Should women be allowed in the military? [Archive]

GazB

03-25-2003, 01:12 AM

In a perfect world women should of course be treated as equals in every respect.

This isn't a perfect world.

Standards should be set to a level that means anyone who passes those standards can do the job. There should be one standard for all. There should be no quotas.

I read in Soldier of Fortune magazine that two women truck drivers in Grenada refused point blank to drive their truck into a combat zone. When asked how they performed the General said all of his troops performed brilliantly!!! A clear act of cowardice covered up because if he spoke out about these women not doing their job his career would have been over.
Seperate standards for men and women hinder the women more than it helps them. I have heard of stories where tests in a logistics unit were carried out with empty boxes because the women in the unit didn't have the upper body strength to lift full boxes.
If someone chooses to joing the marines what are your chances of keeping your long silky blonde hair?
Pretty good only if you are a woman.

Of course lots of women demand equal rights in all areas of society... none demand women be included in the draft.
I have no problem putting a woman in a job they can do and are qualified for.
If they got the job because they are a woman and women have the same rights as men is where I have a problem.

warchild1/27scout

03-25-2003, 01:51 AM

let them go for it.BUT!do not lower the standards to get them in.like the fire dept. had to lower standards of strenth and skill for politically correct reasons.if they lower the standards it will be the death of that unit that engages in it.

Trigger

03-25-2003, 11:31 AM

I agree 100%
Equal rights should mean equal standards. I pray for all the POWs male or female. May they return soon.

USAF G

03-25-2003, 12:31 PM

I don't want to get to far off of this thread, however in the Arab world there are not as many taboos against soddomizing males. In fact a lot of Arab men consider it as a way to "get some" without being unfaithful. Also they don't necessarily view it as a homo****** act. There are a lot of different views about women and their roles in the military. I don't think that (they are more likely to get raped) should make the top of that list. That's not to say that it is appropriate, or innappropriate, to put women everywhere on the battlefield. As a part of Airforce Security Forces, I am in a unit with men and women. In the event of an attack on a base, the role of Security Forces is to function as a ground combat unit and defend the base. I have no problem with the idea of fighting next to, and trusting these brave women with my life if that happens. G

P.S.
Flame away!

warchild1/27scout

03-25-2003, 12:50 PM

i heard delta force had a plt. called the funny plt. that was women.in some cases women could probably very useful.have you guys heard of that unit before?

JiJoMacLE45

03-25-2003, 01:34 PM

In the case of women in the military or fire departments or police departments or any physically demanding job, I know a fair share of women who can more then hold there own when it comes to doing the jobs usually consider 'men only'. The problem how do we as men react to it. How would we react to being a POW and watching a woman POW get raped or watching a female squad mate get blown apart in our foxhole. There is that feeling of being a protector as a man when you are around women. Not that they need it, but it does exist. I agree wholeheartedly that there should be a set standard and everyone should have to make it, man or women to serve. We're talking jobs where lives hang in the balance of someones physical and mental capabilities. If a woman who only has to drag a 125lb dummy during a line of fire body drag exercise and I as a man have to drag a 200lb dummy, how is that woman going to be ready to pull me out of the line of fire when the men she works with weigh in at 180lb to 220lb. Now it is not a matter of size b/c I have seen some small female police officers take down some pretty big guys, but that falls back on the training. Those women had to do the same things as us men did.

TacoDelRio

03-25-2003, 02:07 PM

Personally, I don't think women should be in infantry at all. Even though Russia has had quite a few female snipers, we are'nt Russia, thank God. Since the beginning of human conflict, males have been the soldiers, it's always been that way, and it should always be that way. If enemies get into our rear area, then I think a woman should be capable of taking care of this nuisance, say, if she is a nurse, and an enemy enters the tent or whatnot, she can kill him. :bash: Makes sence. Everyone fights.

Just my male biased opinion.

Hooah! woot
Pvt Dacey p-)
US Army

yellowking

03-25-2003, 02:47 PM

The IDF have always seemed to have a pretty large female contingent, can anybody speak on their roles and experiences?

Merik

03-25-2003, 03:53 PM

That woman that is a POW belongs to an Army family.Her Aunt was in the Army and her sister is a Captain in the Army.I dont question for one second that this family has the guts to go into a combat zone and fight as equal as men.

But like everyone else has stated,I also have a problem when they get a job just because they are a woman and have equal rights.They must be qualified first and foremost before they even think about the job.

GearGod

03-25-2003, 04:14 PM

About fitness standards, read this: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/21-20/Appa.htm#Appa Those are the FACTS. I agree with MrSkorotsnoy about women not being in combat units, especially if theyre in the same squad

Duke

03-25-2003, 04:58 PM

In Desert Storm a 91W female in the 82nd went into combat and kicked ass. Several confirmed kills. I know what many may think. Did she look more male than female was she a dike. Hell no!

yellowking

03-25-2003, 05:54 PM

I don't know about you, but I'd be more likely to surrender if I thought a hottie was gonna cuff me and abuse me. rofl :D

papabear

03-25-2003, 05:55 PM

Hottest trooper Ive seen. Also, she's probably drunk more beer, had more *** and killed more enemy than this entire message board.

So women are to be praised when they adopt the bad habits of men?

Duke

03-25-2003, 06:10 PM

Papabear
Its an euphemized military saying. Its goes ..drunk more beer, ****ed more chicks and killed more men... Look into it.

David

03-25-2003, 06:10 PM

bad habits?! what are you, a monk?

papabear

03-25-2003, 06:37 PM

Are there natural differences between the sexes? If so, should these be ignored?

Perhaps Americans believe themselves to be able to readily compartamentalize their lives--separating what's considered appropriate behavior into different spheres--one kind of behavior when one is at work, another kind of behavior when one is at home, a third when one is out entertaining himself with friends, and so on. And so we assume that as long as women are able to do the job, that's all that matters. But the fact of the matter is that we cannot split our "personality" and remain healthy very long, if at all. And if the measure of how well a woman performs a role traditionally associated with men is dependent upon how much of male behavior and traits are adopted, and if the strengths of a women are not enhanced or exercised (for the most part), in such roles, then we are essentially demanding that women become men and not stay women.

Even worse, radical feminism for the most part has adopted the position that the strengths typically associated with women are really weaknesses, and the ideal is for women to become more like men. Unfortunately, the behavior and traits that are emulated so much by these feminists are really the wrong sort--if men can be ******ly promiscusous without consequences, then so should women; if life is about the struggle for power and dominance, then women should be able to engage in the power game, too, and be free to exploit others. And so on. So rather than denying or opposing it, radical "equality of the sexes" really affirms that women, by nature, are inferior and weaker than men, and the only way for women to be equal to men is to become men, not physically, but in their mentality and character and behavior.

Small wonder that chivalry is dead, since respect for true femininity is gone.

An article I found on this topic, written from the perspective of a Jewish woman:
http://sami119.tripod.com/shemaisrael/id29.html

For those concerned more with combat effectiveness, Robert Maginnis has done a lot of work on this aspect. Here is one article (others can be found on-line):

http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/2003/article/2045

If I remember correctly, he wrote that women were ultimately withdrawn from Israeli combat positions because of the adverse effect their injuries and deaths were having on the men.

papabear

03-25-2003, 06:39 PM

Papabear
Its an euphemized military saying. Its goes ..drunk more beer, f*** more chicks and killed more men... Look into it.

It's not the origin of the saying that concerns me, it's the content. The origin doesn't necessarily validate the message.

papabear

03-25-2003, 06:44 PM

bad habits?! what are you, a monk?

Drinking (moderately) alcohol is ok; the problem is when it is to excess--and we typically associate drinking with drinking to excess--just go to your typical college campus or college city on the weekend, and you'll those who are interested in partying are ****e to become drunk, and they don't really see this as a bad thing in itself, just that the effects might be difficult to live with for a while.

As for ****** promiscuity (outside of marriage)--well, there are other websites you can visit to see why this is wrong.

Cpl Stumps

03-25-2003, 06:49 PM

I was watching a show on I think the Discovery Channel about the British Royal Marines. They said in the show that they had allowed (Don't quote me) up to 3 women try out for the Royal Marines Combat arm under the prerequisite that they had to do every thing the men did. One women made almost the whole way through, I think she dropped out in the 3rd to last week. When I was in the Marines, being a pogue we had more women in our units then say 1-7, 2-7 or 3-7. My whole time in the Marines I only met two WMs that I looked on as full fledged Marines and not just Women Marines. When we use to go on runs that were more then three miles (at least once a week) we had a female Cpl who would always drop out. One time I remember her saying "Screw this" and stopped and started walking back to the PT point. I looked at our SSgt leading the run and he didn't do anything..just kept running.

What's the point of my gripping, its that if women want to be equal then they need to carry the load of a man. I had male Marines who couldn't handle the loads we carried in MCT and that's nothing like what 03s carry in war. When I read that SF moving into Iraq during GWI carried 150lbs on their back, can you expect a 90lb women to lug that. All though Gi.Jane was BS it showed that women do get these extras to measure up to men. If women want to be in combat then tow the same line.

More than my 2 cents

Semper Fi
Cpl Stumps

papabear

03-25-2003, 06:50 PM

sorry--mistaken double reply

Duke

03-25-2003, 08:59 PM

the point of this thread is should women fight. My answer is I know of one and therefore the question is literally moot. The thread is not questioning female ****** independence. It is--are they asskickers and yes they are. As for the message or the content of the saying. I can tell you havent been in the military or you would of known of the imense pressure from men on women to be tough as nails, particulary in the early 90's. In that time there was much hazing on women. I was drawing on the the saying to be analogous between my friend and an old saying proving manhood in combat infantry. Not literally and as a writer thats my fault I didnt enunciate the point. Obviously, she doesnt have to "do" what the guys in her unit did, again its an analogy. In the real world, however, you often must prove yourself by figuratively drinking beer and ****ing chicks with the boys.

papabear

03-25-2003, 10:30 PM

the point of this thread is should women fight. My answer is I know of one and therefore the question is literally moot. The thread is not questioning female ****** independence. It is--are they asskickers and yes they are.

The point of the thread was whether women should be allowed in the military in the first place--there is no doubt in my mind that given the right conditioning, (some) women can be good soldiers. Can some fight? Yes. Should they (be permitted to) fight? Should they even be permitted to serve in the military? Those are different questions from the first. What is good for society and for the individual? Clearly differentiating roles based on ****** differences? Or assuming that women and the men are exactly the same, and regulating (or, rather, liberating) society accordingly? It is a moral question, and not a question about "ability."

David

03-25-2003, 11:15 PM

idealistic types might want to turn it into a moral question, but it's not really because obviously women and men are not exactly the same and it begins with their physical abilities. society can't be forced into believing that men and women are equal because as individuals everybody knows that they're not. as far as whether or not women should be able to be in the infantry...i suppose so, but only if the standards are the same as those set for males.

rafaelcb

03-26-2003, 04:32 AM

Women should be allowed if they pass some 'minimum requirements' which should be equal for both sexes. But if a woman runs 3 kM in the same time as a man, she is much more fit than the man. So it is not fair to expect the same phisical performance from both. And there are some aspects of women's phisiology that are to their advantage: flexibility, they withstand pain better, and due to having more body fat they have more reservers for water, (and they sweat less) so they can also withstand dehydratation beter.

So typically in a platoon it is not logical that a female soldier is in charge of the support machine gun, but she can be a perfectly good sniper.

Being smaller in size can also be an advantage: in Israel a large proportion of tank drivers are female.

Apogee

03-26-2003, 07:57 AM

In World War One, the Russians created an all-female infantry battalion. The idea behind this was that once German units were beat by a female unit, it would demoralize other units. Time this all-female infantry lasted in combat: 5 minutes.

Once again, history speaks......

virtualpender

03-26-2003, 09:34 AM

Pick up a book called "A Kinder, Gentler Military." The author is a woman who originally set out to document why women should be allowed into combat arms, but after reviewing the data, history, and seeing how norms are adjusted for women, she comes out very solidly against the idea. A very persuasive book.

Sulph8

03-26-2003, 10:59 AM

www.isayeret.com has a whole article about women in the Israeli special forces if anyone is interested. mmmm, women and firepower...

hood

03-26-2003, 11:02 AM

Then again, look at the Russian women soldiers at Stalingrad in WW2. A woman was one of their best snipers. I know this is a harsh statement, but women who join units that are going to be in forward positions, like the one who has already been captured, must know that they're going to be raped repeatedly while in captivity. The woman pilot (or air crewwoman) that was captured in the first Gulf war was ******ly assaulted but she didn't say anything about it until 4 years after the war was over. If they join these units and know this is going to happen, then all power to them. They've made a concious decision and have accepted it.

virtualpender

03-26-2003, 12:41 PM

I think its important to remember than 90% of women in the military have no interest in serving in combat or combat units. For what its worth...

BTW - the source on this is the book I mentioned previously as well as a link someone posted above.

TacoDelRio

03-26-2003, 02:50 PM

I personally would'nt want to have a person in my unit who could'nt pull more than their own share, as I think you'd all agree. The adjustments are stupid, just look at airborne school. The minimum amount of pushups to pass Airborne school for males is 43 (approx.). For females: 18. My personal opinion? That is half assed and does not instill hard work in someone who is going to jump out of a frickin' plane. Just another one of my stupid, inconsiderate, male-biased opinions!

I say, EQUALITY!

Hooah! p-) p-) p-) p-)

TacoDelRio

03-26-2003, 02:52 PM

One question: Does anyone in here know if women are allowed to go to Ranger school, or go to RIP?

Danke sehr!

Hooah! p-)

David

03-26-2003, 08:34 PM

no, women are not allowed to be rangers.

David

03-26-2003, 08:35 PM

when are you shipping out to boot, skorotsnoy?

MK133

03-26-2003, 10:55 PM

I think (preferably hot) women should be allowed to go through BUD's and get on a SEAL team! woot We all know how brutal some can be and they can take confined spaces like on submarines better than men.

GearGod

03-26-2003, 11:31 PM

What do you guys think about the CURRENT rules? Combat Units CLOSED TO WOMEN - Let the men do all the fighting, and I agree 100% with what they already have in place

Apogee

03-27-2003, 09:30 AM

11-X? wow......

David

03-27-2003, 01:07 PM

just because he's 11x doesn't make him a bad person, he could be going to airborne so he won't be a leg. my contract is 18xray but at the beginning i'm 11bravo (guaranteed in my contract) so they can't make me a mortar guy or some other bs.

GazB

03-28-2003, 06:48 AM

That SOF report I mentioned in my post earlier also mentioned that the two countries with the most experience of women in combat have the lowest fraction of women in their armed forces. (Israel and Russia).

Although they had some women who were exceptional at the roles they were doing (ie fighter pilot, sniper etc etc) on average they were mediocre in combat.

A grunt who can't carry their own pack into combat cause it is too heavy is a burden to his unit. Whether it is a guy or a girl. When quotas for women are enforced it means men who can do the job don't get it because x number of women must enter the service... if the number of women who try out equals the quota... guess what... no matter how badly they fail they pass.

As was shown in Desert Storm... the Love Boat... almost half the women on board "suddenly" got pregnant just after their boat was to be sent to the gulf... result was that a new crew could not be trained in time and that ship didn't go to the gulf. With an all male crew it would have sailed on time.

Trigger

03-28-2003, 11:03 AM

Gaz were you referring to the USS Acadia? I heard that many of the females that acutally deployed came back mysteriously pregnant as well. Aren't quotas great! I know working parties are a blast when several dozen of your shipmates suddenly have cramps.

redondomarine

03-28-2003, 12:11 PM

The way I see it as long as a woman pulls her own weight in all aspects. then there is nothing to worry about. Also she would have to relize what would probably happen to her if captured. I know woman can do the same as men if they train harder and really want to. My girl friends mom used to be a body builder and is now a fire fighter. Im scared to death of this woman and have a 300 pft. I have no doubt you put a rifle in her hand and send her through the right training she would be as bad ass as any other marine/soldier/airmen. On the other hand if you put my mom in the same position she would drop her rifle faster than a french man in front of a german invasion. Its like that with a lot of guys i know too. Most of the people I know dont have what it takes to make it through combat or even make it into the military. But the people who do should go for it. Male or female. If that means me sharing a fox hole with a woman, then she better be doing her job just as good as me or better.

kathawk

03-29-2003, 09:11 PM

I myself being a woman, would have to agree with a lot of what you guys are saying. Women should not be allowed to enter combat units unless they prove themselves to be as good or better than their male counterparts. I just believe that instead of totally separating women from these parts of the armed forces, we should be given the chance to be a part of it. I just know that I, being a woman in a miltary orgainization, work my ass off to be respected by the guys I work with, and being stuck behind a desk for all that effort really irks me.
Just thought I might give you a look at the other side...

GazB

03-29-2003, 10:41 PM

I fully agree that there are some women who are not only capable of doing many of the jobs in the military but doing them very well.

What I object to is Quotas for women, and also for lowered standards requirements for women that mean some can qualify for a job they are incapable of doing.

The Russians found during WWII that although women were better suited to be pilots than men (because they tend to be shorter the distance between their brains and their hearts is shorter and so they can tollerate more g's for longer on average) that in some roles they were unsuited.
The Hi g tollerance was negated by a lack of aggression.
A good fighter pilot must be agressive to get good tallies. Although there were some agressive female pilots most just considered it a job and did not do as well as less (physically) suitable males who had high levels of aggression in the sky.

dweebie

04-02-2003, 01:27 AM

Oh goody lookie what I dug up lol
papabear

Right, but which is more likely to happen? The act of sodomy is in itself an unnatural act--I would argue that those who are likely to engage in it, on members of either ***, are more depraved, and hence less likely to be found.
Ask anyone in law enforcement, rape is not about ****** perversion, it is about power. So when you have a male POW and you know he's killed some of your comrads you want him overpowered, and rape doesn't have to be done person on person, it can be done with a foreign object. So either gender is likely to be raped in a POW situation.

GazB

I read in Soldier of Fortune magazine that two women truck drivers in Grenada refused point blank to drive their truck into a combat zone.
Again the entire gender is judged by the actions of SOME of them. You won't see this same crap when a MAN joins the military and then screams "conscientious objector " now do you?

MrSkorotsnoy

Personally, I don't think women should be in infantry at all.
I'm smiling right now, because I don't know about Army, but I do know that in the Marines they do have female dis even for the males :lol: My buddy had one, she was a tiny woman of korean decent. rofl

Cpl Stumps

I was watching a show on I think the Discovery Channel about the British Royal Marines. They said in the show that they had allowed (Don't quote me) up to 3 women try out for the Royal Marines Combat arm under the prerequisite that they had to do every thing the men did
AGAIN how many men couldn't make it? And on that I'd like to remind you that the female population is LARGER than the male population, keep that in mind when you COMPARE male vs. female.

Hood

I know this is a harsh statement, but women who join units that are going to be in forward positions, like the one who has already been captured, must know that they're going to be raped repeatedly while in captivity.
It's not a harsh statement it's fact, and I agree with you on everything you said in that post.
EVERYONE
But here is the reality of women, women have to think of the possibility of being raped whether or not they're in the military! I have to think about that every time I leave the house, every night I lock up my house and go to sleep. I just don't think it goes through people's mind what women in the military means. In vietnam EVERY woman (usually nurses) that returned home had been raped EVERYONE of them. They weren't raped from being in a POW camp they were raped by their own. Women know this and STILL they say I want to be in the military I want to serve my country, and then people are going to question whether or not they can? You might as well spit at her in the face it's the same disrespectful jesture.

virtualpender

I think its important to remember than 90% of women in the military have no interest in serving in combat or combat units. For what its worth...

BTW - the source on this is the book I mentioned previously as well as a link someone posted above.
Yeah apparently she didn't ask the ones amongst the 100,000 over there now, did she? :fork:

GazB

A grunt who can't carry their own pack into combat cause it is too heavy is a burden to his unit. Whether it is a guy or a girl.
Agreed, most women want equality NOT special treatment, just the same as men.

redondomarine

The way I see it as long as a woman pulls her own weight in all aspects. then there is nothing to worry about. Also she would have to relize what would probably happen to her if captured.
Wrong, it's not only when she is captures that's why it ticks me off so bad that when a woman decides that she is going to server her country AT ALL COSTS and has to be questioned about whether or not she can go in is such crap! Let us go ha! I haven't asked permission for something I want to do that is honorable and just and i don't plan to start asking either

papabear

04-02-2003, 10:29 AM

Wrong, it's not only when she is captures that's why it ticks me off so bad that when a woman decides that she is going to server her country AT ALL COSTS and has to be questioned about whether or not she can go in is such crap! Let us go ha! I haven't asked permission for something I want to do that is honorable and just and i don't plan to start asking either

I'd rather not get into a discussion about the claims of feminism and radical egalitarianism, even if they may be relevant for this discussion; I don't forsee a resolution of any fundamental disagreements...

A point on the morality of an action--
An action may be honorable and just in itself, by the nature of the act, but that in itself is not the sole determinant of whether an action is morally good or not.

Secondly, to be an agent of the government, such as a soldier, one does need permission from the government to serve in that capacity, because one is acting in the name of the government (and of the community) and not in one's own name.

dweebie

04-02-2003, 11:03 PM

I'd rather not get into a discussion about the claims of feminism and radical egalitarianism, even if they may be relevant for this discussion; I don't forsee a resolution of any fundamental disagreements...
First let me translate for those of you that like me said wtf does that mean? "I'd rather not get into a discussion about the claims*claims mean statements that have not been proven to be of fact* of feminism and radical egalitarianism *you know what radical means egalitarianism is the fight of all people equal, including nationalities and females of them* even if they are relevant for this discussion. *This is the subject of this thread should women be in the military, Uh ... that isn't just relevant to the discussion IT IS THE DISCUSSION.* I don't forsee a resolutioin of any fundamental *basis, foundation* disagreements....... *you don't see any but you're going to post the question about it and argue your point ... until now when you say you'd rather not argue the points of this discussion and don't see a resolution. Okie Dokie thank you for that info? Again please explain.

A point on the morality of an action--
An action may be honorable and just in itself, by the nature of the act, but that in itself is not the sole determinant of whether an action is morally good or not.
Yes, this is true however off the subject ...... we all know what moral means, however the moral that i was referring to was fighting and defending my country...... Are you saying that this is not a just and moral thing to do... fighting and defending my country? If not ... what was the point of that ... *honestly i don't see the point of anything said in your point, it was too vague and didn't make a point that i saw of it. But hey I'll be glad to admit that I don't understand everything people say, if someone wants to explain please do.

Secondly, to be an agent of the government, such as a soldier, one does need permission from the government to serve in that capacity, because one is acting in the name of the government (and of the community) and not in one's own name.
Alright making progress I understand this one ... you are absolutely correct, however that's the entire government correct? Oops, nope sorry it doesn't include the women that are wanting to be soldiers, and the male and female citizens that support them wanting to be soldiers. Yes permission is needed, BUT the point was that why should I have to ask permission to do what is right? NO i shouldn't. I shouldn't have to ask permission to do what has already been granted for other men.

papabear

04-02-2003, 11:41 PM

I don't forsee a resolutioin of any fundamental *basis, foundation* disagreements....... *you don't see any but you're going to post the question about it and argue your point ... until now when you say you'd rather not argue the points of this discussion and don't see a resolution. Okie Dokie thank you for that info? Again please explain.

I posed the question to get a sounding of responses, not to get into an extended debate. I then made a judgment based on the posts here--most people seem to have disagreed with the point I was starting to develop about innate differences between the sexes and the strengths of each. If you want to see in what direction I might have developed that point, I would suggest that you try
http://sami119.tripod.com/shemaisrael/id29.html

Here's another:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9302/articles/vlahos.html

It's unlikely that I would have the time to write anything as good as what has been written there.

Now, if you think that what has been written there only represents outdated or even unjust patriarchal thinking, and these poor women have obviously been brainwashed by some man seeking to maintain control over them, then I think I'm correct in saying that what we have here is a fundamental disagreement that cannot be resolved, right? Either men and women have certain differences of strengths according to what they are, and there should be a diversification of roles and functions in society, or they don't, and they can choose whatever role they think is fulfilling for them.

A point on the morality of an action--
An action may be honorable and just in itself, by the nature of the act, but that in itself is not the sole determinant of whether an action is morally good or not.

Yes, this is true however off the subject ...... we all know what moral means, however the moral that i was referring to was fighting and defending my country...... Are you saying that this is not a just and moral thing to do... fighting and defending my country? If not ... what was the point of that ... *honestly i don't see the point of anything said in your point, it was too vague and didn't make a point that i saw of it. But hey I'll be glad to admit that I don't understand everything people say, if someone wants to explain please do.

Let's take a concrete example--say you are in a situation where there is a burning building--in a room are trapped two people--one is one of your parents, and one is a stranger. Let's also suppose that neither is able to get out without the help of another. Now, if the stranger were alone, it would be laudable and good (though strictly speaking, not obligatory) for you to go in and save the stranger. However, in this situation, even though what the act is in itself is good, namely, saving the life of another, the circumstances have made it bad, because you have a greater obligation to save the life of your parent--this is the action that must be done first.

For an act to be morally good, the object of the act (or, what the act is in itself) must be good, but one must also look at the circumstances of the agent, and the intention of the agent. The circumstances and the intention can render an act evil even if the object (what the act is in itself) is good.

Secondly, to be an agent of the government, such as a soldier, one does need permission from the government to serve in that capacity, because one is acting in the name of the government (and of the community) and not in one's own name.

Alright making progress I understand this one ... you are absolutely correct, however that's the entire government correct? Oops, nope sorry it doesn't include the women that are wanting to be soldiers, and the male and female citizens that support them wanting to be soldiers. Yes permission is needed, BUT the point was that why should I have to ask permission to do what is right? NO i shouldn't. I shouldn't have to ask permission to do what has already been granted for other men.

Despite the rhetoric, the fact is (#1) that we do not live in a democracy--we live in a representative republic, which means in practice, an oligarchy, and (#2) our leaders are not mere instruments of the will of the people. Just because the people want something legislated does not mean that the resulting law is just or right.

Finally, you agree that acting as an agent of the government is not something that can be assumed by a citizen simply because it has been granted to other people? Then, acting as an agent of the government is not right, unless one has been expressly delegated that power. The rightness of that action follows upon the permission, the delegation, and is not prior to it.

dweebie

04-03-2003, 05:32 AM

Can I get a translator please?

GazB

04-03-2003, 03:35 PM

GazB
Quote:
I read in Soldier of Fortune magazine that two women truck drivers in Grenada refused point blank to drive their truck into a combat zone.

Again the entire gender is judged by the actions of SOME of them. You won't see this same crap when a MAN joins the military and then screams "conscientious objector " now do you?

Not fair. I didn't draw the conclusion from the above quoted statement that because two women showed obvious signs of cowardous that all women are therefore cowards. The point I was making was that political correctness means that it is no longer possible to criticise one portion of the US military that happen to be of a female gender even when that a member or members of that group do something that might have gotten a male soldier shot or put in prison.
If women can not be criticised how can their integration into the system or any determination of their effectiveness be made.
ie how can we know whether the machine still works if you are not allowed to say anything bad about parts that may be faulty or even absent?

The general that stated that those two cowards performed superbly tells you that the first frontline unit with women also performed very well... what does that tell you?

GazB
Quote:
A grunt who can't carry their own pack into combat cause it is too heavy is a burden to his unit. Whether it is a guy or a girl.

Agreed, most women want equality NOT special treatment, just the same as men.

Is that why all female recruits demand to reach the standards set for males?
The standards set were not just set to challenge the male recruits... often they also were a reflection of the strength or stamina or intelligence required for the role.

Duke

06-11-2003, 05:16 PM

Marine had baby on ship in war zone

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A Marine gave birth aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer in the Persian Gulf last month, marking what Pentagon officials believe is the first time an active-duty woman delivered a baby on a combat ship in a war zone.
As a rule, the Pentagon does not deploy pregnant service members to war zones. Navy regulations, which also cover the Marine Corps, require a pregnant servicewoman to notify her commanding officer no later than two weeks after diagnosis.
A Pentagon official said the Marine in this case told superiors that she did not know she was pregnant.
"She never told anybody she was pregnant," the official said. "I think she claimed she didn't know she was pregnant. The good thing was the Boxer has a complete hospital on board, so that was not a problem."
The Marine is assigned to a ground unit in Kuwait and was aboard the USS Boxer in the Gulf area when she went into labor.
Marine Corps headquarters, in response to an inquiry from The Washington Times, released a statement yesterday:
"The medical staff of the USS Boxer delivered a 7-pound baby boy on board the ship May 23 at 10:58 p.m. The mother, a 33-year-old U.S. Marine staff sergeant, is assigned to Headquarters Battery 11th Marines as an administrative chief. Mother and baby, both healthy and in good condition, were transported from Boxer to the New al Mowasat Hospital in Salmiya, Kuwait. Following a short stay, they will travel to San Diego. Names are being withheld until immediate family has been notified."
As women play a larger role in the armed forces today, pregnancy during military operations is a matter the Pentagon studies to determine whether it hurts combat readiness by leaving critical jobs vacant.
The Navy at one point in the mid-1990s experienced a 10 percent pregnancy rate for women on six-month sea tours and looked at policies to discourage pregnancies while assigned to ships.
A Pentagon spokeswoman said yesterday that she had no data on the pregnancy rate in Operation Iraqi Freedom, in which more than 25,000 women, out of the total U.S. force of about 270,000, were deployed.
Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for Military Readiness, said the birth should spur the Pentagon to review its policies.
"I know the Marines are good at 'multiplying' the force, but this is ridiculous," Mrs. Donnelly said.
"President Bush should immediately request detailed information on deployability problems and evacuations due to pregnancy during the battle of Iraq," she said. "Today's Marine Corps and Navy cannot afford policies that subsidize and, therefore, encourage irresponsible behavior. This baby was born safely, despite obvious hazards, but childbirth aboard warships is not an acceptable situation."
The Navy adopted regulations in the mid-1990s that declare pregnancy compatible with military service. But the new policy also placed requirements on service members.
The regulations, updated in March, state: "The individual servicewoman is responsible for notifying her CO ... of her pregnancy as soon as possible, but no later than two weeks after diagnosis of pregnancy. This will help facilitate planning a request for replacement requisition if the servicewoman is in a sea going/deployable billet."
No service member can be assigned overseas after the 28th week of pregnancy, the policy says.
The rule is designed to protect the health of the mother and the baby.
Mrs. Donnelly said her research shows that there have been four deliveries at sea since women entered the fleet in 1978. None happened in a war zone on a combat ship. Two occurred in 1994 on support ships while in port.

All site contents copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc.
Hey, don't look at me, I was in the hospital last September--anyway, one tough WM. I heard the baby came out sideways, and the Marine didn't even scream.

papabear

06-11-2003, 05:22 PM

Hmmm... didn't know she was pregnant... after missing her period 9 months in a row.

Duke

06-11-2003, 05:26 PM

Come to think of it, that Marine was very selfish. She owes it to her unborn child to seek prenatal care--proper diet, developing issues etc etc.

rob

06-11-2003, 06:40 PM

Can I get a translator please?

umm you are the one whos posts i dont understand.

my 2 cents:

women should not be allowed to serve in combat.

the WHY:
1. men by nature are more capable then women. if a women trains hard to do something and the man trains just as hard the man will be more capable.
2. the rape thig that you dweedie were talking about. what it seemed to me like you were saying is that a women needs to fear rape from everyone. how can you trust someone with your life if you are afrade of being raped by them.
3. in combat you need to remain a team especially in sf. it is harder to be a team when one member requires special care, attetion or in general is different.
4.most women are not agressive enough to fight in a life or death situation, but then again some guys arent eighter.
5. men are naturally more calm in high stress situations like combat then women. something to do with hormones/body chemicals.
6.you eighter need to be in or out. eighter women can be drafted or they are out altogether. we all agreed an equality didnt we?
7.i didnt really want to bring this up but that time of the month.
8.i dont know of a single women that sould cut all her hair. either cut it or go home. long hair could be a problem in combat.

should women be able to join the general army or reserves?

Yes, if all expectations are the same.

women can do almost anything else. CEO, or anyother job would be acceptable. but combat just is not. and you dont need to be in combat to serve your country.

Beowulf

06-11-2003, 09:54 PM

Yes, this is true however off the subject ...... we all know what moral means, however the moral that i was referring to was fighting and defending my country...... Are you saying that this is not a just and moral thing to do... fighting and defending my country?

If you, regardless of race, ***, religion etc. are having a negative impact to unit integrity, mission completion, morale, etc. Then it is morally wrong to force your way into a combat unit b/c you can get your buddies killed... Don't be a blue falcon
All Best,
beowulf

Beowulf

06-11-2003, 11:04 PM

MrSkorotsnoy
Quote:
Personally, I don't think women should be in infantry at all.

dweebie
Quote:
I'm smiling right now, because I don't know about Army, but I do know that in the Marines they do have female dis even for the males My buddy had one, she was a tiny woman of korean decent.

What does having a female DI have to do with allowing females in the infantry? DI or "drill sergeant" in the army isn't a combat position, neither is it an infantry position. (See AR 600-13 1.12a)

In vietnam EVERY woman (usually nurses) that returned home had been raped EVERYONE of them.

is this true? Can you provide a resource, link, book etc to back that up?

virtualpender
Quote:
I think its important to remember than 90% of women in the military have no interest in serving in combat or combat units. For what its worth...

BTW - the source on this is the book I mentioned previously as well as a link someone posted above.

Dweebie
Quote:
Yeah apparently she didn't ask the ones amongst the 100,000 over there now, did she?

None of the 100,000 women over there are serving in a combat role. (See AR 600-13 1.12a)

Your point about there being 100,000 women over there is a complete non-sequitur regarding their intent. Being in the military, and even being deployed (involuntarily) does not imply intent to be in combat or a combat unit. For example chaplains, medics etc.

A point of clarification being in a "combat zone" doesn't mean anything. Trust me on that. I don't care who you are, until you are being engaged by the enemy, you haven't been in combat.

I will say this: the stress of being potentially engaged by the enemy is substantial, and anyone that has gone through that merits some amount of respect, but I still don't consider that potential to be full on "combat" Don't get me wrong I respect the hell out of any good trooper that has deployed to a combat zone, but i've seen plenty of sh*tbag, oxygen thieves end up with a combat patch.

It seems true that most women don't want to be in combat units, at least most of the female soldiers that I've spoken to or served with.
All Best,
-beowulf

hood

06-12-2003, 10:17 AM

There was a woman shown on Profiles from the Front Line in Afghanistan, who was an entry guard for one of their bases. She and the guy who was profiled, were in charge of letting Afghani tanker trucks in to the base to drop off fuel or turning them away if they weren't needed. As one of the drivers wasn't leaving, she demonstrated that it's more about will power and attitude than number of pull ups by saying "That's it! I'm gettin' the ****in' dog!"

Ghost 197319

06-12-2003, 03:04 PM

I don't think woman being in the military is wrong BUT I do think they should go through the same training as men and I don't think they belong on the ground front lines. I know I will get fried for this but I feel very strongly about it. I do not think women should ever be allowed to be in the SF. :|

Royal

06-12-2003, 06:27 PM

Beowulf

06-12-2003, 06:31 PM

I don't wanna go off on a rant here but:
The problem has never been that females are across the board physically incapable for combat roles. There are some physically capable females. Although, physiologically speaking, it takes an exceptional and dedicated female to be as strong, fast etc. as a healthy male.

The jury is still out on the psychological abilities of women to handle combat, and more importantly the psychological impact of men fighting alongside or against women.

The problem is the lowering of the standards (something that most females dislike anyway), political BS, but most importantly the
"ability for the unit to function" as Tane Angle said.

One of the key factors in a units ability to accomplish the mission is unit cohesion. Introducing a female to a male combat unit is disruptive to unit cohesion, in terms of psychology but also in terms of supply and logistics.

Supply and logistics: Females in the military must have their own sleeping quarters, they must have their own latrine and their own showering facility. Females have special nutrition and hygiene concerns. So what is so bad about females having their own barracks, latrine and showering facility? Nothing in garrison, but when you are forward deployed and there is only one shower area, or one latrine,or a shortage of water, things get ugly. The female gets the whole shower/latrine to herself whereas males go through assembly line style. When your cold, tired, hungry, getting shot at, and pissed off at the world it is just one more thing to be annoyed about. This obviously affects unit cohesion.

Psychology: I've seen it a million times, either male soldiers completely avoid the female soldier b/c they don't want to be near a potential ****** harassment disaster, or they are constantly hitting on the female soldier. Rarely is a female treated "just like one of the guys" because she isn't and never can be and if she was it would be weird and scary.

I'll try to find a reference but I READ about a study that showed males in combat w/ females to be either:
1. Overly aggressive in order to show a sort of prowess in combat, or
2. Not aggressive enough in order to shelter or protect the woman.

These are instinctive reactions. #2 would almost definitely occur if the woman was injured. One of the most effective Psyop products we use to disrupt an enemy is that of a woman crying in pain.

Females are supposed to be females, not men, not beady-eyed-red-meat eating-killer-hunter-gatherers, women are designed to do one of the most impressive and honorable things that a human can do namely bear and raise children. I don't undertsand what is so bad about that why do you want to look a man in the face and watch him bleed out in front of you, why do you want to see dead women and kids. You think combat is a privilege, no it is an obligaton,a duty. But I digress.

The whole question merits a thorough examination, but for the aforementioned reasons I must come to the conclusion that women in combat would be a disruptive factor that would negatively impact the chances for mission success and therefore should not be allowed to serve in combat. That's just my opinion I could be wrong...
All Best -beowulf

Beowulf

06-13-2003, 11:23 AM

bump...

Doggonit55

06-13-2003, 01:07 PM

bump...

I read you post. Very good. I completely agree that they are never going to be "one of the guys". That's why there's a "Girls Club" and a "Boys Club". They pretty much stick to their own gender it seems.

I congratulate you on having the guts to say this:

"Females are supposed to be females, not men, not beady-eyed-red-meat eating-killer-hunter-gatherers, women are designed to do one of the most impressive and honorable things that a human can do namely bear and raise children. I don't undertsand what is so bad about that why do you want to look a man in the face and watch him bleed out in front of you, why do you want to see dead women and kids. You think combat is a privilege, no it is an obligaton,a duty. But I digress. "

The PC folks will be on you in seconds. Don't worry, I've got your back and I am sure many agree with you. p-)

Piccolo

06-13-2003, 01:09 PM

Very good points, Beo. I think you have it nailed (No pun intended), lol.

Doggonit55

06-13-2003, 01:12 PM

I'm with Tane & Kathhawk. If and it's a BIG if, they can do the job without degrading the units combat effectiveness I have no problem with women in any position, particularly in this age of PSO's and LIO's (Iraq not withstanding) where any concept of front-lines is tenuous at best.

As to the rape argument, as has already been pointed out (by Front, I think) rape is a power thing not a ****** one. As many if not more male PW's have been raped in recent conflicts we have been involved in (sorry, I can't back this up with an open-source link).

I'm well aware of the pregnancy problems with the RN on deployments. For some reason this doesn't happen as much with army deployments???

However changing the standards is not acceptable as happened with Capt Pip Tattersall last May. Any male candidate who fails on their field/command skills is not invited back - why was she?

EXACTLY. It is just like female firefighters. They have to carry less, run less, lift less. But.... when it comes to lift a 200 pound man out of a smoke filled room, is she going to be able to do it? Lowering the standard leads to disaster in the end. What would you rather choose: Keeping the standards same for all to keep the capability of the unit up... OR lowering the standards for females to destroy that capability and to be oh-so-holy Politically Correct (Keepin' it UN and ACLU homies)?

:bash: