Debate:Women in the Military?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
Conservlogo.png

Contents

No

It is estimated that it takes eight people in supply to keep one man out in combat. Also, there are some jobs that by their nature are better suited to the female's mind, such as Air Traffic Controlman. I suppose it's pretty obvious where I come down on this issue. Navy Nuke 20:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to see some support for that fairly sweeping generalization. I know some gents who do a bang-up job of being ATCs, and likewise some ladies who are as gung-ho crazy combat types as would make any drill sergeant's heart swell with pride - probably after cussing them out for being filthy little maggots, etc. Niwrad 03:34, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see where you are going with this. Are you for women in the military doing jobs that they are already doing? or is there something more? Please be more specific. Thanks --Goose 13:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm sure the fifty+ female soldiers who have died in Iraq and the thousands others who serve will be glad to hear how unsuited they are for combat. Czolgolz 13:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Women should not be in combat or combat support, where there at risk of being captured or killed by the enemy. Male soldiers will, by nature, want to rescue them from danger, even at the cost of neglected strategically more important missions.
  • We can try to train this protective masculine nature out of men, but it can only backfire. Israel and one European country tried using Women to fight, but it didn't work. --Ed Poor 22:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I used to work for the Isreali army, and I would not like to fight against those female soldiers? Czolgolz 13:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
We don't have that problem in Canada; we allow our women in front-line combat roles. It is very likely that the Canadian Forces simply has superior training. --TrueGrit 22:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Does anyone remember the phenomenon of the 9-11 mom, who was the Dodge Caravan driving soccer mom on September 10, but turned into a war monger after the events of the following day? She put the Pubs back in control of the Senate in 2002 after that Jeffords nonsense, and started signing up in droves to trade in her purple SUV for an olive-green HMMWV. Woe to the intruder who discounts the she-bear and molests her cubs. Teresita 10:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'm not a sociologist or a feminist or an anti-feminist, so none of what I say comes from being bigoted or from any discriminatory agenda. I was Marine Corps infantry (all male) for two combat deployments and "support"(mixed gender, no direct combat) for a surprise of a third deployment. I would have to say across the board that women should not be allowed in direct combat roles like 03, 08, etc. When I was in the Pogg unit I couldn't believe how what percentage of women were sitting out of training ops on crutches, etc. In line units, probably 15% of us (males) got injured in some way shape or form during pre-deployment workups. I'd say out of about 250 Marines, 6 got injured to the point where they were considered non-deployable. Everyone else sucked it up and went anyway. Back in the support unit where the training was considerably (laughably) easier, twenty percent of the females were injured. These injuries were mostly due to stress fractures and heat injuries (caused by women not drinking enough water because they were too embarrassed to urinate). Another 50% (that makes 70% of our total) made themselves non-deployable by either getting pregnant or complaining of migraines or some other ailment. Now I will allow that there is a percentage of women on the high end of the scale who surpass some of the men even at the middle in physical training. But on the average, the top quintile of females in the military are even with the bottom quintile of males as far as physical training is concerned. I'm not against women of any fitness level being in any support unit, but that's not for me. Some people can do it, but I can't. The macho mentality which I think is so necessary to create the aggression and violence of action could be held by some women in infantry roles, but it would diminish that mentality in many of the males, whether that's right or wrong. Male infantrymen are not, for the most part, enlightened social engineers. Their agenda is fighting and killing and taking care of each other. In the support unit I was surprised and disgusted at how much of my time was spent trying to stop people from sleeping with each other in a combat zone. Male-female bonds were causing stress, resentment of leadership, favoritism, and fights between the males and sometimes even the females. Sex in combat zones is strictly forbidden (even if your spouse is there) because it diminishes cohesion. But the command always turned a blind eye because it was a messy issue and no one wanted to "get involved." And that's in the units that I think can be mixed gender and succeed. I couldn't even imagine what would happen in a line unit where cohesion is perhaps the most important thing a unit can possess.

Speaking as a female, I would have to day no. I completely believe that there is a small percentage of women out there who are "tough enough" to do the job admirably, I have met some. That being said however, look at the case of the current hostile situation, the people we are up against tend to be extremists concerning about what a woman's role is. If a male is captured they will tortured certainly for a time, and probably killed. The type of torture used however, and the time kept alive to continue that torture would be far worse on any female. That, of coarse, is a worse case idea, but any woman one frontline would be aware of it, as well as her male counter parts. It has been seen in many cases now that the guys will go out of their way to keep a female from that sort of harm. Women might as well paint targets on themselves, because this currant enmy is particularly against women in what they deem as a "mans" place. If you are fighting a sexist enemy, then it makes no difference if everybody on our side sees Her as just "one of the guy's" I suppose you could make the argument that women should be able to choose for themselves whether they are up to that challenge, and so long as they can hang with the guys, they should be allowed but personally I believe the "super women" (I say that respectfully, for I count some as my friends) should hang back to help protect the badly need support positions and give the whole issue a rest.

Yes

(YES) If Deborah and Jael could fight for Israel and win God's favor then I'm all for any woman willing to serve her country to be allowed to do so without resistance or unnecessary sexism, provided she is physically able to serve. --Daniel B. Douglas 03:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Reply: Actually... Jael certainly did not fight for israel and I don't get the impression that Deborah did either. (it is't quite clear: she accompanied Barak to Kedesh but seemingly did not follow him to the battle) At any rate, Jael killed Sisera while he slept in her tent-- not exactly fighting. --BenjaminS 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm female myself, and I have just this side of nothing bad to say about my experiences in the Navy. It's rather difficult to find information about how many people are in a given Military Occupation Specialty (MOS); even for the sake of argument saying that every MOS has the same number of people would skew the numbers wildly. However, most MOSes are in support of one kind or another; I've counted 12 out of easily 100+ MOSes for the US Army (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjobs/a/arjobs.htm) that are closed to women -- that is to say, these are the jobs that if you're deployed, you'll almost certainly see some kind of action. I'm personally not for seeing women in combat situations, not because I don't think they can do it, but because there's quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that male service members are reluctant to both pull the trigger on a woman or leave a wounded woman behind. I would not want a mission compromised because the men felt more obligated to save a woman than to complete the mission. I feel I've babbled enough for now. Navy Nuke 17:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes: One of the objections is that women don't have the upper body strength to lug an overloaded pack into combat. Well, this is the 21st Century, and no one should be lugging the kinds of packs they've made them lug around since World War One. Someone's got to lay that misguided tradition to rest. We've got Stryker brigades and uparmored humvees, you live in your vehicle and get out now and then to lay some hurt on the enemy. And you get women ready for that part by making the same physical test requirements for both genders. Same kind of pushups, same time on the 2.5 miles. Any woman who can't do what a man does, physically, washes out. Teresita 23:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why not. Every person has the right to do what he/she feels. If a women wants to join the military beside the men, they should.

Women should be in. No straight guy would ever shoot a real hot chick across the battlefield, providing attractive female combatants with a sort of impenetrable armor. --SashaT 17:06, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

All im gonna say is my sister can beat the crap out of most men and has lugged my ass out of the woods flowing a hiking injury, some women shouldnt be in combat just as some men shouldnt -craig101


man i know several chicks who can run faster longer they're stronger and good shots so yeah they should be in the military.(Gosweden)

yes. I believe that women fighting on the front lines would be just as capable as their male counterparts. Granted, there are differences between genders, but a vetting process can easily be established to ensure that only the fittest candidates join in.--CamilleT 10:18, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Why in the world shouldn't they be able to join the military? The sweeping generalizations made by gender stereotypes shouldn't limit anyone.RaymondZ 11:47, 28 December 2012 (EST)

I don't care, but...

Sorry to be quoting from a suspect source, but this part of their article is actually referencing a Department of Defense report (and I'm too lazy to go straight to the source):

A 2003 report financed by the Department of Defense revealed that nearly one-third of a nationwide sample of female veterans seeking health care through the V.A. said they experienced rape or attempted rape during their service. Of that group, 37 percent said they were raped multiple times, and 14 percent reported they were gang-raped. Perhaps even more tellingly, a small study financed by the V.A. following the gulf war suggests that rates of both sexual harassment and assault rise during wartime. The researchers who carried out this study also looked at the prevalence of PTSD symptoms - including flashbacks, nightmares, emotional numbing and round-the-clock anxiety - and found that women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18cover.html?pagewanted=5&ei=5087%0A&em&en=dc68bc2f1dbc9825&ex=1174449600

A woman could end up a in a unit where everyone's a gentleman and they look after her, or they could have experiences like those described in the article. I wouldn't make any blanket statements that women aren't suited for military jobs, there's always exceptions (I've got a friend who's bigger and stronger than most men and she could handily beat up most anyone. Although she's a lesbian so I guess don't ask don't tell would apply), but I think in most cases people are better off steering clear of serving. You've got to be a really tough, dedicated person to be in there. Barnetto 12:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"women who endured sexual assault were more likely to develop PTSD than those who were exposed to combat" Well, duh. Rape is a personal assault; it's one-on-one, or many-on-one, it singles the victim out. Combat, for all its horrors, is usually fairly impersonal and doesn't single out individuals (I'm leaving out snipers etc., who do go looking for individual targets, but even then it's because their targets are enemy combatants, not as an exercise in power over another person). As for what kind of unit a woman could end up in, how about we expect the members of the unit, regardless of their sex, to act like adult human beings and respect the other personnel of their unit as fellow members of the profession of arms? And further, how about we expect and require the chain of command to take prompt action against those who view women in uniform as a source of free sex or second-class citizen to be intimidated, instead of what all too often happens — the grin, the chuckle, the snide remarks in the mess, the speculation about her sexual preferences, proclivities and prowess; the complaint (if one is lodged) being quietly round-filed? Servicewomen don't want and shouldn't have to be 'looked after', other than the way in which any member of a unit watches out for other members. They do want, and deserve, to be treated with the same respect for their rank, experience and person as servicemen. Niwrad 22:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, how much is 37% of 1/3? Around 12% I reckon. But that's only of those seeking VA help - not a representative group. I hate this kind of cherry-picking of statistics.

On the other hand, fighting men are a surly lot, and I would not be surprised if military rape rates were significantly higher than civilian rates.

A more professionl article (not a sensationalist news story) cited different statistics:

  • researchers found that 79 percent of participants reported experiences of sexual harassment during their military service; 30 percent of the women reported an attempted or completed rape. Iowa University

The odd thing is that I think it's the same study! --Ed Poor 22:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Lets just remember Joan of Arc. Yeah, women should be in the military and we need to stop being so sexist.FDRismyhero 7:03, 31 June 2007


To tell you the truth I don't care who is in the military as long as they get the job done. But if they can't, man or woman, they should not be there.

Fact is women are in the military. They just aren't specifically put in positions where they might see offensive combat. However, without front lines and with terrorists hitting support troops (supply, medical), women are in units more likely to be attacked. I've served with many of them and I've never seen a task they could not accomplish. My opinion is about the draft (selective service) If women are going to be in the military (and even run for president) they should be registered for the draft just like every man between 18 and 45. We haven't used it in 40 years and I'd guess 60% of all 18 year old males would be 'unfit' if we did, but women should be registered just like men. It'll never happen though because theres no political benefit to it.--Mitrebox 19:33, 26 January 2008 (EST)

What about a middle opionion

Good points were made about women not serving in the military, but what about firstly, women-only units? That would solve the unit cohesion difficulties, and a lot of the other ones. And also, what about selective placement? For practical reasons I disagree with both women and Muslims serving on the very front line (as in face-to-face interaction with the enemy) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Woman because of the greater danger to them if they are captured, and because men will naturally take greater risks in those circumstances. And Muslims because if they show signs of being Muslim to the enemy, then the enemy will most likely think they are being mocked, and this could endanger the mission. Also, I don't think anyone would take kindly to enemy Muslims trying to convert American Muslim soldiers to the cause. There would be no problems with them serving in: any support unit, the Navy, the Air Force, or the other engagements the US is involved in (ie. the troops in South Korea, or one of the small-scale engagements that the US has troops either for fighting or advising the military). Any thoughts? - JamesCA, 25th May 2011

Personal tools