Women in combat policy to change - Page 3

Skybird · 02-09-12, 08:15 PM

In principle there is nothing to say against women in combat forces. The devil hides in the details.

But the criterions by which candidates are qualifying for this or for that kind of job, both physically and mentally/intelklkectually, need to be set by the realities set by war, not by gender quota policies.

There need to be implemented a general rule of equality also - no privileges or eased duties for any gender.

Special measures causing increased logicstical efforts implemented due to both women and men serving in especially close or difficult quarter, like small diesel submarines for example, are not to be allowed. That in an already small and crowded environment plltical correctenss now demands efforts distracted to inlcude separate quarters or routines becasue there may be a woman on board, is total nonsense for me.

I have ni problem with imagining wsomen in combat roles, and in all ranks up to generals - if they qualify by the same standards as male candidates. These standards are NOT to be reduced for women or even for both sexes just to make it easier for women.

The erotic tension that August refers to as a distraction, is hard to judge for an outside rlike me. I know that in WWII, the Russians had not had such problems, and that the Germans feared female Russian snipers more than males. From israel there were reprts I read someyears ago that a mixed composition of forces even eased tensionbs in units and led to more discipline. I assume it helps in times of war, and more becomes a problem in times of peace.

Women in fighter jet cockpits, as snipers, generals, combat troops? Yes, if they qualify by the same standards as males, and they can be integrated without too much of a hassle. Women aboard small submarines, in commando teams, as combat divers? I donb'ÄT think that is a good idea.

Also, in wartimes, there is a chance that warriors are being taken as prisoners. A women joining armed forces should give that some serious thoughts, I think I must not explain the implications especially if the enemy is no "civilised" faction following international rules of warfare, but a barbaric faction from a tribal patriarchalic culture with high ressentiments against women anyway.

Obverall, the combat efficiency of any branch of the armed forces shall in no way be negatively effected or complicated by letting women in. Soldiering is not just like any other job. The business is to wage war, or to prepare for doing so. Any candidate thinking about a military career should have not the smallest illusions about that.

The military is not there to boost your later civil business chances or your political career, it is not there to provide you with some years of adventure or letting you see some shares of ther world, and it also has not the function to give you a job and an income where else you would be unemployed - all these things are only (unimportant) side-effects. The military is there to fight battles and wage wars, and to prepare for this by training in peacetime. This, and nothing else.

02-09-12, 08:19 PM

Tavor TA-21
I think.

Takeda Shingen · 02-09-12, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

The military is not there to boost your later civil business chances or your political career, it is not there to provide you with some years of adventure or letting you see some shares of ther world, and it also has not the function to give you a job and an income where else you would be unemployed - all these things are only (unimportant) side-effects. The military is there to fight battles and wage wars, and to prepare for this by training in peacetime. This, and nothing else.

Then it may be a good idea for the US armed forces to stop advertising military service as such. They've been telling it to America's youth for the better part of 60 years. "Be all that you can be. Get an edge on life in the Army."

02-09-12, 08:50 PM

No one I have ever talked to said they were mis-led to enlist.
Some said they did not understand the commitment and regreted it.
But that's thier fault as far as I care to listen to excuses.
So the crap you see on TV makes it 'look' Cool.
As a thinking person? Who ever buys into all the crap deserves what they get!

We were given a brain for a reason!!

Stealhead · 02-09-12, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by privateer

No one I have ever talked to said they were mis-led to enlist.
Some said they did not understand the commitment and regreted it.
But that's thier fault as far as I care to listen to excuses.
So the crap you see on TV makes it 'look' Cool.
As a thinking person? Who ever buys into all the crap deserves what they get!

We were given a brain for a reason!!

QFT.If you enlisted and asked no questions and did no research to bad for you to be frank all I can say is last the 2 or 4 year enlistment and you are done and still in the end it did you no
harm at the very least you learned a little about how the world works and how to work though a difficult situation.I do disagree that the military is not useful after your time in many jobs either directly relate to a civilian job and you get the edge that an employer somewhat expects someone form the military with a good discharge to be a good potential employee.I my experience after the military more or less once they say I was in for 12 years that more or less sealed the deal and I got hired.

Of course an Army,Navy,Air Force,Marine Corps add are the way they are they want to encourage a person to want to enlist in that branch they are not gong to show that you take out the trash and clean toilets,sand and paint everything.No civilian employer is going to tell all the lousy parts of a given job either.

Takeda Shingen · 02-09-12, 09:38 PM

Nevertheless, it is a salient point that the military feels it has become a personal proving ground for every person that enters it's ranks; a major argument that many on this forum have given in it's defense, particularly in cases of gender integration and homosexuals in the military. Advertising as such, therefore, is akin to me opening my statement about not plotting to steal the Crown Jewels by stating "Today, while I was plotting to steal the Crown Jewels..."

It is at it's very best a case of mixed signals, and at it's very worst completely disingenuous.

CCIP · 02-09-12, 09:54 PM

Another caveat: I don't agree that this sort of thing would constitute social engineering, and in fact I would argue that the opposite is true - the military as it is can be considered an engineered environment. The average American 18 year old will have been in mixed-gender situations most of his/her life. This is not Saudi Arabia - guys and girls will have gone to school together, studied together, played sports together, been in clubs together, etc. etc.

In fact, sociological research shows that especially the current generation are overwhelmingly heterosocial. This was not true even a couple of decades ago, and this is not true in conservative societies even today, but the average American teenager today will have about an equal number of male and female friends. There is a whole bunch of different explanations for this, but it does seem that on average, gender is far less of an issue for the current generation, even on a purely practical level.

So in my view, setting up an artificially homosocial environment is the real social engineering. I also suspect that whatever arguments come up about it now, wait a decade or two, and if things keep at this rate you will see this become a complete non-issue as the current generation grows up and become more politically relevant.

Lord Justice · 02-09-12, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

I'm also not sure the "distraction" argument is really valid. There are a lot of professional high-pressure situation where men and women are in close quarters and there is no issue. This depends more on individuals' discipline and professionalism than gender.

Then let me assure that it is valid, and I find your uncertainty handsomely off. :

During my service, one day myself and few of the lads from our company had orders to drive to a remote training camp to assist in weapon handling, and preparation of ranges for live firing exercises. Upon our arrival and much to our amusement were young female recruits from a logistics corps. ( I cannot recall why they were not properly instructed by there own). Throughout the day weapon handling, lunch, the lads and I noticed they were very flirty full of laughter etc coming from the Parachute Regiment we didn't tolerate nonsense. The more serious we got they seemed to get more joking, it sometimes stopped us in our tracks, we did come down a level to perhaps joke with them for a moment to keep them on par. That evening whilst stood down from duty (I blush to tell you) : I had intercourse with one the young ladies. The next day on the ranges we got more serious with them as they were to use live rounds. The young lady was in my section of 3, I kept getting glances and smiles from all. When it was her turn my thoughts were drifting to lust as I was drawn to her ass in the combat uniform and thought of my seed within her as she adopted the prone firing positions previously taught to them

Now I have served within an elite, trained alongside SF, 68% of the SAS are made up from soldiers from the Parachute Regiment, thus I believe it proper to say I was well trained, disciplined, but "distraction" happens. If females meet the standards then so be it, though I would urge an all female infantry regiment, do not mix. Ever seen woman going through Nuclear Biological Chemical Warfare drills? What happens if most females regiment get wiped out, loss of communication and they in ad hoc groups? etc I know not and will judge not, if they pass our subsim werewolf hunt unmolested then let them march.

Stealhead · 02-10-12, 12:34 AM

I would say that Lord Justice experiences are not necessarily uncommon only the situation was not the best.He just decided to get laid that was his choice and honestly if he was a person of rank then he made a poor choice if you go for a "one night stand" then you take a lot of risks.Further more according to your story that you did not force the situation of course if you have sexual interactions with woman you are most certainly going to be a bit distracted by her ass if you see it again later

Of course this situation or the one that lead to such feelings was consensual and you still did maintain yourself to some degree. I would say that whoever planned this whole thing was not thinking as it sounds like the unit being trained was very young and inexperienced they should have been trained by a bunch of old reservists or what ever they are called in England not by Para hell regular male rear echelon troops might get a bit excited being trained by Paras

A guy in one of my old units found out that he had slept with an officer cadet that was on a summer time "shadowing" tour where cadets go to a base and work with officers on the job.He had assumed that she was an enlisted person as he met her of base and he did not ask and she did not say he figured out the next Monday seeing her with a group of officer cadets clearly what she was.Of course this guy was for sure loose as where any women he picked up military or non would not have shocked if he was known by name at the clinic.

Skybird · 02-10-12, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Then it may be a good idea for the US armed forces to stop advertising military service as such. They've been telling it to America's youth for the better part of 60 years. "Be all that you can be. Get an edge on life in the Army."

Indeed. Most people over here find this habit and the relative aggressiveness by which it is pushed at schools (and schools even demanded to give the military postal adresses of their students, I think) nothing else but despicable. I saw them repeatedly in TV docus that they even approached 12 year old kids on public events like fairgrounds, attracting them and starting their interest with entertaining game desks where they could shoot at something or crawl around in tanks or such. And of course it is meant to get interst for the military becoming anchored in their minds as early as possible.

If this is needed to cover the personnell needs of the armed forces, then I think mandatory conscription for both sexes and of a sufficiently long time would be the far more honest and less underhanded way to go.

Being a soldier or memeber of the armed forces is njust not just like any other job, even if end up in a calm office at a desk. You are still enagged in issues of war. And that is what makes all military jobs not just jobs. Either you feel called for living a warrior'S life, or you don't. In cas eof the first - do it then, but do not have any romantic illusions. In case of the latter insist on your right to not be tried to be lured into service. And stop brainwashing kids.

August · 02-10-12, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

And stop brainwashing kids.

So then you advocate banning all subsims, tanksims and any other violent computer games for anyone under 21? That is what you're talking about.

MH · 02-10-12, 09:17 AM

Women can be very serious at what they do in army.
They may lack the attitude of "this is my rifle this is my gun" but do excellent professional jobs.

The army's job is to screen candidates for any given profession
Arguing that women simply cant do job because army can't do the job is pointless.
Go complain about your army recruiting system.
I should also point out that basic and advanced training should filter the candidates even further.

Another question is weather we want to see women in combat and so on.

Skybird · 02-10-12, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

So then you advocate banning all subsims, tanksims and any other violent computer games for anyone under 21? That is what you're talking about.

It would not mean a loss for human race if war games would not find so much acceptance amongst gaming people, yes. But even more it would help if the business of the military would not be simplified and glossed so much in general media, the proverbial obsession for weapons in some countries would no longer be tolerated and 12 year old would not be allowed to fire assault rifles at a gunnery range under their parent's supervison.

If we would never have heared of Sub Command, Battlefield and Call of Duty, we would not miss it. So indeed their non-existence from all beginning on wouldn't be a loss for anyone indeed.

Craving to play these titles is an artifical creation. And in some cases it even is military interest behind it - it is wellknown that the game America's Army was planned and created as a promotion tool for service in the armed forces. That'S why they gave it away for free.

I for myself, I lose interest in military content in sims the more the older I get (I become 45 next week). I don't play military sims much anymore, not even SBP or Falcon. The DCS sims I got last year rest on my shelf, almost untouched. I still like to play, but not as much as in the past, and the military sim genre simply cannot attract me as much as before anymore.

I consider 21 to be a more appropriate age barrier than 18 in many instances, however.

And regarding car driving I think young men should be allowed to drive alone some years later than girls indeed. Accident and traffic risk statistics of police and insurrance companies speak a very clear language here. The reason for the difference is evolutional biology, there is no cure against it (except genetic therapy, maybe).

Stealhead · 02-10-12, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH

Women can be very serious at what they do in army.
They may lack the attitude of "this is my rifle this is my gun" but do excellent professional jobs.

The army's job is to screen candidates for any given profession
Arguing that women simply cant do job because army can't do the job is pointless.
Go complain about your army recruiting system.
I should also point out that basic and advanced training should filter the candidates even further.

Another question is weather we want to see women in combat and so on.

I am not quite sure what the "this is my rifle" attitude women have been in Militarily Police units since the mid 70's in these units in several branches they are the armed defense of things like nuclear missile silos if you in one of those units you have the the "this is my rifle attitude" if by that you mean I will use my weapon to engage a threat.

Try as they may basic training does not screen out everyone it only screens out the ones with the most trouble one can easily scrape by in basic and not get noticed.In advanced training (tech training) again people can slip through in advanced training they are teaching you the basics of your job primarily.Only people that have notable poor behavior or obvious mental issues are going to get noticed or the ones that simply fail to pass the academic aspect and most times these will get sent to another "easier" career field.

Furthermore women have already been in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of various non Infantry ground units some have been killed or seriously wounded a female member of USAF security forces willed killed in action in Iraq and women have been flying in combat aircraft as well in every branch.

Takeda Shingen · 02-10-12, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

So then you advocate banning all subsims, tanksims and any other violent computer games for anyone under 21? That is what you're talking about.

If SubSims, TankSims and violent game dev teams are going to schools and advocating joining the military by the promise of getting a leg up on college education and future employment then yes, I would say that this is what he is talking about. Since I am not aware of any such occurance, I would be inclinded to disagree.

02-09-12, 08:15 PM	#31
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,645 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	In principle there is nothing to say against women in combat forces. The devil hides in the details. But the criterions by which candidates are qualifying for this or for that kind of job, both physically and mentally/intelklkectually, need to be set by the realities set by war, not by gender quota policies. There need to be implemented a general rule of equality also - no privileges or eased duties for any gender. Special measures causing increased logicstical efforts implemented due to both women and men serving in especially close or difficult quarter, like small diesel submarines for example, are not to be allowed. That in an already small and crowded environment plltical correctenss now demands efforts distracted to inlcude separate quarters or routines becasue there may be a woman on board, is total nonsense for me. I have ni problem with imagining wsomen in combat roles, and in all ranks up to generals - if they qualify by the same standards as male candidates. These standards are NOT to be reduced for women or even for both sexes just to make it easier for women. The erotic tension that August refers to as a distraction, is hard to judge for an outside rlike me. I know that in WWII, the Russians had not had such problems, and that the Germans feared female Russian snipers more than males. From israel there were reprts I read someyears ago that a mixed composition of forces even eased tensionbs in units and led to more discipline. I assume it helps in times of war, and more becomes a problem in times of peace. Women in fighter jet cockpits, as snipers, generals, combat troops? Yes, if they qualify by the same standards as males, and they can be integrated without too much of a hassle. Women aboard small submarines, in commando teams, as combat divers? I donb'ÄT think that is a good idea. Also, in wartimes, there is a chance that warriors are being taken as prisoners. A women joining armed forces should give that some serious thoughts, I think I must not explain the implications especially if the enemy is no "civilised" faction following international rules of warfare, but a barbaric faction from a tribal patriarchalic culture with high ressentiments against women anyway. Obverall, the combat efficiency of any branch of the armed forces shall in no way be negatively effected or complicated by letting women in. Soldiering is not just like any other job. The business is to wage war, or to prepare for doing so. Any candidate thinking about a military career should have not the smallest illusions about that. The military is not there to boost your later civil business chances or your political career, it is not there to provide you with some years of adventure or letting you see some shares of ther world, and it also has not the function to give you a job and an income where else you would be unemployed - all these things are only (unimportant) side-effects. The military is there to fight battles and wage wars, and to prepare for this by training in peacetime. This, and nothing else. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

02-09-12, 09:54 PM	#37
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	Another caveat: I don't agree that this sort of thing would constitute social engineering, and in fact I would argue that the opposite is true - the military as it is can be considered an engineered environment. The average American 18 year old will have been in mixed-gender situations most of his/her life. This is not Saudi Arabia - guys and girls will have gone to school together, studied together, played sports together, been in clubs together, etc. etc. In fact, sociological research shows that especially the current generation are overwhelmingly heterosocial. This was not true even a couple of decades ago, and this is not true in conservative societies even today, but the average American teenager today will have about an equal number of male and female friends. There is a whole bunch of different explanations for this, but it does seem that on average, gender is far less of an issue for the current generation, even on a purely practical level. So in my view, setting up an artificially homosocial environment is the real social engineering. I also suspect that whatever arguments come up about it now, wait a decade or two, and if things keep at this rate you will see this become a complete non-issue as the current generation grows up and become more politically relevant. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

02-10-12, 12:34 AM	#39
Stealhead Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 5,421 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	I would say that Lord Justice experiences are not necessarily uncommon only the situation was not the best.He just decided to get laid that was his choice and honestly if he was a person of rank then he made a poor choice if you go for a "one night stand" then you take a lot of risks.Further more according to your story that you did not force the situation of course if you have sexual interactions with woman you are most certainly going to be a bit distracted by her ass if you see it again later Of course this situation or the one that lead to such feelings was consensual and you still did maintain yourself to some degree. I would say that whoever planned this whole thing was not thinking as it sounds like the unit being trained was very young and inexperienced they should have been trained by a bunch of old reservists or what ever they are called in England not by Para hell regular male rear echelon troops might get a bit excited being trained by Paras A guy in one of my old units found out that he had slept with an officer cadet that was on a summer time "shadowing" tour where cadets go to a base and work with officers on the job.He had assumed that she was an enlisted person as he met her of base and he did not ask and she did not say he figured out the next Monday seeing her with a group of officer cadets clearly what she was.Of course this guy was for sure loose as where any women he picked up military or non would not have shocked if he was known by name at the clinic. Last edited by Stealhead; 02-10-12 at 12:45 AM.

02-10-12, 09:17 AM	#42
MH Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 3,184 Downloads: 248 Uploads: 0	Women can be very serious at what they do in army. They may lack the attitude of "this is my rifle this is my gun" but do excellent professional jobs. The army's job is to screen candidates for any given profession Arguing that women simply cant do job because army can't do the job is pointless. Go complain about your army recruiting system. I should also point out that basic and advanced training should filter the candidates even further. Another question is weather we want to see women in combat and so on. Last edited by MH; 02-10-12 at 09:28 AM.

02-09-12, 08:19 PM	#32
Madox58 Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Tavor TA-21 I think.

02-09-12, 08:50 PM	#34
Madox58 Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	No one I have ever talked to said they were mis-led to enlist. Some said they did not understand the commitment and regreted it. But that's thier fault as far as I care to listen to excuses. So the crap you see on TV makes it 'look' Cool. As a thinking person? Who ever buys into all the crap deserves what they get! We were given a brain for a reason!!

02-09-12, 09:38 PM	#36
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	Nevertheless, it is a salient point that the military feels it has become a personal proving ground for every person that enters it's ranks; a major argument that many on this forum have given in it's defense, particularly in cases of gender integration and homosexuals in the military. Advertising as such, therefore, is akin to me opening my statement about not plotting to steal the Crown Jewels by stating "Today, while I was plotting to steal the Crown Jewels..." It is at it's very best a case of mixed signals, and at it's very worst completely disingenuous.