Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Should US women serve on front lines?
Topic Started: Jan 15 2011, 11:27 PM (1,565 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
kenny
Jan 15 2011, 11:27 PM
Should US women serve on front lines?
What a sexist question. Why can't the men on the front lines get off their recliners and get their own beers? Do they really need to be served?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
sue
Jan 16 2011, 05:22 PM
kenny
Jan 16 2011, 12:16 PM
Are they any physical or mental factors related to menstruation that would affect ability to perform such duties?
WHAT ARE YOU IMPLYING? WE'RE JUST FINE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST DON'T DO SOMETHING TO PISS US OFF OR ASK IF WE'RE FEELING OK BECAUSE WE LOOK ALL BLOATED AND CRAMPY. DON'T DO THAT. ESPECIALLY IF WE HAVE GUNS.
:leaving:

On second thought maybe we should just get rid of the male soldiers, and deploy this new top secret lethal weapon.

:leaving:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Rice
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Jan 16 2011, 05:49 PM
Are you willing to deal with what happens to a female POW?

Okay, now you're bringing up a separate issue.

Male POWs are by no means immune to sexual torture or rape, either (it shattered TE Lawrence), though of course females are much more likely to be victims. But if the women who serve are willing to deal with that possibility, should we not respect their dedication and courage?
Civilisation, I vaguely realized then - and subsequent observation has confirmed the view - could not progress that way. It must have a greater guiding principle to survive. To treat it as a carcase off which each man tears as much as he can for himself, is to stand convicted a brute, fit for nothing better than a jungle existence, which is a death-struggle, leading nowhither. I did not believe that was the human destiny, for Man individually was sane and reasonable, only collectively a fool.

I hope the gunner of that Hun two-seater shot him clean, bullet to heart, and that his plane, on fire, fell like a meteor through the sky he loved. Since he had to end, I hope he ended so. But, oh, the waste! The loss!

- Cecil Lewis
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Red Rice
Jan 16 2011, 06:03 PM
Jolly
Jan 16 2011, 05:49 PM
Are you willing to deal with what happens to a female POW?

Okay, now you're bringing up a separate issue.

Male POWs are by no means immune to sexual torture or rape, either (it shattered TE Lawrence), though of course females are much more likely to be victims. But if the women who serve are willing to deal with that possibility, should we not respect their dedication and courage?
No.

Battle fatigue, shell shock, etc., is a by-product of the terribleness of modern warfare. I don't think adding a female screaming in the night as she's being raped and her breasts cut off before the enemy finishes her off is going to help anybody's mental health. Of course, one can talk about males being tortured.

But I think the chances of abuse are much higher if the captured soldier is a female, especially considering who are enemies are and where our battles are occurring. Check out what happened to the last American female P.O.W. in Iraq.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blondie
Bull-Carp
I think women should define for themselves what is abuse and torture and men should stop speaking for them. Females know the risks being in these wars. They don't need these things spelled out for them. I might hypothesize heterosexual men may fear rape more than women do. And something tells me that a culture that does beheadings and amputations thinks nothing of snipping off mens' penises and testicles.

Sue you crack me up. PMS could be a great weapon!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Screams of breasts being cut off no worse than screams of balls being cut off.

Biggest potential problem that a man POW will not have is what if a woman POW gets impregnated by her captor. Solution is to let the mother decide, if rescued, whether to abort (all the way up to the last minute before delivery, none of that 3rd trimester deadline crap), to retain (automatic US citizenship for the child in that case), or to abandon (send back to the biological father's country of citizenship and let them deal with the child as they see fit).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blondie
Bull-Carp
Further, all woman enter adulthood learning they face the risk of breast cancer, possible mastectomy (death too). Also all women enter adulthood learning they could be raped by a man. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but IMO, in someways, women might be better prepared (like psychologically) to face some of these torture type risks of warfare.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
blondie
Jan 16 2011, 07:36 PM
I think women should define for themselves what is abuse and torture and men should stop speaking for them. Females know the risks being in these wars.
That's it. Well said, blondie.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Jan 16 2011, 07:42 PM
Screams of breasts being cut off no worse than screams of balls being cut off.

Biggest potential problem that a man POW will not have is what if a woman POW gets impregnated by her captor. Solution is to let the mother decide, if rescued, whether to abort (all the way up to the last minute before delivery, none of that 3rd trimester deadline crap), to retain (automatic US citizenship for the child in that case), or to abandon (send back to the biological father's country of citizenship and let them deal with the child as they see fit).
I can't imagine what being a POW entails, but I really doubt the true issue has anything to do with a woman getting impregnated. It seems it would be incredibly demoralizing to the male POWs to have their female comrade sexually abused. I would guess that the sense of protection for women that is pretty well ingrained a whole lot of men would be a vulnerability in a POW situation.

I realize you might think those quaint emotions are misplaced and are merely outdated biochemical processes that must not be considered in making such politically important decisions, but until humanity has evolved out of such sentiments it seems they are still relevant to what is the best policy to protect our soldiers from addition psychological duress when they are captured.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
We should deem moral killing a child for the sins of the father and the convenience of the mother who chose to go in harm's way. Swell.

Ax, I truly hope you never hold any position of social authority.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Axtremus
Jan 16 2011, 07:42 PM
Screams of breasts being cut off no worse than screams of balls being cut off.

Biggest potential problem that a man POW will not have is what if a woman POW gets impregnated by her captor. Solution is to let the mother decide, if rescued, whether to abort (all the way up to the last minute before delivery, none of that 3rd trimester deadline crap), to retain (automatic US citizenship for the child in that case), or to abandon (send back to the biological father's country of citizenship and let them deal with the child as they see fit).
Started to refute your first argument, but IT did a better job than I.

As for your second, I doubt her captors would allow any child to come to term. It would probably amuse them to see how many ways they could cause her to lose a baby.

One need look no further than the Japanese treatment of prisoners in WWII to come up with some really creative ideas...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jan 16 2011, 09:15 PM
I can't imagine what being a POW entails, but I really doubt the true issue has anything to do with a woman getting impregnated.

Not about whether this issue is any "more true" or "less true" -- the point is that this issue is the only substantial difference between what can be inflicted upon a male POW vs. and what can be upon a female POW.

Quote:
 
It seems it would be incredibly demoralizing to the male POWs to have their female comrade sexually abused. I would guess that the sense of protection for women that is pretty well ingrained a whole lot of men would be a vulnerability in a POW situation.
It would be less demoralizing to have their male comrade sexually abused? You might stipulate a rule that never let servicemen with blood relations serve on the same set of "front lines" against the same enemy, for it might be "more demoralizing" for a POW to see his family member (e.g., father-son, uncle-nephew, brother-brother, etc.) sexually molested -- the sense of protection for son, nephew, brother is pretty well-ingrained too.

Quote:
 
I realize you might think those quaint emotions are misplaced and are merely outdated biochemical processes that must not be considered in making such politically important decisions, but until humanity has evolved out of such sentiments it seems they are still relevant to what is the best policy to protect our soldiers from addition psychological duress when they are captured.
It's not about me thinking those emotions are quaint or misplaced, but about being able to see the bigger picture, assess and compare the different possibilities, different scenarios, and give them a fair shake without being limited by "gut feeling."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Using gender in the selection process for soldiers is always a heuristic: There are without doubt many women who would do an excellent job, and they are discriminated against by not allowing them to serve.

The only rational and just solution, in my opinion, is to base the selection on those factors that are really relevant for the performance as soldier: Some formula that takes all relevant physical and psychical factors into account and yields the decision whether he or she can be a soldier. Everything else is illogical.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Jan 17 2011, 05:49 AM
We should deem moral killing a child abortion for the sins of the father and the convenience of the mother who chose to go in harm's way.
You don't have a better solution except to further limit what the women are allowed to do in the first place.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
sue
Jan 16 2011, 09:13 PM
blondie
Jan 16 2011, 07:36 PM
I think women should define for themselves what is abuse and torture and men should stop speaking for them. Females know the risks being in these wars.
That's it. Well said, blondie.
I don't think either one of you has a clue what the nature of infantry combat is like, even in today's "modern" wars.

It's all fine and well to say females should be given the choice, but anything, ANYTHING, that degrades a combat unit's ability to fight should not be allowed. The decision is not that of the individual, but of the people who can accurately gauge the unit's effectiveness.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Klaus
Jan 17 2011, 06:31 AM
Using gender in the selection process for soldiers is always a heuristic: There are without doubt many women who would do an excellent job, and they are discriminated against by not allowing them to serve.

The only rational and just solution, in my opinion, is to base the selection on those factors that are really relevant for the performance as soldier: Some formula that takes all relevant physical and psychical factors into account and yields the decision whether he or she can be a soldier. Everything else is illogical.
Fair statement.

I would add that being "logical" is not always the goal, nor the normal mode of operations, nor is logic employed towards the same goal or all involved. A despotic dictator can logically arrive at the decision to start a war to guard his self-interest, yet had the nation's interest been the taken into account, the decision would seem entirely illogical.

Jolly made the observation that if you want to have the best of the best of the population on the front lines, you'd institute a draft. That's completely logical from one stand point. Yet most industrialized nations have so far relied on voluntary serving in their militaries. That's not illogical either -- for the larger goal of a nation is never as pure as simply having the best people serve in the military.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Jolly
Jan 17 2011, 06:26 AM
As for your second, I doubt her captors would allow any child to come to term.
The military junta in Argentina faced this problem. They sold the babies.


It was one of the many things Jorge Vadela was convicted for - selling the babies of rape victims kept in his private prisons.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
IT touched on this but the really relevant issue is the long standing emotional relationship between men and women. There are any number of women who would be physically qualified to be an infantry soldier but men react differently towards women and vice versa especially when endangered. Whether or not this is detrimental to good order and conduct or military readiness and effectiveness is not an issue we here on an internet forum are going to be able to determine. I would leave that to the military itself to determine.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Axtremus
Jan 17 2011, 06:32 AM
Mikhailoh
Jan 17 2011, 05:49 AM
We should deem moral killing a child abortion for the sins of the father and the convenience of the mother who chose to go in harm's way.
You don't have a better solution except to further limit what the women are allowed to do in the first place.
Oh, no. You're the one who trotted out abortion right up to the moment of delivery, bucko. You can't hide behind that bullsh!t term now to try to sanitize the horror you propose, as a 'solution' for a problem that does not exist in today's scenario. If that is the cost of women serving in front line units, the price of the illusion you call equality is too high.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
So men have an instinct to protect woman but not vice versa because men do not get pregnant (but sperm is a handy thing.)

It's is interesting how equality of the genders takes a back seat at times, and maybe that's not good or bad, right or wrong.
It just is.

This is particularly informative to those of us (well let me speak for myself . . . me) who's attitudes towards women is not personally influenced by the business of reproduction.
I have tunnel-vision, militantly pro-equality values.

Maybe some of the quaint notions of old fashioned chivalry are not so bad after all - not that the human race would go extinct if I didn't open a door for a woman.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Jan 17 2011, 06:42 AM
Klaus
Jan 17 2011, 06:31 AM
Using gender in the selection process for soldiers is always a heuristic: There are without doubt many women who would do an excellent job, and they are discriminated against by not allowing them to serve.

The only rational and just solution, in my opinion, is to base the selection on those factors that are really relevant for the performance as soldier: Some formula that takes all relevant physical and psychical factors into account and yields the decision whether he or she can be a soldier. Everything else is illogical.
Fair statement.

I would add that being "logical" is not always the goal, nor the normal mode of operations, nor is logic employed towards the same goal or all involved. A despotic dictator can logically arrive at the decision to start a war to guard his self-interest, yet had the nation's interest been the taken into account, the decision would seem entirely illogical.

Jolly made the observation that if you want to have the best of the best of the population on the front lines, you'd institute a draft. That's completely logical from one stand point. Yet most industrialized nations have so far relied on voluntary serving in their militaries. That's not illogical either -- for the larger goal of a nation is never as pure as simply having the best people serve in the military.
Well, I guess we are talking about an optimization problem here. In an optimization problem you have a goal function you want to maximize.

I think we are talking about maximizing the effectiveness of the military in combat here.

So, when I used the term "illogical", the semantics is "will be counterproductive with respect to maximizing combat effectiveness of the military".

There are of course other changes that one can talk about to further improve combat effectiveness (such as - arguably - mandatory military service), but everything else being equal, a military that will recruit based on those factors actually relevant for combat performance will beat one that uses imprecise heuristics such as gender. So we have the quite wonderful situation here that the measures required to maximize the effectiveness of the military and gender equality coincide.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Klaus
Jan 17 2011, 07:39 AM
Axtremus
Jan 17 2011, 06:42 AM
Klaus
Jan 17 2011, 06:31 AM
Using gender in the selection process for soldiers is always a heuristic: There are without doubt many women who would do an excellent job, and they are discriminated against by not allowing them to serve.

The only rational and just solution, in my opinion, is to base the selection on those factors that are really relevant for the performance as soldier: Some formula that takes all relevant physical and psychical factors into account and yields the decision whether he or she can be a soldier. Everything else is illogical.
Fair statement.

I would add that being "logical" is not always the goal, nor the normal mode of operations, nor is logic employed towards the same goal or all involved. A despotic dictator can logically arrive at the decision to start a war to guard his self-interest, yet had the nation's interest been the taken into account, the decision would seem entirely illogical.

Jolly made the observation that if you want to have the best of the best of the population on the front lines, you'd institute a draft. That's completely logical from one stand point. Yet most industrialized nations have so far relied on voluntary serving in their militaries. That's not illogical either -- for the larger goal of a nation is never as pure as simply having the best people serve in the military.
Well, I guess we are talking about an optimization problem here. In an optimization problem you have a goal function you want to maximize.

I think we are talking about maximizing the effectiveness of the military in combat here.

So, when I used the term "illogical", the semantics is "will be counterproductive with respect to maximizing combat effectiveness of the military".

There are of course other changes that one can talk about to further improve combat effectiveness (such as - arguably - mandatory military service), but everything else being equal, a military that will recruit based on those factors actually relevant for combat performance will beat one that uses imprecise heuristics such as gender.
Not quite.

The only armies I can think of off-hand who had women serving in the frontlines, were the Red Army in WWII and the Israeli Army in 1947 (I'm not sure about either army's soldier assignments nowadays). While women served pretty well in both cases, I'm not sure that it was the optimum thing to do.

Consider the two best frontline units of the past century...the USMC Recon and the Waffen SS (politics aside, look at battle records)...neither has women in their muster.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly,

there is no need to argue about historical performance of units with our without women to judge whether my statement is correct. It is correct by definition. It is basically a disguised tautology: Those who are most effective are most effective.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Based on the performance of the Waffen SS, wouldn't it be advisable to start recruiting fanatical anti-semites as front line troops, and indoctrinating them with a complete and total obedience to their leaders - bordering on religious worship?

Yes, I realise that this is socially unacceptable based on modern thinking, but after all, nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of making the fighting force the most efficient force it can be.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Problem is the Waffen SS ended up losing.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply