Equal Rights? - TravelPUNK Backpacker College Student Budget Travel Message Boards!

**TimmyJames1976** · 05-19-2005, 12:23 PM

No Women in Direct Combat

No matter what side of the fence you are on, this is still pretty Dark Ages.

**agriadam** · 05-19-2005, 12:44 PM

HA! and did this shatter you warped perspective on reality? Equal right is bogus anyway. I'm done...

**voyd** · 05-19-2005, 01:00 PM

I'm sure N.O.W. has been battling this issue for ages now...right? C'mon ladies, stand UP for your right to serve as cannon fodder! This ban is an insult to your collective womanhood! B)

**Joker** · 05-19-2005, 01:13 PM

I try to refrain discussing politics here as its not the general theme of the boards, but I'll take a stab at this one.

Much of the reason why women are not in ground-combat roles is physical.

Its very difficult for a very strong 190 lb male (me) to carry another 190 lb person should the other become injured in a battlefield scenario. I drilled this regularly in a past life. If those of you are familiar with the "Fireman's Carry," you understand what I'm talking about. I have a hard time believing that a 125lb female could drag my dead ass out of the line of fire... Sure, there are ladies out there that are capable, but by and large, not the majority. I don't think I'd want to find out the hard way.

Now, the mental/social aspect:

The only reason why this country went nuts after Jessica Lynch was captured was not because of the botched convoy attack (it was. I have the details. If the LtCol that was leading it had lived, he'd have been strung upside down from Leavenworth's walls.) It wasn't because it was early in the action in Iraq. It wasn't because it was an ambush. It was because a teenaged girl from West Virginia was captured. The worst possible thoughts ran across the minds of the country. Forget the fact that men and women died in the ambush, there was a young girl captured! Anyone else know the names of the other captured or KIA's from that? Hardly.

This country is not emotionally, mentally, or socially mature enough to face our female population becoming statistics of a war. They are not capable of dealing with their sisters, moms, wives, or girlfriends being captured, and God-forbid raped or tortured.

This country does not have the wherewithall to handle those sort of dire consequences.

I'm not saying that women in general are not physically or mentally up to the job. There are plenty of women I'd go to hell with and back. But in general, this country can't handle the worst case scenario.

Flame on, folks.

**Tadpole** · 05-19-2005, 05:05 PM

I agree with Joker.

If women and men fought side by side then even more emotions will hinder combat. If a girl that I have become close with is under heavy fire, then im not going to wait for back up. I'm going full force to keep my "girlfreind" from being lit up. Where as if my best buddy is under fire, Im going to try everything to help him, but by logical means. We all know we do unlogical things for the sake of our girlfriends, I can't imagine what I would do if some bastard was trying to kill her.

**Joker** · 05-19-2005, 05:29 PM

Apparently chivalry isn't dead, Tadpole. Ladies, flock to him before us older assholes corrupt him! :D

<--- decent wingman. :D

**agriadam** · 05-19-2005, 07:12 PM

a buddy of mine just got back from korea, he is in the milatary, and he said that he saw a group of the opposition marching and all the women where in the front. so my buddy asks "they let the women fight in front? his commanding officer replys "no....mine fields"

**space virgin** · 05-19-2005, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by agriadam@May 20 2005, 02:11 AM
so my buddy asks "they let the women fight in front?* his commanding officer replys "no....mine fields"

Why doesn't THAT surprise me either?

**juliagulia** · 05-20-2005, 07:11 PM

I did a research paper on this last year... or... started to. After I started to fo research, I decided to drop it because my focus was that women SHOULD be allowed to fight, but what I found was too hard for me to fight against.

The hardest thing to argue against was that women are much more susceptible to kidnapping/tortrue etc. If the enemy had the chance to take ONE hostage, and they could get either a man or a woman, theyd take the woman. Unfortunately, women ARE physcially weaker and like some other TPunkers were saying, the country would be shocked to see women POWs. Also, the torture that the women would endure would surpass the torture men would. Basically, the women would most likely be raped, which would be shocking to the country(ies) the female POWs belong to.

So yeah, it is sad that women are "discriminated'' and not allowed to fight hand to hand combat, but its for their safety, the sanity of the people (and in Tadpole's scenario) the effectiveness of the male soldiers.

...

I must add this... STARS WARS ROCKED!!

**worldwidemike** · 05-23-2005, 03:29 AM

Personally, I feel the ONLY reason women aren't "allowed" in combat roles (which is a crock, as any of our female soldiers which have had bullets zinging by their ears in Iraq can tell you), is 100% cultural. This country's Judeo-Christian background is very patricarchal and it doesn't fit with the society's values to have women do the fighting. They do and could.

In the 19th Century, an African kingdom recruited woman warriors as a kind of royal bodyguard. See this review
In Ancient times, certain Scythian tribes had female warriors, and it is thought that is where Greek mythology got its Amazons. Some historians think women in those tribes weren't allowed to marry until they had killed an enemy in battle. See this on Scythians
And on the temple carvings of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, it shows that female warriors provided a sort of Maiden Guard. It is thought this happened in Ancient India, too.

So, there is plenty of historical precedent -- especially among other cultures -- of female soldiers.

As for not being able to carry a fellow, injured soldier out of the line of fire, I'm sure adrenaline and physical training would take care of that!

worldwidemike

**LiveFreeorDie** · 05-23-2005, 09:33 AM

It would be interesting to hear from more women on this, since they, in theory, are the ones who would have to actually do it. That said......

As far as the physical aspect goes, I would wager there are plenty of women out there who would be stronger than some of the men currently serving. I do not see strength as an issue generally, as long as there is some reasonable strength hurdle that new recruits (male and female) must achieve. I would imagine there would be plenty of women who could meet that hurdle.

I agree with WWM's comments about us having what amounts to a cultural aversion to women serving as soldiers. While the prospect of rape is very ugly, is it that much worse than other forms of extreme torture? I do not know the answer to that, but the bottom line is, whoever is on the front lines faces a real possibility/liklihood of facing horrors which will stay with you for life....regardless of sex. How people deal with that is very individualized, but to me its not a male/female thing.

How well would men and women function together in a combat unit? Would you segregate and have units be only one sex? I don't know the answer to that either, but ultimately, banning women from front line units looks like a political stunt to appease the religious right who would just as soon see women back in the housewife role. (Sorry if that is a shallow generalization....but it is at least partially true

) I do not see any truly valid reason for it.

**elfmaiden** · 05-23-2005, 09:55 AM

I'm definitely with WWM. Although I am against war in general so it's kinda pointless for me to argue equal rights in such a horrible subject.

However, I will point out you can rape a man, just as you can a woman. Believe me, there ain't just guy on girl sex out there! We all have very similar bodies and feelings and it's generally only our cultural beliefs which form how we view what men and woman should and should not do.

Maybe woman are thought of as weaker simply because we're told that all of our lives. Society believes it...so it must be true? Bleh.

Jenn

**voyd** · 05-23-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by juliagulia@May 20 2005, 08:10 PM
I did a research paper on this last year... or... started to. After I started to fo research, I decided to drop it because my focus was that women SHOULD be allowed to fight, but what I found was too hard for me to fight against.

Wouldn't that be all the MORE reason to submit it though - it'd be worth sharing something you actually learned and changed your own mind about?

As far as physical performance, men are generally fitter than women - hence sports are not co-ed. And women have lower PT standards to pass in the military than men. So, there is a measurable statistical gender gap - but it is also definitely reinforced with s3xist prejudice. From a purely qualification POV - I think they should just equalize the testing and let whoever passes get in. And greater technology is a great equalizer, anyways.

However, the other social/biological factors mentioned would also make women combatants inherently a higher liability - monthly period, potential for pregnancy, rape, etc. I know several military men who claimed they often had to pull a female soldier's weight because she couldn't hack it all herself. Most of this was due to her lack of strength to lift/carry heavy objects or protecting her in certain situations (not being left alone where she could get raped, or whatever). So, to say it's ALL cultural bias is naive and unrealistic, IMO. Fact is, Nature is also s3xist - as it created the different genders differently with role specialization for us to better survive as a whole species.

Well, maybe lilwings could give us her perspective on all this - where the h3ll is she? Out kickin' @ss somewhere in Iraq?

**omisan** · 05-23-2005, 10:33 AM

I feel anyone, male or female, lacking the mental wherewithal to actually want to become cannon fodder for someone else's cause(s) should have 100% of the rights and privileges of doing so...

But I honestly thought the "fairer" sex was smarter than that.

**elfmaiden** · 05-23-2005, 10:57 AM

Although I don't agree on all your points Omi, that last part rings too true for me!! Is why even though I feel hardcore about the issue, anyone who WANTS too that bad, should be perfectly allowed too. :D

Mebbe they don't want to be seen as having to resort to women as soldiers or some other masculine ideas. Although what country wouldn't fear an all female amphibious assault squad. MWHAHAHA. *Ahem*

Jenn

**juliagulia** · 05-23-2005, 01:10 PM

i think they should just have a standard test that men/women would take, and if they pass, they get in. who does best goes in front. so long as the woman KNOWS that she has to work that much harder to be equal to the physically stronger men and that shes more susceptible to kidnap/torture.

with those options, i think few women would actually choose to do so... unless they are extremely hardcore...

(we should have a female version...)

**Joker** · 05-23-2005, 05:04 PM

Juliagulia-

The USMC has two entirely different fitness tests for males and females (called a PFT.)

Female PFT:

Flex Arm Hang- this is to be started at full up over a bar (chin/pull-up bar), and the female must keep her arms from locking out at the elbows or the test is over. It is timed, maximum score is given for a 70-second hang.

Crunches- Marine Corp Crunches are performed with the legs bent at the knees, Marine laying with her back flat on the deck, and the ass all the way up (calves are touching thighs.). Arms are crossed over the chest, and you hold your biceps firmly. One full crunch is when you go up, touch your elbows flat to your quadriceps, and come back down, flat to the deck again. Max score is 100 crunches in 2 minutes.

3-Mile run- max score is 21 minutes flat or less.

Male PFT:

Dead hangs. These are tougher than you think. Hang from the bar, with your feet off the deck (bent behind you), and pull yourself up without kicking or jumping, all the way over. Up all the way and down is one full pull-up. Max points are 20. Minimum to get points is three, but that earns a 3rd class PFT, and that ain't a good thing. Most Marines aren't happy unless they are hitting 10.

Crunches- same deal, 2 minutes, 100 crunches is max.

3- mile run- 18 minutes to max.

Now, the glaring differences- i know female Marines right out of boot camp that couldn't complete one full pull-up, but could do a 70 sec. FAH w/o trying. Uses similar muscles, yes, but understand that doing 1 dead hang ain't easy, let alone 20. Are there females that can do 20 pullups? Sure. But the majority, not likely.

Taking that 3 minutes off of the 3-mile is pretty drastic as well. That is the difference between life and death. (Doubtful you're running 3 miles under fire, but that extra sprinting power is important!!)

This is the Corps' requirement. Just food for thought for sake of comparisons.

And frankly, I think if any male or female wants to serve, God Bless 'Em, and give them a shot. But reality is that women in infantry billets for the forseeable future in this country isn't likely.

I would suggest this:

Keep 30 battalions of women (300-1000 soldiers) in each of their own barracks, seqestered from each other (Batt 1, 2, 3, etc have no interaction). In short time, their periods will sync, and you will always have at least 2-3 battalions PMS'ing. No man in any army no matter how crazy they are would wanna fight a woman "on the rag!" We'd never lose! :D

**simply_angelic** · 05-23-2005, 06:09 PM

Quote:

If women and men fought side by side then even more emotions will hinder combat. If a girl that I have become close with is under heavy fire, then im not going to wait for back up. I'm going full force to keep my \"girlfreind\" from being lit up. Where as if my best buddy is under fire, Im going to try everything to help him, but by logical means. We all know we do unlogical things for the sake of our girlfriends, I can't imagine what I would do if some bastard was trying to kill her.

Ok, I'm not really sure how you're referring to the term girlfriend based on the parenthesis you put on it the first time & then not the second.

If you are referring to the girls as your friends who are girls, then i really don't believe that this will become an issue. I mean there won't only be ONE girl posted with you. Chances are, you'll meet tons of girls and become friends with plenty of them. Now maybe you'd want to risk your life for a "special" one, but chances are you're not going to be jumping over boulders to protect the say, 25 friends you make who happen to be girls and then "logically" protect your BEST BUDDY (which, by the way I honestly dont believe... you couldn't let your best buddy hang while you rushed after just any old girl. otherwise you really mustn't be that good friends after all....)

If you were referring to the girl as a girl whom you've become sexually attracted to and are possibly seeing.....first off, chance are you probably won't be positioned by her anyways so you won't even get to see her when she gets into some sort of deep shit. Secondly, even if you did happen to get positioned close to her, then you would definitely not be rushing off to protect her every five seconds. Mainly because you have other things to do, and I would bet good money that she would not LET you. I mean a woman does not enter the marines to watch men do all the dirty work for them. That is just not the mentality that we have. Also, any major incident that might occur such as her becoming a hostage etc, would be so rare that truly, I don't even believe that it would inflict in the fighting abilities of the men that much at all, and chances are that if something that severe happened to one of their really good friends and they actually had the opportunity to do something, those guys would jump out & risk their butts for them too. It's just a load of shit saying that they wouldn't.
Besides, saying that fighting would get too emotional could work both ways.....why don;t you JUST have the women fighting? Same thing.....

Quote:

However, the other social/biological factors mentioned would also make women combatants inherently a higher liability - monthly period, potential for pregnancy, rape, etc

I really dont think that a woman getting her period really is that much of a "liability" unless she's really that severe in the cramping, etc. (in which case she shouldn't be admitted into the forces in the first place as it could be treated as a diability). But I mean women can get on with our lives and do a sh8t load of stuff with em' now. Being in the battlefield wouldn't really change things much, if anything it would make it better b/c being active is a good way to relieve the pain. Also, if it really is that bad, just take an advil or two and you're good to go. I mean I really don't see how much of a difference it would make. As for pregnancy, that's simple if she get's pregnant, she off....DUH and rape......well i think LFod already covered that one....

As for the standardized testing, I do agree. Women should be made to do the same things as the men and either they can hack it or they cant. Wow joker that 70 second thing is a load o crack! That's like the easiest thing in the world!! I don't even work out (well....i suppose horseback riding must count for something....) and I can do 7 dead hangs....

**kingcrazylegs** · 05-23-2005, 09:52 PM

Hell, I sure as hell wouldn't want to do it! I'll pass on the privileges of doing so to a woman any day.

**worldwidemike** · 05-24-2005, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by voyd@May 23 2005, 05:27 PM
As far as physical performance, men are generally fitter than women - hence sports are not co-ed...

So, to say it's ALL cultural bias is naive and unrealistic, IMO.* Fact is, Nature is also s3xist - as it created the different genders differently with role specialization for us to better survive as a whole species.

I don't know about that...every race I've ever run there are shitloads of women ahead of me. I'm not arguing that your average woman is always physically 100% equal in strength to the average man. But I do say, that in modern combat, a woman is p-l-e-n-t-y strong to get the job done.

And as for PT Tests...well...don't you think there's a chance that there might be different scales to protect the egos of certain hidebound old marines/GIs that don't WANT the women to be on the same scale (because they might be beaten by them)? No danger of that if you use different standards...

I still stand by the cultural thing. Ancient and even more modern history gives us examples of women being warriors. It's pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy when you say (as a society) that women can't handle being warriors then don't give them the same opportunities to learn.

I agree, though, Voyd: Let's hear from Lil' Wings!

worldwidemike