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 (1,564 Views)
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
JBryan
Jan 17 2011, 08:10 AM
Problem is the Waffen SS ended up losing.
Maybe if they'd had some women at the front they'd have won. :lol:

This extreme example demonstrates two things:

1. The outcome of a war isn't primarily dependent on the combat effectiveness of individual troops.

2. The armed forces aren't simply a spreadsheet-generated group of automatons, selected in a way to maximise efficiency. They are also in part representatives of, and in some ways symbols of, the society they are fighting for.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
A couple of observations about this issue, without "putting myself out there."

Gender Equality
There's no such thing, unless people really mean something else when they use the word "equality." We don't want genders to be equal, any more than we want heat to stop building in our atmosphere (bad simile, as many of you think that's a good idea). The point is, the moment genders are truly equal, society dies - what makes us survive is the fact that we each have a different set of biological strengths and weaknesses. Without getting into this particular issue, I'll simply say that our differences should be cherished, and protected - and whether or not someone is suitable to function in combat, the reasoning can't be based on "equality," as we simply aren't equal.

Self-Centric Thinking
This thread is rampant with it. The strongest reasons I see seem to be based on the perspective of the woman doing the fighting. Her equality, her right to choose, her right to abort the POW-rape-baby (outlandish much?), and so on. Jolly's really hit the nail on the head, focusing on the combat effectiveness of the group itself. What the military does well, is destroy self-centric thinking, with the clear goal of advancing the "team" or "group" to success. One person can make or break that team (male, or female), and so the effectiveness of the group is more important than any single member's individual ability to dead-lift 200 pounds, or group 10 shots within a few inches from 100 yards.
No hypothetical situations following (though I so desire to).
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Jan 17 2011, 07:46 AM
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.
Just out of curiosity: Why do you consider the Waffen SS to be one of the best frontline units?
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Jan 17 2011, 06:27 AM
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.
Nope, you missed it again. The presumption is that additional duress would be inflicted upon the males by they abuse of the females.

Edit to add: upon rereading, if you are saying that exposure to the rape of their female fellow soldiers is "the only substantial difference between what can be inflicted upon a male POW", then why would you promote such a possibility?
Quote:
 

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?
Yes, I think so. But God forbid any of us are subject to such testing.
Quote:
 

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.
Sure why not. But the odds of a family member serving in the same unit and being captured -- especially after the Sullivan brothers -- is infinitesimal, where as the odds of males and females being captured together under this politically motivated social experiment approach 100% So which rule do you think should be enacted first?

Quote:
 
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."
So you want to do some sort of "scientific experiment" to see which scenario works better for the mental health of our soldiers who are captured? How do you propose to do that?
Edited by ivorythumper, Jan 17 2011, 10:43 AM.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
1. Put men in a combat situation with women, and the natural inclination most men have to protect a woman will affect their judgment, and lives will be lost because of it.

2. Put men in a combat situation with women, and the natural inclination most men have to want some pussy will affect their judgment, and lives will be lost because of it.

3. Put men in a combat situation with women, and the natural inclination most men have to want to help a female (lift a heavy object, open a door, etc) will affect their judgment, and lives will be lost because of it.

4. The front lines of a fight is not the place for society to experiment with their politically correct social masturbation exercises. If women want to fight on the front lines, put them all in one unit and let them - but I don't know of any man who wants to come home thinking women got killed while he was on duty because maybe he didn't "do enough" to protect them.

You cannot change human nature, I don't give a rat's ass how much you try to socially engineer things.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry maybe you're right but Darwinism is in play here.
All the men who think of women as delicate things to protect will get killed off.
Eventually Darwinism will replace them with men who respect woman as equals.

It may not even take that long since some countries today put women on the front lines.
Imagine a battle between US and country X... with US males ineffective because of their primitive attitudes and behavior around female troops.

A country with stupid sexist policies may end up learning its lesson the hard way by losing to a country who understand woman are equal.

Progress. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
If Darwinism isn't in play here, then Darwinism isn't in play at all.


Besides, the way men and women interact has little to do with darwinism anyway.....
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Yeah, set policy assuming men can't control themselves around women.

That sounds familiar.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Kenny
 
All the men who think of women as delicate things to protect will get killed off.
Eventually Darwinism will replace them with men who respect woman as equals.

Kenny,
I disagree.
One male has millions of times the reproductive power that a female has, as one man can "seed" many lives at once, while baby:female ratio remains 1:1.
This means, that men who instinctively protect women (possibly sacrificing themselves), do the species a greater service, than allowing the female to die as an "equal."
Evolution isn't just about the individual seeking their own gain, but at some level genetics takes over, and the survival of the species becomes a consideration as well.
Your analogy holds true in the individual's context, as they're in battle. Save self, or save other - the one who saves self survives - I see that. But that's a very limited scope for Darwinism to operate in. That single entity will someday die, and so in some sense, never "wins" at the game of Darwinism.

There's the physical component as well, which Ax and others have mentioned. I'm not saying women *can't* complete the physical component of warfare - I'm simply observing that it's a crucial part of the discussion. So - assuming both genders treat each other the same all the time, with no preference or leaning towards one or the other, there's still the issue of physics to be considered.
If I weigh 190 pounds, and am wearing a 50 pound ruck, and take a shot to the leg, someone has to at best, drag me to safety, and at worst, carry me to safety. I wouldn't even be a good candidate for infantry based on this standard (i.e., this has nothing specifically to do with gender) - but if I can't drag 250 pounds of dead weight 50 feet, I have no business being on the battle field. Similarly, firefighters have to pass some pretty basic physicality requirements to be on the team, regardless of gender. In most states, these requirements are the same for men and women.
Again - I'm not saying women shouldn't be on the battlefield - I'm saying that along with the other considerations brought up in the thread (namely, that we don't treat each other equally), there is the physical component (which has also been brought up), which is extremely important.
Edited by KlavierBauer, Jan 17 2011, 11:42 AM.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
That sounds familiar.



So does your heading into the weeds with extreme rhetoric when your views are challenged.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Klaus
Jan 17 2011, 08:50 AM
Jolly
Jan 17 2011, 07:46 AM
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.
Just out of curiosity: Why do you consider the Waffen SS to be one of the best frontline units?
Training, spirit and effectiveness in battle. Not the early SS, but units which were fighting in the 1943-1945 era.

A lot of Germans don't even know that those units were not majority German. They were a lot of Poles, Romanians, French, Hungarians and even Russians. There was even a muslim unit.

The training was particularly brutal, but it produced effective soldiers. SS units were known to fight on, as the regular Wehrmacht would be in retreat.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Years ago I knew a guy from Latvia who had been in th SS.
"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
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Jolly
Jan 17 2011, 12:31 PM
SS units were known to fight on, as the regular Wehrmacht would be in retreat.
They'd fight on until they were all dead, to be precise, because those were the kind of orders Der Fuhrer liked to give. They were morons, in other words.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
100 years ago, women were considered unsuitable for many jobs where it is nowadays taken for granted that they do just as well as men. The arguments Larry brought forth are more or less the same that were also discussed when mixed-gender schools were introduced.

I for one predict that women will regularly serve in the front lines in all but a few extremist Islamic countries within the next decades.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Jan 17 2011, 12:50 PM
Jolly
Jan 17 2011, 12:31 PM
SS units were known to fight on, as the regular Wehrmacht would be in retreat.
They'd fight on until they were all dead, to be precise, because those were the kind of orders Der Fuhrer liked to give. They were morons, in other words.
That's what I wanted to say as well.

If this is their main merit then I wouldn't consider them particularly effective.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The other great thing they'd do is kill and torture people they'd beaten in battle, and murder civilians and the like.

Not exactly the role model we want for a modern army, unless of course 'effectiveness' is the be all and end all.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

My quick 2 cents on Kenny's original question - regardless of my opinion about inherent male responsibilities regarding providing and protecting.....when it comes to the military my thoughts are:

1) Let military leaders and experts decide what it optimal
2) There should be a single standard that one must meet (physical abilities, tactile skills, etc) in order to serve on the front lines, regardless of gender.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Having said that, pound-for-pound I reckon the Romans were probably more effective. They were a bunch of murderous blood-thirsty bastards too.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Jan 17 2011, 06:32 AM
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.

I'll give you that; I've not fought in a war.

What I do know is that the female role in society has changed, upbringing has changed, education has changed, and attitudes have changed. At least for some of us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Klaus
Jan 17 2011, 12:55 PM
100 years ago, women were considered unsuitable for many jobs where it is nowadays taken for granted that they do just as well as men. The arguments Larry brought forth are more or less the same that were also discussed when mixed-gender schools were introduced.

I for one predict that women will regularly serve in the front lines in all but a few extremist Islamic countries within the next decades.
Why didn't you just go ahead and call me a neanderthal..... hahahaha


There is a difference between oppressive sex based ignorance and human nature as to the way men and women relate. I'm sure that eventually, politically correct bullsh!t like that that seems to drive your thought processes on the matter will eventually put women in harm's way just so everyone can sit back and feel superior and "progressive"......

but you will be fielding a battlefield with an army of sissies, and the extremist muslim countries who aren't hampered by this psychological dysfunction will destroy them.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
D'Oh:
They were morons, in other words.


No, they were not. My Dad (Estonian) could speak 7 languages, he was conscripted into the SS (join, or be shot) and was to be a translator for Russian and English. While training in the Alps, he caught a ski under a guy in front of him that fell, and broke his leg. While in the hospital, a young Estonian gal heard there was an Esto, she visited him, they fell in love. . . my eventual parents. All of the men in his platoon were killed in the war, it was only because he broke his leg that he survived. When they eventually made it to the U.S., it was quite literally with the clothes on their backs. Matter of fact, I still have a picture of them, published in the local newspaper in 1949. My mom was wearing a coat she had made out of an army blanket. My Dad went on to be a Latin teacher at a private college, plus they later started their own successful business.

Morons? It's lost a bit in translation, but, "sweep under your own porch first."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Even with today's technology isn't an army potentially twice as large a significant tactical advantage?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jan 17 2011, 01:28 PM
Why didn't you just go ahead and call me a neanderthal.....
Maybe because you're not that handsome. :lol2: :leaving:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The ancient Briton women used to fight, and I don't believe they were complete sissies. I suspect in a fist fight they'd have been able to take out most of the people here. They nearly beat the Romans, who cheated by using sophisticated weaponry and also Latin charm. The Britons were so busy laughing at their ludicrous medallions and leather skirts that they were taken advantage of.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
kenny
Jan 17 2011, 01:34 PM
Larry
Jan 17 2011, 01:28 PM
Why didn't you just go ahead and call me a neanderthal.....
Maybe because you're not that handsome. :lol2: :leaving:
Never said I was.....

but don't base it on one bad picture..... ;)
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply