether or not I go to war is MINE, NOT yours.

This is not about which gender is the best or your personal rights. It's about what's best for the military and the people serving in it. Women in front line duty are an unnecessary risk to the front line troops, morale of the front line troops and morale of the public. This is the reason why Israel banned women from front line duty.

Originally posted by babybunnies
We can have a whole platoon made up of straight women and gay men, serving in the front lines.

Then they won't distract each other.

Are you kidding, they won't get anything done, they will take catalogues and shop for shoes and stuff whilst under fire.