Should WOMEN Serve in Combat???

by JT 41 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JT

  Sorry, but I don't see where this question is even appropriate. "Should women serve in combat???"....

  well the fact is as a society this issue is debated all the time and the answer to this question will indeed determine if women will serve in combat or will they continue to be assigned as they are now. while it may not be much of an issue to some ,

  living just 15 min. from Andrews Air Force base and watching Air Force 1 fly in and out of it's homebase all the time , I live and interact with lots of miltary folks and often times at folks homes and other functions this issue is discussed. and when there is a women taken as a POW it comes up again, here in local papers - this is often times talked about in the editorial pages.
• 

  JT

  ...but the psycological impact of a man brought up to respect and protect women being forced to WATCH a woman being raped...would HE be able to handle that without breaking? Do women in combat compromise the men's ability to withstand torture?

  and this was my point, since in most societies men are culturally taught to "protect" the woman, would this have a greater impact-

  while i don't disagree with the degree of suffering and pain a woman can stand, i was asking basically with the reality being men are culturally trained this way what impact would this have and would it lead some who may be in decision making to say NO.

  perhaps when many of the old guard at the Pentagon are retired who are the decision makers - perhaps we will see women allowed to serve in such a way, but only time will tell-
• 

  JT

  In the armed services? Yes.

  In combat? Absolutely not.

  why do you have this opinion if i may ask
• 

  nilfun

  Do you believe that men are not also at risk for rape in a P.O.W. situation?
• 

  LB

  I don't see women working out in ground troops ever. Too many complications all the way around.

  I recall a female helicoptor pilot being shot down in the Gulf War. She was taken prisoner along with her crew. She had two broken arms. The prisoners were lashed back to back, one of her crew, a male, was lashed to her back. An Iraqi soldier tore open her shirt and began to fondle her breasts. Her male crewman was going nuts, wanting to defend her. He was going to lose his life over this and she knew it. She told him to stand down as this was nothing worse than a breast exam. The crew was recovered eventually.

  I do not see the logic in having ground troops that engage in hand to hand combat, ever. Unless a woman can pass the same exact tests as a man does, then forget it. I feel exactly the same way about street cop. So far most police departments have seperate tests for female candidates. Make it the same and I'll feel differently.

  Can females be pilots of fighter planes? In my book yes. As long as everything is equal let them be a part.

  I would never support a draft for women with the intention of them being in combat. Never. Let the invidual decide, and then let them measure up.
• 

  deddaisy

  JT, you need to change your view. I assure you that I know women that would not flinch when shooting your balls off.

  always, deddaisy
• 

  Abaddon

  Well, on one hand I think that women should have the right.

  On the other hand, if I was in a patrol, I wouldn't want to be on patrol with someone who was not capable of putting me on their back and running.

  Many, to be fair, most women, do not have the upper body strength to do this... hell, many MEN don't.

  On one hand you have incredibly competent tough women; in a recent Reality TV Program where 24 civilians went out through a recreation of SAS training, the winner was a woman.

  On the other hand you have evolution; men have better processing equipment for throwing, higher bone density, higher muscle mass per kilo, better arm articulation for throwing, different hip pivots for more effcient movement. They also protect women, automatically.

  So, soldiers, hell yes. Front line combat troops? Pass the same tests as the men, no point in putting someone who's a liability to their comrades out there.

  Covert troops, infiltration, observation, assasination, reconn; all great tasks women can do at least as well as a man.

  Out of the Army, in the Navy and Airforce, there's very little reason for sexual differentiation. I have a suspicion that women will be THE combat pilots of the 21st Century, especially after phallocrats squeamishness about women dying in war gets overcome by next-generation remotely piloted fighters.
• 

  teejay

  why do you have this opinion if i may ask

  You hinted at the reason in your initial post. You said, "culturally as men we have been conditioned to PROTECT THE WOMAN." LB's anecdote about the lady pilot in Gulf War I highlights that basic perspective.

  As men, in certain situations we see women in much the same way that we look at children. (Sorry, but I mean no offense to women.) We are brought up to look out for them and be their protectors. We see them as weaker and more vulnerable than us (they are) and in need of our help. They may or may not need our help but we tend to think they do. Especially in dangerous situations.

  That's a feeling that is deeply ingrained, as it should be, so -- for the feminists that are reading -- there's nothing wrong with it. Male soldiers, no matter how well trained they are, will never get rid of those feelings of chivalry. OTOH, we'd never view our road dawgs that way. When we look at them we have an equally ingrained attitude: "awww, he's tough. He can handle it. He's a man!" Big difference. Especially when bullets are flying and missiles are landing close by.

  When it comes to combat -- active engagement with the enemy -- to be effective a serviceman's attention must be focused solely ON THE ENEMY, not whether or not Miss Sgt Smith is in harm's way and maybe in need of our help. If that happened, and I'm sure it does, our effectiveness as a team would suffer. We'd more easily loose our cool and jeopardize the mission. No, nope, HELLLLL no. Women have no business on the front lines.
• 

  Francois

  I think we should train women in divisions long enough so that their menstrual cycles sync up. Then arm them to the teeth and hold 'em in reserve until PMS sets in and then turn 'em loose on the enemy. We would never be defeated, ever.

  And in case anyone wonders, this is meant to be taken as a sign of utmost respect for armed women with PMS (or as we say in the south, FTS: fixin' to start)...or just for women in general, bless 'em all.

  francois
• 

  JT

  Do you believe that men are not also at risk for rape in a P.O.W. situation?

  EXCELLENT QUESTION- yes i do indeed believe that me are at risk- the difference is in many parts of the world women are literally viewed as DIRT, IN FACT ASK ANY women here in the USA what she often times has to deal with and we often times consider ourselves as having made progress in the "Roles" that women should have- if women in this country with all the laws and open mindedness that we have STILL get the dogged for just BEING A WOMAN, where does that put women when they are captured by men who may be from a culture where they don';t view women in a good light to start with while your point about men being raped is true, would you not agree that if 3 male soldiers were captured by 30 men, the issue of sexually abuse would be less likely than if 3 blonds were picked up? as i stated before its not so much an issue of can the woman endure the pain, but with the way men in general have been conditioned by culture, would not that play a role in what decision makers would do case in point- most of the folks who invest in the stock market are from THE WEST and what happened to the market- with a little good news the market soared, and this week after the weekend with less than 100 soldiers out of 250,000 injuried or captured the market freaked in talking to many non americans they often make the comment that due to the short attention span and NO STOMACH for blood and gore americans often times think of war as a VIDEO GAME IF YOU just listen to some of the questions asked by the reporters it clearly shows esp with the media representives how little they know about war- one of the biggest issues here in washington among polictians is HOW MUCH DEATH CAN AMERICANS TAKE BEFORE they start to demand PULL OUT if you talk to folks from countries where sad to say war is like a part of the fabic of the country, they have different view on loss of life, i know for myself and i feel for most esp those of us in the west - we have never really seen the type of death and destruction that many, even some here on this site have seen We watch to much Bruce Willis, DIE HARD --when you stand back like in a BEst Buy with all the tv screens and listen to folks as they watch the guided missles hit they cheer like at a football game you can only wonder do they fully understand that folks are dying when i talk to miltary men, esp folks who have seen first hand and up close what happens when a 50 caliber round hits a man in the head,it gives you pause that THIS AIN';T NOT JOKE- I raised the question due to the conversation we were having here at work,in ref to how the mistreatment of women when captured would impact them being able to serve yesterday Minumus commented that it was an inapproatiate question, when the reality is if 5 or 6 women were captured raped and tortured politicains would react to public opinion polls as they often do if americans were to see 5 or 6 women laying on the floor- gun shot to the head, breast out- for some reason i am lead to believe it would be a much HARDER SELL to the public to allow women to serve in direct combat- someone made an excellent point about - not the women, but the impact and reaction of the men-- would the powers to be -- be willing to put men -who have been culturally taught to protect women-- in a postion where this becomes an issue that was my only point-