| 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: |
| Should US women serve on front lines? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 15 2011, 11:27 PM (1,564 Views) | |
| John D'Oh | Jan 17 2011, 08:27 AM Post #51 |
|
MAMIL
|
Maybe if they'd had some women at the front they'd have won. 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? | |
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Jan 17 2011, 08:41 AM Post #52 |
![]()
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Jan 17 2011, 08:50 AM Post #53 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Just out of curiosity: Why do you consider the Waffen SS to be one of the best frontline units? |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 17 2011, 10:37 AM Post #54 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
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? Yes, I think so. But God forbid any of us are subject to such testing. 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? 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. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jan 17 2011, 10:54 AM Post #55 |
![]()
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 | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jan 17 2011, 10:58 AM Post #56 |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jan 17 2011, 11:01 AM Post #57 |
![]()
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 | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jan 17 2011, 11:38 AM Post #58 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Yeah, set policy assuming men can't control themselves around women. That sounds familiar.
|
![]() |
|
| KlavierBauer | Jan 17 2011, 11:42 AM Post #59 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jan 17 2011, 11:42 AM Post #60 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
So does your heading into the weeds with extreme rhetoric when your views are challenged. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jan 17 2011, 12:31 PM Post #61 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | Jan 17 2011, 12:41 PM Post #62 |
![]()
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. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 17 2011, 12:50 PM Post #63 |
|
MAMIL
|
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? | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Jan 17 2011, 12:55 PM Post #64 |
![]()
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | Jan 17 2011, 12:56 PM Post #65 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 17 2011, 12:59 PM Post #66 |
|
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? | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 17 2011, 01:02 PM Post #67 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 17 2011, 01:02 PM Post #68 |
|
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? | |
![]() |
|
| sue | Jan 17 2011, 01:26 PM Post #69 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jan 17 2011, 01:28 PM Post #70 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Rainman | Jan 17 2011, 01:31 PM Post #71 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
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." |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jan 17 2011, 01:33 PM Post #72 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Even with today's technology isn't an army potentially twice as large a significant tactical advantage? |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jan 17 2011, 01:34 PM Post #73 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Maybe because you're not that handsome.
|
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jan 17 2011, 01:35 PM Post #74 |
|
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? | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Jan 17 2011, 01:37 PM Post #75 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Never said I was..... but don't base it on one bad picture.....
|
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |













10:58 AM Jul 11