Women in combat policy to change

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, 08:15 PM	#10
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,710 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.