Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Women Warriors

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Avalon
    replied
    Now we're cooking with gas !! I shall return

    Leave a comment:


  • Doughboy
    replied
    We've seen these same arguments in other professions in physical standards cannot be compromised in particular firefighters. The standards focus on the ability of the firefighter to be able to lift a unconscious 200lb (or more) take this person to the window and climb down a ladder with severe time constraints.

    In addition, being able to handle a high pressure fire hose with other team members as well as other physical demands must be met period. As a job firemen must meet these physical requirements as it really is a matter of life and death. Whether the firemen is a man or a woman it is inconsequential, its whether he or she can meet the tough standards. I think the same can be said for the modern military as the likelihood of hand to hand combat is very rare.


    Originally posted by Secret Agent
    One thing that worries me is that, if women are added into more combat roles, the trend will continue in which the women have lower standards. (Which is discrimination against men! How's that for a change? ) Thus making the force less effective as a whole. Also, it adds to the "distrust" factor. Remember how the Rangers were upset when everyone in the US Army got the black beret? That's becuase only Rangers used to wear it. In the US, some vets are upset because medals are being given out more freely, thus cheapening their hard-earned medals. The Marines and the Navy are in a dispute right now over whether or not Navy Corpsmen (who are the medics for the Marines) get to wear Marine insignia. The Navy guys say yes, since the medics have been in combat with the Marines, but the Marines say no, since the corpsmen, as brave as they are, have never been through Marine boot camp, and thus nave not "earned" the right to wear the "globe and anchor." The same morale problems could/would happen if women are allowed into combat positions with lower standards applied.
    Last edited by Doughboy; 16 Apr 05, 10:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • Secret Agent
    replied
    Actually, it's not a moot point in the US. Women are still not allowed in Infantry, Armor, Artillery (at least parts of Artillery), Special Ops, Submarines, etc.

    Some of that is just plain common sense. For instance: On subs, you would have to take out some of the equipment, to make room for women - unless, of course, you want men and women sleeping in the same bumks. Refitting a sub so women can be on board costs $5,000,000 per sub. (* 60+ subs in US Navy = over $300,000,000. And what program shall we steal the money from to fund this essentially unnecessary project?) Which piece of equipment should be removed? The sonar? Some torpedoes? Plus, you have the dubious situation in which a woman gets pregnant. Then what, surface? Subs are supposed to be underwater for 90 days. You can't surface every few weeks to discharge a pregnant lady! It would make the sub a lot easier to track!

    Another possibility would be an all-female sub. But then you have the problem of not enough personnel; or at least not enough personnel with the right specialties.

    One thing that worries me is that, if women are added into more combat roles, the trend will continue in which the women have lower standards. (Which is discrimination against men! How's that for a change? ) Thus making the force less effective as a whole. Also, it adds to the "distrust" factor. Remember how the Rangers were upset when everyone in the US Army got the black beret? That's becuase only Rangers used to wear it. In the US, some vets are upset because medals are being given out more freely, thus cheapening their hard-earned medals. The Marines and the Navy are in a dispute right now over whether or not Navy Corpsmen (who are the medics for the Marines) get to wear Marine insignia. The Navy guys say yes, since the medics have been in combat with the Marines, but the Marines say no, since the corpsmen, as brave as they are, have never been through Marine boot camp, and thus nave not "earned" the right to wear the "globe and anchor." The same morale problems could/would happen if women are allowed into combat positions with lower standards applied.
    Last edited by Secret Agent; 16 Apr 05, 09:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • Avalon
    replied
    Originally posted by Secret Agent
    But I'm anti-Dr. Sinister! He is evil, and so - by definition - I must be good!



    And you think every nation will obey the UN? We'd withdraw before that!
    No, you are an evil spy I tell you

    Steve and Paul make excellent points. It is a moot point, women are already in these roles and they will probably be so increasingly, so what is important now is to work out strategies for dealing with those issues that are there. There's no doubt that the attraction thing can be a problem, but it goes back to discipline and self-discipline and good leadership, and while those articles talk reasonably specifically about special combat operations and so on, at the end of the day, what difference does it make, the nature of the operations. There is no legitimate argument just "for" or just "against" - that belongs on a hokey current affairs news poll - it's about getting the system working to its maximum efficiency taking into account a multitude of factors. (It's hard to go further without taking each point made in those articles, or whatever other points there are in the debate, and sorting them out).

    Everybody who wants to play a part in that system and is able to do so effectively should do so. How to make it work is the question as I see it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Temujin
    replied
    Good points, seems a cultural social thing though, mixed with the type of engagements the US is in at the moment.

    Would it be the same, if they were sent to help Tsunami victims in a very serious time of need, or the Nazis are bashing down every defensive line you have and its pretty much do or die. I think not, priorities would be different, playing games like highschool kids would be the last thing on their minds.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Maybe I don't get it -- it seems like women have been in combat before -and it is in fact a moot point.

    Does it make a bit of difference what the point of view of the US is towards this, when in fact other nations have needed to use troops no mattr the gender?

    I contend - no.

    Leave a comment:


  • Secret Agent
    replied
    Originally posted by Avalon
    Yep.. it's official.. you are evil SA
    But I'm anti-Dr. Sinister! He is evil, and so - by definition - I must be good!

    Originally posted by Avalon
    Hmmm, well when you bring in the big guns like that I guess all I can say is get the united nations to make women in the military compulsory in large numbers so that everyone is busy playing trains and tunnels and forgets to engage in combat I reckon that would work !
    And you think every nation will obey the UN? We'd withdraw before that!

    Leave a comment:


  • Avalon
    replied
    Yep.. it's official.. you are evil SA

    Hmmm, well when you bring in the big guns like that I guess all I can say is get the united nations to make women in the military compulsory in large numbers so that everyone is busy playing trains and tunnels and forgets to engage in combat I reckon that would work !

    Leave a comment:


  • Secret Agent
    replied
    Originally posted by Avalon

    Mim
    Want experience?

    This was posted by Don Maddox's wife....

    I suppose you guys will be surprised to know I agree with the idea that women don't belong in the military-I think a lot of you know I was a Brigade Surgeon in the Army. I found out during my time in that women are indeed a distraction and a morale problem. I had problems with my medics and my platoon leader from that standpoint.We were always catching the female and male medics [having sex] out in the field-night vision goggles make for an interesting x-rated show.My platoon leader(a female) was sleeping with my x-ray tech.Talk about undermining her command.And the Infantry Physician Assistants who worked for me ( I was their rater for OER's) all claimed they had slept with me at some point ( NOT TRUE) and followed me around like dogs looking for attention.Face it,men are dogs and women just eat up the attention they get from men.An attractive female (or even so-so) in the military can't really help but take advantage of the attention she will get from thousands of hormonally challenged 18 year old guys in the Army.I also noted that every time there was a deployment, every female came running to see me to find out if she was pregnant and could avoid getting deployed.Many would fake tests using somebody else's urine or get an abortion later.Or some were just baby factories thereby assuring they were always pregnant when a deployment came up.

    -Laura (Jackobson) Maddox

    Leave a comment:


  • Avalon
    replied
    I reckon they're worth reading at some stage if you get the time Paul. They're not too long. I hadn't read anything specific like that which details some of the points that are being argued in the wider arena, rather I just assumed (correctly for the most part) what it would entail. I'd like to read more about it at some stage.

    Let us know if you have any other links SA. I'll see what I can find too.

    Mim

    Leave a comment:


  • Temujin
    replied
    Thanks Mim, saved me the trouble of reading it, not that i was going to, but now i don't have to consider it either, maybe a speedy scan.

    Leave a comment:


  • Avalon
    replied
    Mmmm, very interesting articles SA. I must say that the "pro" argument covered a lot of the points I was thinking about earlier. The second article, I'm still gritting my teeth and waiting for the valium to set in Not that she doesn't raise some interesting points, she does, but she is an academic who appears to simply have taken an opposing view to be her thesis and was subsequently determined to validate it with little evidence.

    Whereas the two writers of the "pro' article are military people and they substantiate their points with evidence and workable proposals, the other is an academic who is following the old idealogy, making sex and fear the main issues and offering no real evidence and few solutions to any quantifiable problems that "might" arise. She offers too many "mights" and not enough proof, and she makes claims and then fails to back them up. She does inadvertently get somewhere near the heart of the matter at times, but does nothing to push the argument forward in a useful way. It would be interesting to take all her points and examine them at some stage. It's not just the paucity or the flimsiness of her thesis that bothers me, it's the tabloid approach I think. She didn't convince me I guess is what I mean too. But as I say, some of what she says is quite useful and valid but it needs more fleshing out to my way of thinking.

    Mim

    Leave a comment:


  • Secret Agent
    replied
    My problem is not so much can they (that has been proven) but should they. The article against it pointed out some things I hadn't thought about too much before.

    Leave a comment:


  • Avalon
    replied
    Good points Wolfe Tone. Yeah I gotta read back over some stuff and get into that again. It's been a while. I'd love to see the Book of Kells. Hopefully we'll get to Dublin one day to do that.

    Nah really SA, I'd love to read them. I like to see both sides of things and am always open to modifying my thinking if it's a good argument. I can actually see some arguments against it myself. I haven't read those yet, but for example, and this is just a personal view, I don't agree with women who have children going on active duty, particularly while they are young. I think that's unfair on children who should be a priority. If a husband is at home, then maybe, but that's one thing I have a problem with. I also think there is some instinct built in to women that would make it harder to perform certain duties in a confrontational situation, which is why I couldn't do it personally unless it was a dire situation. However, having said that, I think the issue is not really one of gender, but one of proven ability. I think there are women who can do that and do it extremely well and women should always have the same opportunities to prove themselves and perform the tasks they undertake. When it does become a level playing field, which is the direction it's taking, it will ultimately be about who is most capable and fit for the job, about performance, and if you're not up to it, male or female, you're out. The problem with getting to that point is getting past prejudices and all that other stuff.

    When I have a read of those articles I'll throw in a few more ideas.

    Leave a comment:


  • Secret Agent
    replied
    Originally posted by Avalon
    In my case, I haven't yet SA but I intend to
    Be warned! You may not like them! (One is pro- and the other is anti-women in combat).

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X