Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Taricus]

Either segregation or lying...

[Tellemurius]

Theres no answer to everything anymore >_>

Its always going to be a grey area, hell the russians were able to pull it off but then they were behind a reason at least.

[Leafsnail]

It might be a good first step, though.  It could help demonstrate that women are capable of serving the army, which would hopefully lead to a change in attitudes.

[freeformschooler]

And that's able to be sorted out by separated platoons.
Thats segregation.

Segregation much like how we have separate bathrooms for men and women? And women's jewelry and men's jewelry, and so on?
Correct me if I'm missing something because I really hope I am.

[Vector]

It might be a good first step, though.  It could help demonstrate that women are capable of serving the army, which would hopefully lead to a change in attitudes.

This theoretically already happened during WWII, though...

[Urist is dead tome]

Yeah that... ok if your army cannot enforce a "no rape" policy on his female element, don't send it abroad. You will have trouble with the population. Think of ... every last american operation that had regular troops on the ground.
Maybe it's a media thing, but I'm under the impression that of all nato army, the American is the one with the most rape problems.
Maybe introducing women in the military may solve it (in the long term).

This isn't a thread to talk about your anti-American agenda.

And that's able to be sorted out by separated platoons.
Thats segregation.

But in this case, would segregation be detrimental?

[hamburgerfan]

I suppose I don't have any significant objections to women in the military, with the condition that they meet the the same physical standards as men. This will mean that fewer women will get to join, but I do not care. A soldier should be a soldier, and all should be able to meet the minimum requirements.

To those who are claiming for some reason that women are physically just as strong as men, this is just plain untrue. Men are stronger on average and have a much greater capacity for strength.

To those who are claiming that strength is unimportant to a modern soldier, I present the following articles, written by members of the military.

http://startingstrength.com/articles/combat_worst_case_whittemore.pdf
http://startingstrength.com/articles/army_weak_long.pdf

[Nikov]

To me, if anyone got shot, and they were still alive, I would try to save them.. Be it man or woman.

And then the sniper gets you. And if I were a snake-eating pants-shitter, I'd target the women in the enemy unit, preferably in the legs, while they were crossing an open area.

Then you would be silly.  You target the officers, NCO's, radio holders, map holders, or the enemies with pistols if nothing else.  The ones that know the plans and give the orders.  Most women who can meet the physical requirements for infantry work aren't going to look very feminine in full battle dress and light ballistic armor with the stress of battle movements written across their faces.  Sure, you might get lucky and ID a couple, but in the meantime the other 25 members of that platoon (with their NCOs and officers intact) are going to be eating your position for lunch.

G.I. Janet is still bleeding out in the street and the LiveLeak video is starting to fly around network news. And don't suggest a sniper can't spot the woman in a squad. They can tell if you shaved that morning.

Women will be singled out by an OPFOR for death or mistreatment simply because of their gender. It makes little sense to send some infantrymen into combat in camoflague and others wearing "shoot, abuse and torture me" signs. While the risks accepted by all-male infantry units are fairly even across the board (officers or operators of particularly hated weapons are mistreated in some conflicts), as the enemy is not always so civil and respectful towards women, there needs to be a better reason than simple gender politics to justify their extraordinary endangerment. Shortages of military-aged males for service prompted both Germany and the USSR to put women into air defense roles, and Soviet female pilots (romanticised and propagandized in their effectiveness) flew night-time harassment bombing. But neither country, even with men as old as 60 taking up arms, put women into integrated front line infantry units. The Soviets attempted all-female units and found them a disaster, the Germans were too busy trying to evacuate their civilians west of the rapine-happy Red Army to consider it. And if the two most totalitarian societies locked in the most total war in history did not suppose they had enough of a reason to integrate women into the infantry, what reason do we have?

[nenjin]

So men are free to sign away their lives to the military, but the precious fragile females, they aren't free to make the choice to put their lives at extraordinary risk, for their countries?

That reeks of benevolent sexism. Any woman considering signing up for infantry combat has enough presence of mind to realize what happens to women in combat zones. That's a choice she should be free to make, at the very least. If you want to debate what happens in draft conditions, feel free. But like most things, even allowing women to make the choice for themselves, instead of having some thick-necked dude tell her what's whats for her own good, is the whole damn point of gender equality.

[Taricus]

Balaclavas to hide any facial features that might give a soldier away.

And using Totalitarian regimes as an example isn't going to be effective. They just do what they want.

[Urist is dead tome]

So men are free to sign away their lives to the military, but the precious fragile females, they aren't free to make the choice to put their lives at extraordinary risk, for their countries?

That reeks of benevolent sexism.

They can fight better. Its a better decision not sexism.

[Ochita]

So men are free to sign away their lives to the military, but the precious fragile females, they aren't free to make the choice to put their lives at extraordinary risk, for their countries?

That reeks of benevolent sexism.

They can fight better. Its a better decision not sexism.

I think shooting a gun isn't something that men are always better at.

[nenjin]

They can fight better. Its a better decision not sexism.

Sort of like how all people's debating skills aren't born equal, yet they all get to post.

[Ochita]

They can fight better. Its a better decision not sexism.

[CITATION NEEDED]

[Urist is dead tome]

So men are free to sign away their lives to the military, but the precious fragile females, they aren't free to make the choice to put their lives at extraordinary risk, for their countries?

That reeks of benevolent sexism.

They can fight better. Its a better decision not sexism.

I think shooting a gun isn't something that men are always better at.

You have an unrealistic view on modern warfare, my lad.