TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Should women be banned from combat?

Should women be banned from combat?

as many of you might know, there is a bill moving its way through the US congress that would make it illegal for woment to be assigned to units in the military below the level of brigadier whose purpose is to engage in combat. your thoughts?

i think they should allow only non-fertile women to be in combat and ban the fertile ones. is not this what its all about at the heart of the matter? protecting the ability humans to procreate?

I thougt it was because if they are captured they would be systematicly raped. Also roviding two sets of everything (toilets and so on) is a pain in the arse too.

Well, personally I don't see why they should be banned as long as they pass necessarry physical tests. If they want to risk their lives and everything, by all means, go ahead girlies.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish I thougt it was because if they are captured they would be systematicly raped. Also roviding two sets of everything (toilets and so on) is a pain in the arse too.

i think there's something to said about the raping issue, but it's moot in a way, if the women can't have kids. i'm not sure tho. there some stuff about politics of sex here but i can't put my finger on it.

In some places they are in the combat units. Israel is one place I think.

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange i think there's something to said about the raping issue, but it's moot in a way, if the women can't have kids. i'm not sure tho. there some stuff about politics of sex here but i can't put my finger on it.

Just b/c she can't have kids, doesn't mean she can't catch an STD.

I'm sure I won't be able to find the link (it might have been print, anyway), but a while back there was an article on the psychological reasons that having women front-line combat troops could be hard for the group.

One reason was as listed before; rape. Not only is it horrible at first, but it also has lingering effects, such as preganacy. It's kind of like long-term pyschological warfare. Even if there was an abortion, the thought of being impregnated by the enemy in such a horrible way has lasting effects.

Secondly was that it has been shown that humans, both male and female, are better able to cope with the death of a male than a female. For some reason we are wired to be more emotionally sensitive to a female's death than a male. The frontline deaths of females would be a major morale issue.

Third is the "birds and bees" issue. Men and women living and fighting together are bound to have interactions that are a little "informal." These non-planotic bonds can be difficult when giving orders or in maintaining objectivity and clear judgement.

I think that women should be allowed to fight front line if needed. However, it seems that we already have more than enough men to fight there, and there is no real reason to introduce women. However, as said before if they are to fight there, they need to undego the same training and the same tests physically and mentally as the men. If the guy on the right can hoist me over his back and pull me out of danger, the girl on my left better be able to do the same thing.

Now the physiological reasons for not having front line women is a whole other issue...

Banned? No. That would be going overboard.

Generally, however, it would be more strategically sound to keep them out of typical combat operations. It should, therefore, be left in the hands of the officers responsible for strategy, not some half-assed declaration by a wholly unqualified Congress.

I do not believe that in today's society where we try to have perfect equality that there should be a ban on what women can or can't do. I think that it is pointless. If a woman wants to fight in the war, why stop her? Why must the USA ban everything!

yeah, banning sounds REALLY stupid imo, if they are willing to take the risk, let them.

i agree banning them wouldn't be a good thing

I say make a whole Batallion of just women trained to fight.

They say that after a while, women who spend a lot of time together that women start having their periods at the same time.

Imagine a whole platoon of PMS'ing women on the front lines.

quote:

Originally posted by jrbuddha Imagine a whole platoon of PMS'ing women on the front lines.

Really, if you have that, there is no need for nuclear bombs as a deterent anymore

quote:

Originally posted by jrbuddha Imagine a whole platoon of PMS'ing women on the front lines.

weapons of mass hysteria

i think its a bollocks move. as long as the women who wish to fight are as capable in the firing line as they have to be, then of course they should be allowed to. any idea to the contrary is insulting.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'm sure I won't be able to find the link (it might have been print, anyway), but a while back there was an article on the psychological reasons that having women front-line combat troops could be hard for the group. One reason was as listed before; rape. Not only is it horrible at first, but it also has lingering effects, such as preganacy. It's kind of like long-term pyschological warfare. Even if there was an abortion, the thought of being impregnated by the enemy in such a horrible way has lasting effects. Secondly was that it has been shown that humans, both male and female, are better able to cope with the death of a male than a female. For some reason we are wired to be more emotionally sensitive to a female's death than a male. The frontline deaths of females would be a major morale issue. Third is the "birds and bees" issue. Men and women living and fighting together are bound to have interactions that are a little "informal." These non-planotic bonds can be difficult when giving orders or in maintaining objectivity and clear judgement. I think that women should be allowed to fight front line if needed.

These are all pretty good points to consider, and I'm not sure the counterargument of the glass ceiling and limiting womens' positions in the military are particularly strong enough to counter this. I kind of see a bit of both sides on this particular part of the bill.

But I must disagree with your statement here:

quote:

However, it seems that we already have more than enough men to fight there, and there is no real reason to introduce women.

This tends to undermine all the major problems we have had with this Iraq War as a DIRECT result to not having enough troops there in the first place, i.e. securing the city, securing known strategic targets (al qa qaa, for ex.), effectively training Iraqi troops in a much more timely and efficient manner, etc. Furthermore, it also undermines the known problems our current military is undergoing with recruiting, which of course is amply demonstrated by recruiting pressures:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005...ain696991.shtml

So this doesn�t seem to be a very good time to bring up this issue of pulling back numbers on the ground, regardless of the sex, which was why I think the House GOP backed off a bit on this issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/p...artner=homepage

What really got me a bit incensed was the nearly 22,000 jobs women currently hold in the military would have been slashed. That would have been horrible discrimination by any definition, and I�m glad to see the GOP backed off on this.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This tends to undermine all the major problems we have had with this Iraq War as a DIRECT result to not having enough troops there in the first place, i.e. securing the city, securing known strategic targets (al qa qaa, for ex.), effectively training Iraqi troops in a much more timely and efficient manner, etc. Furthermore, it also undermines the known problems our current military is undergoing with recruiting, which of course is amply demonstrated by recruiting pressures:

I would find it hard to believe that there is a surplus of women out there who would decide to enlist if they were allowed front line combat. I just do not see a large population of women waiting to join once that sort of combat is allowed. I do agree there may be some, but not nearly enough to solve recruiting problems. If it even exists I'd be amazed, but perhaps someone has some info on the amount of women who decide not to join the military on the basis that they are not allowed front line combat roles.

I nominate Chyna.

Not too be sexist... but to explore the issue:

1) What percentage of women would be able to do exactly the same physical tests as men?

2) Given they can do the same tests, why do they want to be front line troops.... is it just to prove something? If so is that a good enough reason?

3) Given they pass 1 + 2 are there enough of them to make the extra investment worthwhile in what is basicly the business of war?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I nominate Chyna.

thats a man though..........

all those feminist women should have the same rights/responsibilities as men when going to war. they want equality, don't they? when the flesh lies there in the sand, the sex doesn't really matter

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I would find it hard to believe that there is a surplus of women out there who would decide to enlist if they were allowed front line combat. I just do not see a large population of women waiting to join once that sort of combat is allowed. I do agree there may be some, but not nearly enough to solve recruiting problems. If it even exists I'd be amazed, but perhaps someone has some info on the amount of women who decide not to join the military on the basis that they are not allowed front line combat roles.

I think you're misunderstanding my point a little here. I don't disagree with what you're stating here. My point, however, was a bit tangential to the women in combat issue, and was more or less addressing the issue of being undermanned in Iraq in general.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I think you're misunderstanding my point a little here. I don't disagree with what you're stating here. My point, however, was a bit tangential to the women in combat issue, and was more or less addressing the issue of being undermanned in Iraq in general.

I understand now. I do realize that we are having a bit of a recruiting crisis. I think that my original statement should be modified to say that having front line women will not effect this problem, instead of there "already being enough men." I think such a sustained war effort, especially one that seems to have little "home" impact (ala WWI, WWII, etc.), similar to Vietman will cause difficulties in recruitment.

Being raped upon capture is a risk they must be aware of when they sign up. By joining the military, they reconize, and accept this risk.

I think women should be allowed in the frontlines, but in women-only squads. This would simply eliminate alot of unneeded complications.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Secondly was that it has been shown that humans, both male and female, are better able to cope with the death of a male than a female. For some reason we are wired to be more emotionally sensitive to a female's death than a male. The frontline deaths of females would be a major morale issue.

What you said is correct!

It is the same reason that US have been deploying female soldiers in Iraq checkpoints, it will make the suicide bomber think twice about killing a woman. (Sourc:BBC)

And back on topic, yes women should be banned for duties under the brigraider level, as reasons stated above.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.