Women in combat positions

[Vorena]

^And this conundrum requires more philosophical debate than the internet can reasonably handle.

[Excellen Browning]

Not really.

[Rehab]

Superbus has the right idea. Who gives a fuck about gender equality in a warzone? If a woman cannot physically perform as well as a man in those situations, she should not be allowed to serve in that position. If she can perform as well, that's when other things may be adressed.

Are you aware that there are female soldiers who've had combat experience, who would say and have indeed been saying they did just fine, and that they can handle it?

One particular high-ranking U.S. officer, IIRC a general, while being escorted in Iraq or Afghanistan through dangerous territory, was so impressed with the performance of, again IIRC, the soldier on the vehicle's turret, that he asked the soldier's name, and of course discovered the gunner to be a woman and basically had his mind changed for him on the spot.

Also, I'd think there are plenty of men who couldn't handle roles in combat in anything but the most desperate circumstances, if even those, and certainly not to a military standard. I certainly don't think I can/could handle it, but hypothetical/potential proportional differences between the sexes aside, I don't think I should be taken to represent every other male soldier in combat situations, any more than any individual woman with similar feelings should be taken to represent the potential effectiveness of every other female soldier.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Rehab

[Esau of Isaac]

But is it really instinct? I'd argue it's more likely a product of centuries of social conditioning rather than instinct.

It can be, but the sum of our social conditioning is ultimately based on instinct. While we're quite an advanced species of animal, we are ultimately still animals with predictable reactions to specific actions.

If it were shown that in combat men have a very high propensity for endangering themselves to save females, regardless of origin, would you still hold the same position?

[Thor Odinson]

My position stays the same. Don't blame us for shit men do, especially shit that's stemmed more from the prejudices of patriarchy than anything else. They can either get over themselves and condition that trait out of themselves or maybe they're the one unfit to serve given said female soldiers have passed the exact same physical requirements as them. Somebody earlier suggested separate fighting units if that's that much of a problem and even though I'm personally not a fan of separating things, it could be a viable solution.

It's about as ridiculous as women getting fired for being "too attractive and too tempting". Fuck no that shit's your problem not ours. People need to stop blaming women for everything.

[Esau of Isaac]

My position stays the same. Don't blame us for shit men do, especially shit that's stemmed more from the prejudices of patriarchy than anything else. They can either get over themselves and condition that trait out of themselves or maybe they're the one unfit to serve given said female soldiers have passed the exact same physical requirements as them. Somebody earlier suggested separate fighting units if that's that much of a problem and even though I'm personally not a fan of separating things, it could be a viable solution.

It's about as ridiculous as women getting fired for being "too attractive and too tempting". Fuck no that shit's your problem not ours. People need to stop blaming women for everything.

How would this be blaming women? It's more blaming basic human nature. If it can't be changed, that's just how it is. Seeking equality is noble, but what happens when the equality we truly want simply isn't possible because of who we are?

This is lightly tangentially related, but I recall reading of a statistician some time ago that argued that it should not be discounted that it's possible that African Americans receive lower overall testing scores academically in part because they are naturally less intelligent. He lost his job over this if I recall, simply for stressing that it shouldn't be ignored as a possibility, and was publicly lambasted as a racist. I think many of us today are so caught up with the desire for pure equality that we've blinded ourselves to the notion that some things may just not ever be equal because of how different we naturally are.

[epilepsyduck]

Y'know, people who object to this seem to be forgetting that this is not putting all the women in the country on the front lines. This is putting the women who are actually physically up to the task in combat. It may be true that we're physically weaker than men on average, but if a woman is actually capable enough for combat, why stop her just because she isn't a dude? A person is more than just their race, gender, and other physical traits, and acting like we should stop all women from fighting just because some women couldn't physically do it is stupid, hypocritical, and reeks of stereotyping.

And I really don't buy that crap that men will go out of their way to protect female soldiers at any cost or whatever. I'm going to sound a little harsh, but most men I know wouldn't do that if push came to shove and I doubt such a thing would change because you stuck them in a uniform and gave them a gun. Besides, isn't the entire point of military training to train out ordinary human behavior that could prove dangerous when a soldier is in the field? I want actual data showing this to be true because it sounds extremely nebulous.

[Sunwoo]

This is lightly tangentially related, but I recall reading of a statistician some time ago that argued that it should not be discounted that it's possible that African Americans receive lower overall testing scores academically in part because they are naturally less intelligent. He lost his job over this if I recall, simply for stressing that it shouldn't be ignored as a possibility, and was publicly lambasted as a racist. I think many of us today are so caught up with the desire for pure equality that we've blinded ourselves to the notion that some things may just not ever be equal because of how different we naturally are.

I don't know why I'm even bothering with this topic, but here goes.

My favorite book, Lies My Teacher Taught Me, has a chapter that sort of addresses this. It may not be that African Americans (or other minorities) are naturally less intelligent but that they are still at a disadvantage. I can't explain it properly and do justice, mainly because I don't have the book with me at the moment, but it suggests that a lot of the inequalities such as this may be due to social factors. I don't know how the statistician conducted his research, but studying things like differences ethnic groups (such as academic test scores) is a really messy thing because there are so many factors such as culture, history, historical societal advantages/disadvantages to really make much of a definitive statement.

As for the actual topic, I agree with what Lumi and kdanger said. Give men and women the same fitness exam. If a woman is physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of serving in combat positions I see no reason to bar them. Men feel the need to protect a wounded female soldier? That's the men's problem, not the women's. And honestly ... if a man flies into a protective rage over seeing a woman being hurt, perhaps that person is not emotionally meant to be a soldier. Because his "protective rage" over seeing a woman hurt might not just be towards the woman.

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't know why I'm even bothering with this topic, but here goes.

My favorite book, Lies My Teacher Taught Me, has a chapter that sort of addresses this. It may not be that African Americans (or other minorities) are naturally less intelligent but that they are still at a disadvantage. I can't explain it properly and do justice, mainly because I don't have the book with me at the moment, but it suggests that a lot of the inequalities such as this may be due to social factors. I don't know how the statistician conducted his research, but studying things like differences ethnic groups (such as academic test scores) is a really messy thing because there are so many factors such as culture, history, historical societal advantages/disadvantages to really make much of a definitive statement.

Oh, absolutely. I'd go so far as to say that personally, I don't think it's very feasible to really analyze people in such a fashion, at the very least with our current methods.

I'm merely remarking upon the means by which science has been perhaps corrupted (although maybe that's too strong a word to use) to suit our socioeconomic climate. If someone were to come forth with hard evidence that Africans are innately less intelligent, they would nevertheless be completely ruined within their choice of career, without a doubt.

[Paper Jam]

It may be true that in general, women are less fit for front-line combat than men. But those women who ARE fit for front-line combat shouldn't be prohibited from it just because of that.

And remember, not all men are fit for front-line combat either. It's better to deploy a woman who is fit than a man who isn't.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Paper Jam

[MacLovin]

I'm surprised nobody has made the joke involving mothers and combat boots.

Why are we making a big deal out of this, equal opportunity =/= equal ability. If a woman is fit for the battlefield, then that particular individual is fit for it.

[Rehab]

Nah man, we need to make all of our militaries (fuck you firefox that's a word now even if it wasn't before) female-only, just to be sure

On an aside, I assumed before that when Superbus was referring to rape figures before, he meant 1/3 of all women everywhere, as opposed to 1/3 of women in the military, and was claiming that the military wouldn't be a good place to send them if they wanted to avoid it? Though I don't know myself if the former actually is the proportion of women that stats suggest face sexual assault in the military.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Rehab

[Original Alear]

So one thing I had trouble with a few days ago, is that if women are the victims of assault, and continue to serve (unreported or not dealt with), might those who were victims not have the quality of their service reduced? I can understand a protectionist idea, though I don't think I agree with it, to the extent of no service whatsoever (as were mentioned, female only units might eliminate much of the problem on the allied front). But it still seems odd to say, "female servicemen are at high risk of assault by those who are termed their comrades, that has enormous ramifications for their physical and psychological well being, also they are not as effective soldiers." I think it's strange no one pointed out that that rape or sexual assault could have a drastic effect on quality of service, and because of that I'm worried about pointing it out, but whatever. I'm not saying a victim can't recover quickly, or that they bear fault. But that if there's actually evidence that a portion of people who serve don't serve as well or seem as competent, maybe it's because we treat them like objects

for our satisfaction and then point out that they aren't holding up so well.

I think we should try and make the military responsible for saying to recruits, if they don't, this is a dangerous environment, and there's a history of sexual assault here, above the norm, we believe victims don't come forward. We may even want the military to say, we don't do an adequate job of prosecuting offenders, if we feel they don't. I...don't feel so bad about the idea that some recruits would be dissuaded after hearing that, if they haven't heard about it from wherever they get info. Of course, insofar as that reality may be everywhere for sexual assault victims, maybe some people are signing up, knowing the risks, and figuring there's not much difference.

This is about besides whether the assault problem can be solved in some way.

Also Rehab and all, I'm sorry for flipping a shit because I'm nuts. I think I'll be going soon. But I thought it was worth clearing up what I was stupid about a bit...? I do think it's possible that female servicemembers, and men, would be safer serving at home than abroad. The fact of the matter is, I'd be more comfortable with the idea that people join the military, if there wasn't a, I figure, perfectly reasonable concern that we will continue to invade other countries. But I'm not dedicated or intelligent enough to know how to actually do anything about that problem, and largely by definition, if America's interests are served, than I am a factor in those interests being served, and am a beneficiary even if I don't know precisely how. I don't think I'd go quite so far as to say I don't care...it's all rooted in sentiment, though.

If someone were to come forth with hard evidence that Africans are innately less intelligent, they would nevertheless be completely ruined within their choice of career, without a doubt.

Oh I rather doubt it. I believe I saw Crick speak at a YMCA in New York City about a decade ago, and he advocated for racial eugenics during his speech, or was questioned regarding it, and he basically just said, "that's what I think" IIRC. Is someone who provides evidence going to actually be more disliked than someone who provides very little...? I kind of doubt it. And some of them actually do manage to entrench and succeed. If you've been on a college campus, I think you know that in academia, "we" (or they - I'm out) I think like having the opposing viewpoints up so we can "RELIVE THE GLORY!" and pie people.

(Well for some people, if they have to deal with an insulting or offensive viewpoint, it is still be bad. "well they're making fun of him or criticizing him, but still paying him", sometimes anyway? I don't think they should have to put up with it.)

Edited February 21, 2013 by Mouse

[Life]

I'm not sure I should feel insulted by not being asked of my opinion (being a combat soldier and all).

In Israel, we have a co-ed combat unit by the name Karakal. The women there serve the same amount of time as men and are combat soldiers as much as men are. HOWEVER (and this is important), they do not participate in operations and simply guard the Egyptian border (this is commonly known so it's not really a secret).

Feel free to come to your own conclusions about women in combat units. The point I'm trying to make is that it is not uncommon or unheard of.

[Excellen Browning]

yes I heard of karakal. Apparently they are under orders to get to safety and only under limited circumstances are allowed to close in and kill.

[Life]

yes I heard of karakal. Apparently they are under orders to get to safety and only under limited circumstances are allowed to close in and kill.

That "apparently" is 100% inaccurate due to frinds I have in the unit and personal interaction with one of their platoons. I was guarding the Egyptian border a while back and they work like any combat unit doing a border.

[Excellen Browning]

Seems I mixed them up with the way the Americans are doing things in Iraq/Afghanistan.

[Aere]

Are you aware that there are female soldiers who've had combat experience, who would say and have indeed been saying they did just fine, and that they can handle it?

One particular high-ranking U.S. officer, IIRC a general, while being escorted in Iraq or Afghanistan through dangerous territory, was so impressed with the performance of, again IIRC, the soldier on the vehicle's turret, that he asked the soldier's name, and of course discovered the gunner to be a woman and basically had his mind changed for him on the spot.

Also, I'd think there are plenty of men who couldn't handle roles in combat in anything but the most desperate circumstances, if even those, and certainly not to a military standard. I certainly don't think I can/could handle it, but hypothetical/potential proportional differences between the sexes aside, I don't think I should be taken to represent every other male soldier in combat situations, any more than any individual woman with similar feelings should be taken to represent the potential effectiveness of every other female soldier.

So, there are exceptions? You're basically supporting the idea that qualifications should be gender blind. However, as a whole, women are weaker physically than men. So, less women would be in the armed forces, and that would be based on strength not sex. Men who do not qualify would fall under the same category.

[Rehab]

It's not about exceptions, it's about evaluating by the individual. It doesn't, or rather shouldn't matter an ounce of a flying fuck who somebody is as long as they can get the job done. There exist women who can get that job done, who have gotten that job done, so I don't see any reason to systematically bar those people from getting the job done, regardless of what they actually number among the armed forces. Of course people who aren't up to a standard of fitness shouldn't be in service, but ideally that should be one clear minimum physical standard, not one anything to do with gender. I really don't care if that means fewer women overall than men serve in combat roles, as long as the option is there, because if the option is there and there's an actual set of physical standards to be met, there will be women who will come to meet them. Try telling those women why they shouldn't be able to.

italics

Edited February 24, 2013 by Rehab