I will begin by posting an article from a veteran women to express my views, which are parallel, better than I personally could.
i feel the need to preface this by saying i have never been enlisted in the military. the opinions of those that have served would be very appreciated. ill start the counterpoint that they should, provided they are capable. gender should not be an issue and any person capable of meeting or exceeding the demands combat requires should be allowed to enlist for whatever spec they please. the only possible issue i see is the "damsel in distress" drive many men seem to have to protect women, especially if they are in a vulnerable situation. however, the same type of thinking gets applied to your fellow soldier regardless of gender. unless you think men would be recklessly rushing into fire for a wounded female instead of tactically saving them like males i see no ill effect. and i would argue that trained soldiers (perhaps not greens) would be trained enough to not blindly follow emotion at all costs. at any rate, i dont think keeping women out will help change that possible mindset. i think by basing decisions on a gender and not individual ability you miss out on quality soldiers. i think that there is no reason to segregate squads based on gender either. members should be assigned based on the roles required. all that being said, i do recognize integrating troops poses the unique problem of love. while i would argue that there is going to be little practical difference between your male squadmate you consider a brother and would willingly die for without hesitation and a female squadmate you would willingly die for without hesitation and also love romantically, it is something to be considered. i think in a wartime scenario you would protect and do for each in the exact same way.
As long as they can meet the same physical requirements as the males then they should be able to serve in any combat position.
first things first, i'm a bit loaded, lol... i read "all," of the above posts. there are so many "women can't, compared to a man tasks," i can't remember them all, and i don't want to quote the posts, and address each one. so, i'll comment on some of the comments that i can remember. one of the most interesting points, is the reference to bathroom type situations. if i have to go, then i'm gonna go. i don't care if there's a man/woman/officer/priest or kangaroo present, i'm going! why is it even an issue? upper/lower body strength. definitely an issue, but even some men can't cut the mustard. these men aren't summarily rejected and sent home. there are many positions/jobs, that need to be filled, and can be completed by men or women. these tasks can very easily be in a war zone. torture!! torture is torture. the methods used don't really matter. pretty much anything that can be done to a woman, can be done to a man, in some respect. i really like the "men will try and protect women," somehow more than they would their male counterparts. i can't speak for anyone else, but i sure the hell wouldn't!! my fellow soldiers/buddies, sexual orientation wouldn't matter!!! if i could help, i would. if you're in a jam, it doesn't matter if the person can juggle watermelons through a rolling hula-hoop or not. you'll take help from a man or woman, or gay, or straight.... i've been in combat/war zones, so i'll vote yes on women being allowed in. but, i'd suggest it be voluntary, not forced like men are. this would be a major change for women in the militaries today. there would have to be pretty much "forced," major changes, in policy/training/beliefs, pertaining to military women, for actual serious changes to be made. it's still pretty much a mans world. but hell yeah, i say yes for women!!!
if it isnt too personal, what experience do you have in war zones? you can pm me if thats preferable. are the things that need to change for integration due mostly to the mindset that women are inferior (at least in the military)?
I love women a lot, but to be honest I'd much rather have a 200 pound dude dragging me out of the battlefield if I got shot
I think women and men should be able to serve equally, but there's no denying that from the perspective of most, seeing a woman get chopped away at with bullets has an entirely different weight when it comes to disturbance. When you've been raised to hold doors, not hit them, and treat them like gentlemen, it's very hard for your mind to see a woman dying on the battlefield as a "normal" thing. I don't think this means we should hold them back, I just think that until we've completely broken down the social barriers and stigma that primarily plague our cultures, it's going to be the elephant in the Humvee. In all honesty, I can't say I disagree.
I've never had a strong opinion on this either way, but the woman in that article made some really good points. Either way, I think a lot of people fail to look at the situation rationally because any "equal rights" issue gets really emotionally charged.
If a particular woman is both physically and mentally capable of "competing" with, and against military men in combat scenarios, then of course she should be allowed to. A willing soldier is a willing soldier; at the end of the day, bullets, knives and bombs do not discriminate based upon gender. Upon a field of war, fists will likely not discriminate either. Maybe they can't piss in a bottle [easily,] and I'm sure they would face other gender specific challenges, but I don't believe their commitments or beliefs or desire to be a person of action should be in any way diminished simply because of their gender. Edit: Though I would like to say (even though it's slightly off subject,) as a matter of principle, women should never be eligibile for the draft. I don't particularly like the idea of military drafting as I don't believe the unwilling would make the best soldiers, but I understand its' necessity... in any case, drafting females would just not be appropriate, unless it was done exclusively for non-combat means.
I specifically said as a combat role, front line infantry. Though I'd be completely in favor of women in an armored division. Tanks are fucking sexy.
I'll quote myself from the previous thread. You want equality without equal responsibility, standards of entry and risk. If you want to talk about quality there also needs to be equality of responsibility. When it comes down to it's just as blazedglory said, If I wouldn't want a woman try to carry me out fully geared 200+ pounds. Just like how I wouldn't want a woman busting down a door as a fire fighter with me burning inside. I'm sure there are some butch women out there up to the task however I just don't think integrating mixed gender front line grunt regiments would have anything good come out of it. And, the white male sexist pig part of me would never want to see a full female combat regiment sent to slaughter. I'm all for female fighters, just not on front line. Hell, I think they would be great in the Navy, Coast Guard and Air force, even CIA, FBI or any form of Intel. Just not infantry, sans snipers and maybe artillery and I stand by that. In time of revolution or defending your land, then yes, by all means. Anyone who picks up their gun is a patriot, however I am talking about enlisting and dying for an industrial military complex. That seems heavily contradictory of the previous last line. Equality is only desired when it's convenient, huh?
Maybe it is a contradiction, but, do you think one of the relatively small women you wouldn't want carrying you off the field of battle should have been unwillingly forced in to the military and a possible combat situation? As to the rest, I was just throwing my two cents in to the pot. Take it or leave it Edit; I suppose what I'm getting at is if the military needs (to the point of needing a draft) nurses and doctors, male or female, that's one thing. If it needs a soldier to wield a gun... thought to gender (and the physical limitations of it) must be given. Edit #2; As the very last thing I'd like to say in this thread, I'd rather have a 90 pound woman doing her best to carry me off the field of battle, than no one
Let them do what they can I'm sure there are roles they can fill better that a man can not do as well
I'm with ya there. It's some "the 300" shit versus the Persians. Free men (and, or women) against slaves. I find the idea of a military draft to be a moral injustice and in some sense just bad strategy... unfortunately, tactics often come before strategy.
I personally don't believe that women should be fully integrated into the combat roles of a male serviceman. However, if this did become the case, then I don't believe there could be any discrimination when it comes to the draft. If both now serve in the same roles, then how can you justify drafting one and not the other? Likely a non-issue, unless some shit really hits the fan and the draft is reinstated, but it's ludicrous and absolutely sexist to say you should draft men and not women if they are both eligible for the same MOSs.
Because, IF women were to be drafted, then there would still have to be 'discrimination' against them because of their physical limitations (in the form of many of them not meeting the physical standard of a male combatant,) within the military. Let's say, hypothetically, a drafted woman simply might not be physically built for combat, or even to be in a non-combat situation that may end up in combat anyway. Should she have been unwillingly forced in to that situation and then be at a physical disadvantage to males? Go ahead; Draft them. Then the military must do EVERY possible thing within their power to ensure that that woman is not killed simply because she was not stronger than a man. Also, they must ensure that she is not raped, and doesn't have to attempt to piss in a bottle infront of her [likely male] colleagues if she chooses not to. These same things apply to willingly enlisted females of course, but the importance of it would be even greater in the case of drafted women. On top of that, there's a good chance the woman will have the belief that she herself should not have been eligible for the draft, if only because they never have been (to my knowledge and I honestly don't think many would fault them for that. I've already stated, I don't like the idea of the draft. I don't believe in it. I don't think men should be drafted, let alone women. However, I really do not think this has anything to do with equality or sexism, even idealism. As a matter of tactical, strategic and practical reasoning... I just can't see how females being eligible draft cantidates is a good thing, particularly if only so they can have the same right to be slaughtered as men. Willing female soldiers? Yes. Unwilling female draftees? No. Edit; It's not about making the draft a more justified thing through equality, it's about keeping it from becoming less justified through inequality. That's just how I see it. One more edit; I vow this will be my last post in this thread. I have no desire to argue about these things which are little more than personal opinion. Even if it isn't really an argument at the moment, it will become one if I continue posting... so, good day to you all, happy toking <3 Last "I know I said I wouldn't post again but I figure another edit is ok" edit; I don't really follow basketball, but I know there's some damn fine female basketball players out there. Some of them can surely dribble circles around males. Should we shut down the WNBA and force them to compete in the NBA (and kill them if they lose?) Probably not. Is it sexist to say that? I don't think so. These are peoples' lives we're talking about here, not just an idealistic, perfectly equal world. Drafting women to forced military service is not the same thing as them burning their bra's back in the 60s.