It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Women combat now true,guess who can be drafted?

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
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.

This is just a plain fact of human nature as we are now, and it just doesn't work when you try to go against it.

Men are more than happy to go to war while women stay safe, what is the problem? Just let us handle this stuff because when you introduce women in with a bunch of men on a battlefield, the result is chaos among the ranks.

AKA a less effective fighting force all together. The introduction of women is overall negative to the ability of a combat force to do its job. Don't get mad, this is not a fault of women, it's more men really. The simple fact is it just doesn't work.

Women should not be in combat alongside a horde of aggressive, fighting men, just what do you think will come of this? Rape, unavoidable issues resulting in inefficiency of the military to do its job, "captain save a ho syndrome", infighting. You name it, it will happen with women on a battlefield alongside men.

Leave this kind of stuff to us please, this is not an "ego issue" where men just simply think this is a "man's job" there is more to it. It doesn't work and introduces massive complications that deter the military from doing its job.
edit on 15-5-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


We dont have a draft. Our military is completely voluntary. ( Hurray for us) The women who opt for this type of job can now get it. None will be forced into it unless they reinstitute the selective service draft.
But its nice to know that if a woman wants to do this she will no longer be held back simply because she has a vagina. Some women are larger and stronger than some men lets not pretent that they are not so enough with the there are some things a man can do better. Yes write their name in the snow with their pee! Whoopie. A persons ability to do a certain task needs to be determined in a case by case basis not on what sex you are. Until we can get the entire planet to see that women are not lesser creatures than men there will be no improvement between the masses. Until women are accepted as equal there can be no real balance in the world.


See but women are not equal to men just as men are not equal to women. We both have a different purpose in life as is seen through the entire animal kingdom of this planet. We are not seperate from nature simply because we live in cities. The more you seperate yourself from the human species and the more you allow yourself to buy into this feminist bullcrap, the less happy you will be and the less fulfilled you will be. And while I do think women would and do make excellent soldiers, this is an issue that goes so far beyond that.

Sometimes you just need to accept that women will never be able to do things that men do. Just like men can never do things that women do. Aside from that you act as if most people have a choice other than to join the military. The poor will always fight the rich man's war especially when the poor have nothing and the rich man hands them a doggy bag.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I dont think its a question of a woman's capability in a combat situation. History has shown that women are more than capable of holding their own when the need arose. I thought this list pretty interesting as it contained some fascinating figures.

top 10 badass female warriors


Gudit



Gudit (also known as Judit) was a non-Christian queen who ruled Dʿmt around 960 AD. She laid waste to Axum (the then-Sacred capital of Ethiopia – image above) and its countryside. She destroyed monuments and churches and attempted to wipe out all of the members of the ruling dynasty (descendants of the Queen of Sheba).



Trưng Sisters



The Trưng Sisters were Vietnamese military leaders who managed to repel Chinese invasions for over three years. They are regarded as national heroines of Vietnam. They were born during the thousand-year Chinese occupation. After fighting off a small Chinese unit from their village, they assembled an army mostly consisting of women. Within months they had taken back many regions from the Chinese and had liberated Nam Việt. They became Queens of the country and resisted all further attacks from the Chinese for two years.


Heres another link for those curious

Women Warriors- A History of Real Women in Combat

A lot of the same info, but there is the addition of the Gladiatrix, Nandi, mother of Shaka-Zulu who was a warrior princess and interestingly enough, once her son took power he created an all female regiment in her honor and Tomoe Gozen, a concubine/Samurai warrior.

Maybe a better question would be are AMERICAN women ready for combat? I believe that there are those who are and they will seek it out. What it does to them in the long run will I guess depend on the type of person she is and just how much she can stand. Personally I would dodge a draft because well...f*ck the gov. You arent gonna turn me into a killbot and then toss me out afterwards. But combat in general is not something I would shy away from if I needed to fight. I both love and respect the art and even my daughters have a love for martial arts and edged weapons just like their mama. I am by no means a "manly" sort and do all that womanly work like tend to the younguns, put hot meals on the table and make sure my man feels like a superhero. Women are capable of being so many things all at once. Don't treat me equal because I have a vag and therefore feel some sense of entitlement...treat me equal because I am human being. Whats best for me is for me to work out in my own time in my own way and I would never presume to set limitations for someone else, regardless of race, creed, gender, religion or political ideology.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
There are a lot of interesting comments on this thread.
I don't really have an opinion on this, although my sense of fairness says we should take the bad with the good. I think there are really good points, though, such as:

1) Physical stamina to hump 100 lbs of gear over rough terrain favors the guys.
2) Hand to hand combat, especially in martial arts, depends on training and skill, not gender and strength. Not sure how much martial arts is going down on the front lines, though.
3) Having mixed genders together leads to relationship issues and causes strife within the troops. I'll buy that, sounds like a fair assessment.
4) Other countries have females, but in their own battalions - this sounds like a good idea - this would probably handle the relationship issues, and if the leadership of said battalions were also female, they would probably scale down the gear to female manageable weight/size. Surely the current gear-carrying standards developed in part due to the physical abilities of those developing the standards.

My 2 cents...

edit on 15-0520125-1212 by gwynnhwyfar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 

None will be forced into it unless they reinstitute the selective service draft.


If there are ever plans to include women in a potential shtf draft scenario, they would first hand out SSD cards to all of the young females and ask them to sign it.

Until that eventuality coalesces, I don't see women being fully 100% integrated into the military conscription system.

It would probably take a few decades to even transition over to that policy.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I'd say it depends on where the front-line is.

If it's far away and lengthy then it could be inadvisable, because the women could require protection from, and cause disruption amongst the friendly troops.

If it's on your doorstep against an occupying force then it could be quite inconsequential.

In any modern draft situation one would expect both sexes to be trained and called-up, even if for different tasks.
Otherwise one puts men at a disadvantage regarding civilian job experience and career advancement, when women already have affirmative action in some countries and sectors.

However, there's probably a lot of men who would be useless on the front-line, and some women who are very masculine or warrior-like. There could be exceptions.
Then there's the argument that different talents are an asset, rather than a liability, for example putting female spies in the line of fire has never been an issue.
Oh heck I already see a Starship Troopers scenario, whatever opinions may be.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jepic

Oh I disagree though that a little kid can knock out an adult. For me at least I'll say impossible.
edit on ]

I almost knocked out my mum sliding down the slide and smashing her face with my feet, or so I'm told.
Just saying
extra DIV



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   

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.

edit on 15-5-2012 by paganini because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
I hope Kim Kardashian gets drafted, I would pay money to see her on the front lines.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

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.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
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!!!



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
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...



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
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.
edit on 16-5-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

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.
edit on 16-5-2012 by Shred because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

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.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join