ok, I was going to throw my own 2 cents in, but it looks like it's going to be closer to a buck and a half after reading through the whole post... so here it goes, quote city!
john9blue wrote:we'll see how it works out. i can definitely see it reducing the effectiveness of male soldiers, but i've never been in the armed forces, so maybe they are capable of ignoring it?
some of us most certainly are... certainly not all, but if I'm getting shot at I'd have no problem with any of the women I've ever worked with in the military next to me
notyou2 wrote:I expect it will be equal pay, which they probably already have based on rank and skills, or something similar, so I'm in support of it.
yup, as patches explained later
(here in fact)
Pay isn't an issue, of a certain rank you get a certain pay. Hazard duty as proscribed and all the other things. It's all laid out, and there isn't a Male Pay scale and a Female Pay scale in the military. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4429,d.b2I
Pretty much the women combat troops will get paid just as crappy as the men. heh heh.
Just_essence wrote:Well, it'll be largely peaceful, that's for sure. But it's not going to be a smooth ride, that's also for sure. Why? 'Cause there's always the lingering problem of the entire population in the military that are either consciously sexist or unconsciously sexist. It'll disappear in time, but for now, it's still there.
"entire population"? in the future if you wish to avoid cramming your foot further down your throat, avoid such all inclusive phrases... because for starters you're claiming to know something about every member of a fairly large population that I can guarantee you have not met every member of (as I've never met you personally), not to mention you're also assuming the female portion of that population is also sexist
Nobunaga wrote:Allow me to be the first to be against it... well, partially and conditionally against it.
The day women are made to meet the same requirements, many of them physical, is the day I'm all for it. So when you've been shot in the gut and need to be carried a mile by your buddy, you'd know the woman in your foxhole can pull the job off.
At present, they need not meet those requirements.
really? which requirements specifically are you talking about, and what proof have you of your claim?
_sabotage_ wrote:It must be part of the shock and awe.
The muslim whatever we call them to avoid war crime laws will be so surprised that a woman is shooting them it will be like a flash bang. On the other hand, when they catch and rape the crap out of them and send us videos, we might have a change of heart about equality in the forces.
sure, like what they do to the men isn't gruesome enough... oh, and the civilians they capture... oh, and any women not actively in combat who might still work on a base that gets overrun...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Actually, women are often better able to stand up to long term stress, including things like long forced marches and such, than men.
The benefit of male strength is often very overrated. I cannot even count the number of arrogant strong young guys I worked to the ground -- I am not particularly big or particulary muscular, but I used what I had more effectively than they. Also, I have more flexibility, so was prone to some injuries less than men.
The issue is not that men are women or women men, the issue is mostly that both can do the jobs effectively, and even when the approach has to differ for women, many times rethinking how things are done to make it easier for men is very beneficial to all involved.
Or, to put it another way.. foxholes don't provide much protection against either IEDs on the roadway, (or directed drones, for that matter)
bolded for emphasis, you are quite correct... also, one of the toughest women I know is my mother-in-law. she's not overly strong, and I could easily out muscle her, but she puts me to shame over the long haul
Nobunaga wrote: spurgistan wrote:
The fun thing is that this doesn't really change much except acknowledge that women are actually serving in combat areas and face the same hazards their male counterparts do. And morale doesn't suffer. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... omen-fight
Read this a while ago, made a really good argument for why this is a no-brainer.
Yeah... the main point of the article is basically, and I quote, "It is time for the U.S. military to get over its hang-ups and acknowledge women’s rightful place on the battlefield. "
Not exactly a neutral examination of the situation, but I understand the argument and I absolutely believe women should be allowed to fight... so long as they are held to the same standards as their be-testicled compatriots.
spurg: as you said, they're already here, the only difference is they're allowed to go kick down doors now if they want. there are very few women specifically in combat jobs in the military, and the few that are tend to be just as good at what they do as their male counterparts
Nob: as I said earlier, what standards, and what proof have you they aren't being held to them?
Haggis_McMutton wrote:God bless their pretty little heads for thinking they could ever die in a trench like a man can.
while I acknowledge the sarcasm in the original post I must point out that trenches went out with WWII
john9blue wrote:that's because, even if you manage to find women who are able to meet the physical standards that men do, they introduce a whole host of psychological problems to their unit. if the benefit from the additional "man"power in our military outweighed these negative psychological consequences, then i'd be totally in favor of introducing women to combat. the reality of the situation, though, is that our military is already bloated and there's just no need to make our current soldiers suffer more than they have to... even if it's the female soldiers who are victims of misogyny from the males.
you ARE aware that women are already involved in many combat situations, albeit usually in a defensive capacity, and that we're doing just fine with them where they are, right? so I gotta ask... how is allowing women who VOLUNTEER for the duty to fight like they want making us suffer?
john9blue wrote:the disagreement ITT arises because i look at things from a pragmatic POV and others look at it from an idealist POV. yes, it's unfair for women to not be able to join combat roles because the men can't handle it... but that is simply the way things are. there is a much reduced sense of "brotherhood" if one of us is not a "brother".
all I have to say is Bull F**king Sh**
spurgistan wrote:It doesn't matter if "women in general" don't want to serve on the front lines - men "in general" don't want to serve on the front lines, or we'd be able to fight way more wars. But a few are ok with being puppets of international finance and dying for oil companies, so, we let them.
as opposed to wage slavery for the same companies? at least I get paid better this way
john9blue wrote:yes, it's unfair for women to not be able to join combat roles because the men can't handle it... but that is simply the way things are. there is a much reduced sense of "brotherhood" if one of us is not a "brother".
You highlight the inherent problem, and who is responsible for it.
The problem lies with the men who see "brotherhood" as a male-only thing.
The people who suffer because of the problem are the 'ard as fucking nails woman who dont give a f*ck about whats between your legs and just want to soldier.
Im all for trying to correct the men who are causing the problem (and i'd hazard to guess it is actually a fairly low proportion of front line combat soldiers) rather than settling with status quo because "its just too hard".
Like Haggis I support Nobungas requirement that woman meet the exact same entry criteria; I just disagree with your pragmatic argument that fixing soldier psychology is just too hard. If anything getting beat by a girl in training exercises will only serve to improve all the macho twats...
let's just say when the smallest girl in the platoon outdid EVERY male the PT scores went up for a bit afterwards...
saxitoxin wrote:edit - I decided I don't care that much about this topic so I deleted my post.
That is basically my view on this subject. I'm largely indifferent, although I think the argument against women serving in the military should be reserved to men who actually served in combat, as opposed to men who like to pretend they know what goes on (which is another reason I have no strong opinion - I did not serve and was not in combat so my opinion means little).
I'm currently in Afghanistan, and I do care, so forgive me for rambling a bit
john9blue wrote:i think a distinction needs to be made here. i'm not saying that there don't exist women who CAN be great soldiers. i'm just questioning whether the benefit of the additional military power is worth the potential costs.
uh... what additional cost? the troops being allowed into combat are already being paid by the military
oh, and don't go into combat/hazardous duty pay, we all get that just for being in the war zone in the first place
john9blue wrote:also, your "statistical analysis" is a bit off, considering that the military is largely composed of males in the upper, say, 10% of physical fitness. and the fact that women who can beat 99% of men exist doesn't change the fact that, given the distributions are clustered around the mean, probably 75% of males are more capable of being soldiers than 75% of females.
basing public policy on extreme statistical outliers is generally a bad idea.
uh... as a slice of the general populace, yes I'd probably agree... but the females that currently are in the military have about the same level of competence at the job as their male counterparts (which is why there are so many fewer females actually in the military than males)