nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Women on the front line....

simonsays1

Hello...What do you all think about the new US army ruling of late?
I'm struggling with my thoughts these past few days regarding this issue.
I can't seem to make my mind up about it.
I'm all for equality for sure but for some reason I'm unable to welcome this ruling with open arms (straight way at least). Maybe it's just my conditioning and it's a matter of getting used to the idea.

All thoughts welcome.

Simon

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jaja321

Why are you finding it hard to make your mind up about it? What specifically are you having difficulty with?

Posy

simonsays1 wrote: »

Hello...What do you all think about the new US army ruling of late?

I may give my opinion if you care to elaborate on what this ruling is you're talking about.

dr gonzo

Posy wrote: »

I may give my opinion if you care to elaborate on what this ruling is you're talking about.

The US defense secretary along with the joint chiefs of staff have just removed an injunction against women serving in frontline (specifically combat positions).

baby and crumble

Why would it be a problem? Presumably anyone who enters into the army does so with the expectation of serving in combat at some point in their careers.

Why is it hard for you to make up your mind about, OP? I fail to see what the problem could be, other than two options;

1) You are wary of women going into combat because they may be unable to carry out the duties necessary (ie shoot to kill, etc.)

2) You don't think women should be fighting.

metaoblivia

I don't see the problem with it. The Pentagon stressed that the physical standards for these positions would be gender-neutral, meaning the women will have to pass through the same training and the same physical tests as the men. The women who can do that will have earned their place just as much as any man.

Morag

I wonder if the women are not seen as second class soldiers will the numbers of rapes that happen on deployment decrease.

Starokan

It's just perception, a woman who receives the same level of training will be equally as competent. There may be a discrepancy in physical strength between a fully trained male or female solider but that's it, i would assume between any two fully trained people there would be a variety of discrepancies be they male or female

Stheno

Morag wrote: »

I wonder if the women are not seen as second class soldiers will the numbers of rapes that happen on deployment decrease.

In fairness an awful lot of women have been "unofficially" attached to frontline units as medics etc in recent years, the US have had at least 150 women soldiers die in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the UK have lost several women soliders too.

I think the sexual harassment/assault probably needs to be dealt with as a seperate issue, though I can also see your point in that if these women are day to day out with their colleagues it changes their view. There was a traditional view in armies that women should never be on the frontline as male soldiers are more likely to take risks to protect a female colleague, I wonder have the Unofficial attachments, and subsequent loss of female soldiers disproved this?

Here's an article on it for anyone not sure what's being talked about

Essentially, excluding very specialist roles like special ops etc, women are now going to be able to operate across the entire range of roles including combat in the US army.

confuseddotcom

I watched loads of those Documentaries about serving on the Front Line. I'm fascinated with Soldiers and the Army for some unknown reason, strange considering I must be the most laziest person in the world! But anyways in all those Documentaries that were filmed/televised; - I didn't see ONE woman actually actively serving on the front line. A female medic did lose her life. Unfortunately they just couldn't provide enough cover to hold the low-lifes opposing side off until she got on ground safely but she got shot and didn't make it. But that's it. Just ONE woman in all those clips and documentaries, all the rest of the troops I saw serving on the front line were all male, I guess these are all actually combat roles now that I think of it?

Granted equalityschmallity you would have to respect / expect / take care that women and men are all treated the same yadda yadda yadda, but I still can't help thinking; - would a guy soldier pull a female soldier back and go further before her, or go in front or ahead of her, as an automatic take-over response or male characteristic type-of-thing. Possibly very traditionalist view but can't help thinking it!

Stheno

confuseddotcom wrote: »

Granted equalityschmallity you would have to respect / expect / take care that women and men are all treated the same yadda yadda yadda, but I still can't help thinking; - would a guy soldier pull a female soldier back and go further before her, or go in front or ahead of her, as an automatic take-over response or male characteristic type-of-thing. Possibly very traditionalist view but can't help thinking it!

One of the most famous non-frontline female combatants is Tammy Duckworth, who lost both her legs serving as a helicopter pilot in the Iraq War and has gone on to become a politician in the states. Hard to argue that that's not a combat role, seems like for years, there are combat and psuedo combat roles, as if women weren't involved in some way on the front lines they wouldn't be getting killed.

The view you express above has traditionally been used as an excuse as to why women should not be on the frontline.

Fukuyama

I apolagise for the length of this post. I'm very opinionated when it comes to discrimination.

Let's ignore the fact that women recruits were trained bySun Tzu and featured in the 2000 year old basis for all warfare strategy : The Art of War. Let us ignore that the Celts used female warriors to great advantage. We'll deal with today's stupid 'ideals' in the most practical of ways. Plain, simple, logic.

Here's why I think women should fight on the frontline:

Ohhh...PRIVATE PARTS!!
Firstly, the warzone has changed. It would be unthinkable (even ignoring the social niceties at the time) to have had females and males serving alongside one another even i n recent wars such as Vietnam. In ww1, ww2, Congo (Irish example) and Vietnam, soldiers were expected to share foxholes, sleep in trenches and live on the battlefield. Closely.

This is no longer the case. Occupations (such as Afghanistan and Iraq) are based around bases (where gender specific facilities are available. ) Therefore there's no reason why soldiers cannot co-exist in the field and have privacy in toilet facilities etc...

On long-distance patrols when sleeping outdoors is concerned - well, has anyone ever gone camping? I have. I've slept alongside women and men. When I needed to take a leak, you know where I went? Over there. And when one of the gals needed to drop trou, you know where she went? Over yonder. Same goes for dressing, etc... Easy peasy.

If an enemy RPG happens to zip overhead and Sally or Mary comes a-runnen out of her tent topless or whatever to grab her assault rifle, let me ask you; If you were being shot at would you be looking at her pair of sandbags or hunkering behind actual ones trying not to die? I know what I'd be doing.

Tank crews often have to live in tanks for days on end. A group of ten tanks could easily have two/three all-female tanks if the deployment is long. Submarines are now at a stage where they can have both male and female quarters. Sorted.

Sex

People have sex. Big deal. Sex on the frontline happens. I'd rather it happened (consensually) among troops than male soldiers visiting whorehouses, or worse.

Also, maybe if women were treated as equal soldiers they wouldn't be raped by their male counterparts. The statistics on that are shocking.

The psychology behind rape is a dominant mindset. Second-class soldiers are obviously going to be targeted.

Also, if you don't like the idea of sex on the frontline then lets remove all gay soldiers from combat roles. Whoa!! Now we're all discriminatory aren't we?

Remember when we though gay soldiers would cripple an Army or police force?! Wow... how stupid we were. This situation is directly comparable to females on the frontline.

Two people have sex (straight, gay, lesbian, whatever) in the supply closet when nobodys around. I see no problem with this. Assuming said soldiers are responsible, and respectful enough of their uniform to keep their actions respectful and private in terms of the living situation).

"But women get pregnant!" - Oh, well no **** Sherlock! Thanks for the biology lesson. There's a theory, that before an invasion or during a harsh war a woman might attempt to become pregnant to either avoid being sent to war or pulled from it. If a woman does this, them she's a cowardly traitor and her unit are better off without her. Men desert too though. In any case, this would be an extreme exception. And exceptions shouldn't make rules.

Physical Limitations
I often notice how those who use the weaker female form as an excuse are very often not exactly in tip-top-shape themselves. Women box their way into creating new Olympic categories, and then win them. Women compete on rugby pitches, GAA fields and basketball courts. A woman might not be as strong as a man. But a woman is strong enough to fire a 50 caliber machine gun, march thirty miles with a 100lb pack and a woman is strong enough fire a Carl Gustav 84mm Recoilless Rocket Launcher at a rate of six rounds per minute. We need not look abroad for proof. Look at the Irish Defence Forces and see the women that serve on the front-line abroad.

A note on Special Forces
Women should not be permitted to join special forces units however. I am not a hypocrite in saying this. I'm sure they would have no problem in carrying out 99% of the duties. However. Tasks can often involve extreme close living with fellow soldiers for days on end (I'm talking a sniper team lying side-by-side in a ditch pi55ing in bottles and ****ting while lying down in plastic bags).

What's more, the female skeleton and muscles are less dense. These units are shot at in close quarter combat more than regular troops. If a man goes down (and physical requirements dictate he is a 15 stone pack of muscle) then he needs to be moved by a fellow soldier.

Bone breakages and other injures and prone to these tasks.

Finally, these soldiers are kidnapped. A LOT. A female soldier is going to have a much worse time in the hands of Somali rebels than a man would. A MUCH worse time.

Sorry, but in my opinion, not yet.

Shoot to Kill

In Vietnam, it was well documented that in a marine's first taste of combat, even if the enemy was shooting right at him, he would 'shoot to miss'. Big men, ay?

We humans don't like killing. Give a HUMAN a dose of war for a few days and tell me that human, man or woman, won't be lining up them sights perfectly.

Boll0cks they wont.

Women shoot to kill. If not explain female police officers?? I can hear jaws going slack already.

And as harsh an example it is to use, explain the female torturers involved in Abu Gharib. Men can be harsh ****ers. Give women the chance, and so can they.

Some sexist women say men destroyed the world. True, we did. But they would have done they same only they didn't get a chance.

People are ****. War is ****. Let's do it together, shall we?

Espirit de Corps
Arguably the best argument I've heard against women in the Armed Forces.

Ladies, I cannot describe to you how foolish and stupid I feel when I say some of my best memories are of kicking the **** out of my mates with one another for a laugh. Or fighting the 'rival road' from the other side of the estate. Or playing IRA Torture as a kid.

In men there's something instinctive about fighting. We cannot help it,

This is used as an excuse to stop you getting into frontline combat. It's boll0cks.

War no longer consists of 'going over the top' or cavalry charges (although the last one did occur in 2003 by US Special Forces on horseback - true story).

Would a unit consisting of 50% females be less willing to fight? I don't think so. Soldiers are soldiers. Direct combat has been described by frontline male troops as 'like crack' (see documentary 'Restrepo'). If a female signs up I assume she wishes to experience frontline combat. I assume she knows what the army is all about. The idea that women don't want to get dirty and fight is pure ****. And I dare you to look in the face of a female soldier and summan the balls to say otherwise.

I know if I was a soldier, police officer or fireman, having a woman as a colleague wouldn't dampen my spirits in the slightest.

Furthermore, us men get carried away. It is true to say that men do posses more of an instinct to kill, as I've said. This instinct is useless in modern day war. Direct combat unleashes this instinct in both men and women. So why do we prefer men when all will have it when needed?

I think, having a woman as a commander of a HUMVEE convoy would stop us men from opening up on civilians as US troops did during the invasion of Iraq. Whats sick is that I can see the mindset those soldiers were in when they did that. Pumped up. Wanting to kill. THIS WAS THE PINNACLE OF THEIR LIFE. THEY WERE ON CRACK AND TESTOSTERONE. If only a woman were present to bring out the gentlemen in them - probably by her presence alone, no order needed. She wasn't. She was sitting on the tarmac in Kuwait because of some stupid law.

They're better than men at...

Interrogating women and children, who often hold valuable info but won't speak to male soldiers. It's been put to holders of this point that women aren't better at this. Its simply local middle east custom (archaic bit whatever) for women not to talk to men. But I remember when I was a kid. Men are scary to kids. Women have a natural way with kids. Kids seen where the guys put the IED or buried the RPGs for later use. So shut up and be thankful for a valuable tap to an invaluable source of information.

Women also prevent suicide. Yup. Men with guns in their hands have a lot of things going through their minds at war. They often choose to put said gun in their own mouths. These are reported as accidents in the media. A twinge of propaganda mixed in with a few doses of being easy on the family and not wanting a court case. It happens in the DF - a soldier on guard duty took his own life in the Dail a few years back and it was only reported because it happened there. Its a problem in every single army the world over - at war, or not. Talking helps. Its difficult to talk to "the lads".

____

I want to end by saying I accept sexism in neither direction, Men are currently discriminated against in the Irish Defence Forces. A woman has to do less push-ups, less distance running etc... to be recruited. This is sexist. So it does exist. But it's disproportional, obviously. I'm merely pointing it out for perspective and to perhaps make women readers of this post ponder the principal that's based on - an idea of an incapable gender. Shítty idea, me thinks.

____

Countess Markievicz fought with the Irish Citizens Army and was the first elected woman in Europe.

Cumann na mBan had their heads shaved and were beat senseless for carrying bullets, notes and food in their hair and under their clothes.

Women comforted soldiers in every single war there ever was. Treating shell shocked men, amputating limbs and performing operations without flinching on patients without anesthetic, I couldn't do that. No way.

Women aren't tough enough to fight on the frontline, :rolleyes:

It wasn't me!

I have always been of the opinion that once the individual is capable of performing the same duties and the same qualification criteria are used without regard for gender, then a woman should be able to occupy any position a man can, on or off the battlefield. What I object to are qualification criteria that differentiate between men and women. If they do so, then obviously I can't expect anyone whose position was received for having done less of being capable of pulling the same weight (literal or metaphorical) as someone whose qualification criteria were more stringent. Once that's established, then whether or not they're fit for the position is dependent on the character of the individual, and has nothing to do with their sex. They've earned their chance, and in my book that's enough.

clairefontaine

I thought one of the reasons used for not allowing women in combat was not about competancy but about the compromising of the men in battle, in that once upon a time men were believed to have an instinct or a reflex to protect women and if women were present they would get distracted from the tasks at hand because of it.

It also looked to me that women have been in combat for sometime now and this is just some official recognition. It would appear to me they need more "human resources" because the troops are being stretched thin.

It wasn't me!

Women have been involved certainly in terms of auxiliary roles, such as emergency medicine, logistics and such, but what they're discussing here is infantry roles, those whose function is to close with and kill the enemy, rather than support infrastructure. Not that those positions aren't absolutely vital and dangerous, and certainly take a good chunk of casualties themselves, but the emphasis is on their primary role, not whether they spend time in combat situations.

biko

I'm all for it.
US is finally catching up to Norway, Canada, Israel, Denmark and Australia (I'm sure there's more).
Norway opened up for women in all combat positions 1985 so it only took US 28 years.

clairefontaine

I wish I could be happy for them, that women are now " allowed" to go to the front lines of combat, but I can't be. And I can't be because I was never happy for the young men who were sent to the front lines in the first place. The American military recruits young men usually from working class or underclass backgrounds, recruits them and uses them to fight wars in other countries that make money for wealthy war lenders and powerful older men, and sacrifice their blood and their time. While I appreciate the patriotic spirit in which they volunteer, I cannot help but think there is a lot of brainwashing behind this, starting with the heroic pressure instilled in American boys from a young age. luring them into a military future when they become of age.

If I had a son or brother who announced at 18 he was signing up for the army or navy I would call him a moron, through a bucket of ice water at him and tell him to wake up and not be a sucker.

And so now we have the women on this path too. Well hip hip hooray. This is not any movement in progress, this is because they need more fighters, they need more resources, more bodies, more members of the population to exploit for their nation building.

It saddens me to think that women have fought for so long to be as stupid as men are. I guess this is what they call progress and I guess feminists will believe we have found equality when there are as many women on death row or in prison as there are men and as many dead women in military graves across DC as there are men.

[Deleted User]

For a pro-women-in-combat post, there's a lot here I disagree with:

Dean0088 wrote: »

Therefore there's no reason why soldiers cannot co-exist in the field and have privacy in toilet facilities etc...

I don't understand why toilet facilities is a concern. We have unisex toilets in my college (hardly a wartime situation) and we get along just fine.

I'd rather it happened (consensually) among troops than male soldiers visiting whorehouses, or worse.

Also, maybe if women were treated as equal soldiers they wouldn't be raped by their male counterparts. The statistics on that are shocking.

The psychology behind rape is a dominant mindset. Second-class soldiers are obviously going to be targeted.

So we should provide male soldiers with female counterparts because otherwise they can't help having sex with prostitutes and raping people?

Tasks can often involve extreme close living with fellow soldiers for days on end (I'm talking a sniper team lying side-by-side in a ditch pi55ing in bottles and ****ting while lying down in plastic bags).

And women are allergic to urine and poo? I don't get it.

A female soldier is going to have a much worse time in the hands of Somali rebels than a man would. A MUCH worse time.

Male and female soldiers can be captured and tortured.

If only a woman were present to bring out the gentlemen in them - probably by her presence alone, no order needed. She wasn't. She was sitting on the tarmac in Kuwait because of some stupid law.

Again, you're being pro-equality, but in a strangely discriminatory way. You think that wartime atrocities would be avoided by having a lady around?

Women also prevent suicide. Yup. Men with guns in their hands have a lot of things going through their minds at war. They often choose to put said gun in their own mouths.

Talking helps. Its difficult to talk to "the lads".

I don't know where to start with this. Firstly, without checking my facts I'm pretty sure that while suicide rates are higher in men, depression is more common in women. So I don't see how this problem is a male one. Secondly, I don't think that a reason to have women on the front line should be that they're nice to talk to. It's like saying "oh yeah, women should be treated equally and put on the front line, because they'll make some great eggs to fill the mens bellies before combat".

Women comforted soldiers in every single war there ever was. Treating shell shocked men, amputating limbs and performing operations without flinching on patients without anesthetic, I couldn't do that. No way.

I think it's unfair to imply that a man couldn't do these things just because you feel you couldn't. I'm pretty sure they have and still do.

Whispered

true-or-false wrote: »

Male and female soldiers can be captured and tortured.

This is very true, I believe the poster you were quoting might have been referring to sexual torture (correct me if I'm wrong!). Male rape is apparently very prevalent in war. Often used as a type of torture. I found this article very eye opening.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

Fukuyama

true-or-false wrote: »

For a pro-women-in-combat post, there's a lot here I disagree with:

I don't understand why toilet facilities is a concern. We have unisex toilets in my college (hardly a wartime situation) and we get along just fine.

Toilet facilities om bases are not only restrooms. They're showers, changing areas etc...

So we should provide male soldiers with female counterparts because otherwise they can't help having sex with prostitutes and raping people?

You're going from A to C and ignoring B. One of the main reasons people say females shouldn't be in combat is because male and female soldiers will have sex. This seems inevitable - however I suspect it would be far less prevalent than made out to be. My point here is that if people have sex then so what. The use of prostitutes and trafficked persons soars during a military occupation, even peacekeeping ones as documented by the UN. It stands to reason that this would decrease if soldiers were to be 50-50 female/male. I'm not suggesting the reason for female soldiers is to have sex with male soldiers. That much was obvious so please don't imply I was.

And women are allergic to urine and poo? I don't get it.

Lying in a snipers blind is a cramped place to be. In the US, snipers operate in pairs. One spotter. One shooter. Imagine lying in a coffin for three days. I'd rather pee and **** alongside a fellow man than a woman. That's not sexist. It's a social norm.

Male and female soldiers can be captured and tortured.

Rape can be used against any prisoner. However, most likely it will be used against a man as a form of torture. This much can be (somewhat) mentally prepared for. For example, the Royal Commandos do intensive captive training and this forms a part of it. However, most likely those holding a person captive will be men. Most men will not rape a female prisoner. All it takes is one or two. It stands to reason that this rape may not be for torture. This constitutes a 'worse' time.

In a military, strategy and planning come before political correctness.

Again, you're being pro-equality, but in a strangely discriminatory way. You think that wartime atrocities would be avoided by having a lady around?

No. I mentioned how female soldiers were responsible for some of the worst torture at Abu Gharib. I was speaking from my own personal experience (not military, just normal life.). Occasionally, lads be lads. We've all seen groups of men do stupid, illegal or wrong stuff because they're in an environment where their actions will be encouraged and shared with by other men on a buzz. Women can do this do at times. Group mentality can make any person do things they'd never dream of doing. With males, a biochemical predisposition for violence greater than that of womens logically means men are more likely to commit war crimes in certain 'encouraging' scenarios. By breaking this athmosphere with 50% female presence the group structure and group mentality is altered significantly.

I'm currently a business student. I've researched this area a little. Even in normal company groups a gender domination can seriously sway the actions of even the most level headed person.

Unfortunately, at war this means hosing down civilians for funsies. This is a minority of men.

Recently a group of US marines urinated on top of dead Taliban fighters. I find it hard to believe that would have occurred if the unit was 50-50 male/female

I don't know where to start with this. Firstly, without checking my facts I'm pretty sure that while suicide rates are higher in men, depression is more common in women. So I don't see how this problem is a male one. Secondly, I don't think that a reason to have women on the front line should be that they're nice to talk to.

Suicide rates are very easy to quantity. This is because it's easy to count how many bodies are found. Depression rates are not. Men simply do not talk to others around them. I know I certainly do not think I could speak to anyone - certainly not in a meaningful way. And it's something that does scare me a bit. I'm also a crap listener to other males. Fine with females if they need to get a load of their chest. But if a male friend were to try talk to me I honestly don't think I'd know where to look. I'm fully aware of how **** this is and it does make me feel terrible for being like it.

Women do talk.

You're arguing that there's no correlation between suicide rates and depression. Any statistics on actual reported depression based on gender are so fundamentally flawed they're useless.

It's like saying "oh yeah, women should be treated equally and put on the front line, because they'll make some great eggs to fill the mens bellies before combat".

Let me get this straight. I'm saying that a 50/50 split between male/females would make for a much more psychologically positive situation which may lead to a more supportive environment. The hopeful outcome is that soldiers might think twice before committing suicide. And you have said I think women should stay in the kitchen and make eggs. I really don't know what to say to that.

I think it's unfair to imply that a man couldn't do these things just because you feel you couldn't. I'm pretty sure they have and still do

I didn't imply anything. Both men and women are medics, doctors, surgeons and nurses. You're finding an implication where there is none.

I said women have treated soldiers historically after battle. Look at Syria. The hospitals over there are no cakewalk at the minute.

And yet all you can think is that women should remain in the nurses uniform. So if I mention a man doing a job, do I have to mention women also do that job? Or if I mention a woman doing a job, do I have to mention that men also do that job?

I really think you view everything through a gender lens.

Stheno

clairefontaine wrote: »

I wish I could be happy for them, that women are now " allowed" to go to the front lines of combat, but I can't be. And I can't be because I was never happy for the young men who were sent to the front lines in the first place. The American military recruits young men usually from working class or underclass backgrounds, recruits them and uses them to fight wars in other countries that make money for wealthy war lenders and powerful older men, and sacrifice their blood and their time. While I appreciate the patriotic spirit in which they volunteer, I cannot help but think there is a lot of brainwashing behind this, starting with the heroic pressure instilled in American boys from a young age. luring them into a military future when they become of age.

If I had a son or brother who announced at 18 he was signing up for the army or navy I would call him a moron, through a bucket of ice water at him and tell him to wake up and not be a sucker.

And so now we have the women on this path too. Well hip hip hooray. This is not any movement in progress, this is because they need more fighters, they need more resources, more bodies, more members of the population to exploit for their nation building.

It saddens me to think that women have fought for so long to be as stupid as men are. I guess this is what they call progress and I guess feminists will believe we have found equality when there are as many women on death row or in prison as there are men and as many dead women in military graves across DC as there are men.

I have to disagree. The US army compared to most probably has the best talent spotting programme in place that finds exceptional recruits and sends them to Officer School (forget the real name)

Also for some in the US a life of crime is often an alternative to a life in the armed forces in a court of law, and many choose it.

We are living in what is probably the most peaceful five decades of the last ten, so I can't agree with your argument that they send their troops off to be cannon fodder.

When I was a teenager I seriously considered joining the British Army, then realised I'd not the discipline to live in that world, rather strangely I consulted to them in a specialist area, and on seeing their daily discipline thanked myself at that young age for realising I'd not fit in.

Numerous other Defence forces have done this, Special Ops, Seals etc are still exclusively male, so not much has changed, for me this announcement means an acknowledgement of the role women have equally played, rather than pursuing more recruits to send the the battle field.

In fact, it may have the opposite effect, as a woman prior to this announcement, I was statistically less likely to die due to being in the armed forces, that's not the case now, so why should I join up?

[Deleted User]

While I do have responses, I'm not going to address each point you made because it would make for a pretty tedious post.

Dean0088 wrote: »

It stands to reason that this rape may not be for torture. This constitutes a 'worse' time.

I don't see how rape with the intent of sex is worse than rape with the intent of torture. If anything, the latter is more likely to lead to death or lifelong health complications.

I'd rather pee and **** alongside a fellow man than a woman. That's not sexist. It's a social norm.
...
In a military, strategy and planning come before political correctness. [/B]

But you still think that they'd be blushing at the thought of a Starship Troopers type toilet scenario. I don't think that it's sexist to prefer to be stuck in that scenario with someone who has the same bits as you, but I do think it's a pretty trivial thing to be worried about in a war. If you're stuck in that hole with someone, you probably have bigger things to worry about.

Suicide rates are very easy to quantity. This is because it's easy to count how many bodies are found. Depression rates are not. ...

You're arguing that there's no correlation between suicide rates and depression. Any statistics on actual reported depression based on gender are so fundamentally flawed they're useless.

No, I was arguing that suicide rates may be higher in men (I've heard that realistically those figures are skewed too as women are more likely to have failed attempts) but that it's not an exclusively male problem.

I really think you view everything through a gender lens.

In a conversation purposely centred around genders, yes, of course I do.

I do totally agree with you about women being good for the military, I just think that the win here is that women are being given a chance to prove themselves for the same role that used to be exclusively for men, rather than the fact that they might make things better for the men. I know that's not what you were getting at, but it was in your post and I couldn't help wanting to addressing it. To be honest I'm not a fan of the military at all, my only interest here is that women are gaining equal opportunity in certain roles, regardless of what those roles may be. The eggs are not real, they are just an analogy to point out that I don't think we should be focusing on what this means for the men in the military, but rather what it means for the women in the military, or even women in general.

the_syco

Whispered wrote: »

I found this article very eye opening.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

I wish I was surprised that most rape charities don't acknowledge male rape in war, but that is life.

=-=

Here's a nice role model for women thinking of joining; http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/01/28/female-soldier-recounts-time-under-fire.html

Seems women may be included in draft in the future; http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/01/25/panetta-women-may-be-included-in-future-draft.html

As for women joining, meh. Once the standard isn't dropped much more, I don't care. We'll see how it levels off once peacetime resumes, as at the moment they're low on recruits, and thus armed forces having a lot of active gang members in the ranks is a sign that the standard seems to have dropped a lot.

=-=

Can any man or woman be a marine? Hell no, and anyone who thinks it is a fool.

Should any person who passes boot camp be a marine? Hell yes, be they man or woman.

=-=

What does change? Nothing really. Well, the temps can now apply for permanent positions. Women have been serving in the front line for quite some time.

Don't expect to see many women joining been deployed any time soon; there are a load of budget cuts coming down the line, and thus I'm wondering will there be much of a recruitment for women when men are being let go?

jugger0

Pretty ridiculous really, woman and men are completely different, men are always going to be superior fighters, faster, stronger, more aggressive, if women and men cant play on the same sports team then what chance do they have fighting together on a battlefield...

FouxDaFaFa

jugger0 wrote: »

men are always going to be superior fighters, faster, stronger, more aggressive

You can't generalise like that. A lot of men are stronger than me but I could probably overpower one or two of my male friends. Throw in combat training and things even up even more. Every male soldier is different, with varying levels of strength and speed and intelligence. The same goes for women.
As long as the standard is met, I don't see the problem with women being on the frontline.

Galwayguy35

They will have to meet the same standards of training as the men so if they can do that then why shouldn't they do the same job.

Galwayguy35

Rape can be used against any prisoner. However, most likely it will be used against a man as a form of torture. This much can be (somewhat) mentally prepared for. For example, the Royal Commandos do intensive captive training and this forms a part of it. However, most likely those holding a person captive will be men. Most men will not rape a female prisoner. All it takes is one or two. It stands to reason that this rape may not be for torture. This constitutes a 'worse' time. [/QUOTE]

I would imagine being raped would be equally traumatic for either gender, so I disagree that a man would be able to "prepare" for it.

Arawn

I have one problem with women on the front line that deals with the public, they will never be able to deal with men. I know it sounds sexist, but I was working a door one night and two blokes fought outside the pub and two bangardas came upon the scene and it ended with me and another doorman restraining the offenders at the guards request so they could cuff them. I have no problem with females guards etc who can handle males but if you cannot you should not be on the front lines

jugger0

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

You can't generalise like that. A lot of men are stronger than me but I could probably overpower one or two of my male friends. Throw in combat training and things even up even more. Every male soldier is different, with varying levels of strength and speed and intelligence. The same goes for women.
As long as the standard is met, I don't see the problem with women being on the frontline.

I find that impossible to believe, physically overpowering your mates in a tickle war or whatever ye were at is a lot different to 2 people fighting for their lives in hand to hand combat, one man one woman the man will win 9.9 times out of 10. Its not just strength but endurance and speed, and of course aggression, men thanks to testosterone are far more aggressive and capable of violence then women.

Lyaiera

jugger0 wrote: »

I find that impossible to believe, physically overpowering your mates in a tickle war or whatever ye were at is a lot different to 2 people fighting for their lives in hand to hand combat, one man one woman the man will win 9.9 times out of 10. Its not just strength but endurance and speed, and of course aggression, men thanks to testosterone are far more aggressive and capable of violence then women.

You do realise that if you said that kind of stuff to an army recruiter they'd laugh at you and pack you off to basic training where you'd be beaten into shape. "Aggressive and capable of violence" my arse. They're not looking for cavemen with clubs they're looking for intelligence. Gung ho boys playing at soldiers and war is the last thing they want.

Arawn

Lyaiera wrote: »

You do realise that if you said that kind of stuff to an army recruiter they'd laugh at you and pack you off to basic training where you'd be beaten into shape. "Aggressive and capable of violence" my arse. They're not looking for cavemen with clubs they're looking for intelligence. Gung ho boys playing at soldiers and war is the last thing they want.

Honest question if you put a male with basic training up against a female with the same training who would you put yer money on?