You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 10:06:43 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: On Gender and Combat  (Read 6979 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline IgnaddioTopic starter

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #75 on: January 03, 2010, 09:43:24 PM »
It was merely an example; personally, I find the fact that if the average military women needs help opening a door as a sign that they may not be ready for the rigors of combat. And it was not just one woman; it was about ninety percent of the women that walked through that door, and all of the enlisted men and women on that ship had to (personnel laundry was through that door).

Your assertion that the modern kit is lighter is unfounded; for one, body armor is a rather recent, heavy development. But I do have a reference here:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-11970.html

Quote
Webbing will normally be a bog standard weight whatever you do. I'd go for about 20 lbs.

Your bergen will vary depending on what you do. Remember that for a deliberate attack, you will only be wearing webbing. However, all the platoon support weapons/ammo must be put into position first. That means each man must carry at least 200-300 rounds of GPMG link (15 lbs, the GPMG roughly fires a pound of rounds every second) and several 51mm mortar bombs (say another 15 lbs) to be dropped off by the gunners/mortarman. so the basic weight for getting into position for an attack would be around 50 lbs. Add to that a LAW (10 kilos or 22 lbs) and the weight of your weapon and that pushes it up higher. Also, section I/Cs, 2I/Cs and signallers have radios weighing anywhere from 5-6 lbs up to 10-15 lbs.

Now, if you're doing an 'advance to contact' from a platoon harbour, then you will most likely be carrying your bergen too. In that would be your sleeping system, basha, spare water, spare food, spare ammo, signal kit, med kit, spare clothes etc etc. Your now looking at the very least at 80-90 lbs. Bear in mind also that in combat the temptation is always to bring more ammunition. You may also have 'special to task' kit that will weigh more.

That, of course is the modern picture. Back in WW2 the loadout was much simpler. They tended just to carry bullets, grenades and water as a rifleman (plus some odds and ends and a little food in their haversack). So I wouldn't say that your average rifleman would be carrying more than 30 lbs on a normal patrol.

In short, the average WWII kit was about 30 pounds, wheras the average modern kit can weigh from 80 to ninety pounds.

Why, sir, there just so happens to be one!

Nursing. Most nurses receive government grants to take the courses required. In fact, my entire nursing education was paid for -ENTIRELY- by the government. Not becasue I'm poor, but because of... well.. there are initiatives for more nurses out there, many of which are exceedingly easy to fill the requirements.

While fewer men take interest in nursing as women, there is a small population that do want to join the nursing field.

There are also a lot of problems that come up with male nurses. The most common, I have found, is refusal of care from a male nurse. There are a lot of people out there that will refuse any and all care from male nurses. I can't even  begin to count how many extra patients i have had to take because the other nurse was a man. Thus putting extra pressure on the female nurses. Men who take an interest in work are less likely to succeed, and most leave the field within 5 years (there was a study recently published on how dissatisfied male nurses are, and such... but I couldn't find it online to save my life. I read it in RN). There is also a problem with wrongful abuse allegations against male nurses. Men are not allowed to take care of certain female patients with certain disorders, ect.

Show men be disallowed to be nurses?

Five years sounds like plenty of time to perform at a career, compared to being an infantry grunt for a single enlistment. It seems like the men involved were plenty capable of qualifying to become nurses, even if they didn't stay there; if I were on the selection board issuing grants, I would not overlook a candidate simply because he was male, given the data you provided.
My position, actually, is that if a woman can make it through the training, she should be allowed to serve.


And what about the cost of that training, should she fail? Who picks up that check? You don't know who will make it until graduation day.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2010, 09:48:31 PM by Ignaddio »

Offline Jude

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #76 on: January 03, 2010, 09:45:52 PM »
That's what I meant by 1) Kotah but I didn't communicate it very well.

As far as the discrimination thing goes, I don't really agree with that law.  It should be illegal to discriminate against people so long as they're just as capable of doing the job just as well as everyone else is, but if there's a logical reason for it, to me it seems wrong for the government to tie people's hands behind their back and force them to make poor business decisions when there's no real victims (except for the odd male nurse, who's chosen to go into a field that they have an innate disadvantage with, their call).

If females make better nurses, then our private institutions should have the right to decide to hire all female nurses.  And our public institutions should aim to hire the most qualified applications who produce the best results.  If that means all female nurses, I'm fine with that so long as the female nurse in question makes a better candidate than a male who's up for the job.

The difference between the military and nursing here is that nurses don't have to live together, shower together, be disciplined together, etc.  The comparison is very stretching.  Also if there's a shortage in female nurses and they need males in order to fill out their staff?  That's a different story.  And from what I've heard there is a shortage in nurses throughout the country.

It's all about whether or not the decision promotes the greater good in the case of it being a public decision; the private industries should be able to decide for themselves if they want to be discriminatory or not if it's good for their bottom line.

Granted everything I just said is completely subjective based on my own personal feelings and opinions; there's nothing substantive there.  I'm just stating my opinion.

EDIT:  Updated some stuff.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2010, 09:50:09 PM by Jude »

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #77 on: January 03, 2010, 09:56:37 PM »
The forum post you presented states that the average patrol during WWII carries 30lbs, but in the modern military people readying for an attack carry 80lbs.  Granted I'm not in the military, but I'm not sure patrol means readying to assault an enemy position.  The forum post later talks about those troops on D-Day carrying upwards of 80-90lbs for their assault.  Other forum posts on that page also list the weight for WWII, Korea and Vietnam being upwards of the same weight.  A few veterans on that page also spoke up regarding Vietnam regarding the amount of water they carried being very heavy and cumbersome and over what your quoted poster estimates. 

While I'm sure we can go back and forth over the weight of today's infantry versus the past, it would ultimately be pointless.  The simple logic is if women did it before, they should be able to do it again.  While there are no numbers to support women being just as effective, there are none to support them not being effective.  The only knowledge I have seen presented to the contrary is the assumed fact that women are weaker and evidence of a door.  Women should at least be able to try for combat roles instead of being refused out of hand.

As for men in nursing, I believe the same critiera stands.  If it is wrong to deny men a chance to be nurses where there was no evidence that they would be successful, this job being extremely important as a person's life is in their hands, then it should be wrong to deny women a chance at combat.

Offline Kotah

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #78 on: January 03, 2010, 09:59:59 PM »
I said within 5 years. As in, shorter.

You yourself said:
Quote
But if it were up to me, and it were something I could know about someone without having to expend the time and money attempting to train the other women that could not, certainly not.

In reference to if a woman could do what you had elaborated on, should she be allowed to. The government paid $6000 per semester (4) so about $24000 for me to attend simply the nursing school. That does not count the 4 semesters of prerequisites required to enter the nursing school. Also, there is a state requirement to obtain your CNA before you can become an RN/LPN Which is another $1000. Living expenses, blah blah blah, lets call it an even $50,000 to become a nurse, paid for by the government.

I'm not arguing that a man shouldn't be a nurse, however, I am stating that it is easier to accept a male's ability to do something then for a female. A lot greater le way is taken for the possibility of the man to fail, then a female. The argument was if a woman COULD do it, should she be allowed to. You answered no. However, if a male COULD be a nurse, he should be allowed to despite proven failure.

Offline IgnaddioTopic starter

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #79 on: January 03, 2010, 10:12:03 PM »
Before I head to bed, I have finally located some data, from Canada's integration of its infantry. Although the sample size is small, the results are telling.

http://books.google.com/books?id=WClLLY7RoGIC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=attrition+training+infantry+female&source=bl&ots=pwj_9mSu3o&sig=lDdh2qiEqCsqd-suHDj-9EpL970&hl=en&ei=LmdBS8PODY3YtgOd86WJBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=attrition%20training%20infantry%20female&f=false

Quote
Of 100 women who attempted infantry training, only one woman completed the course.

Combined with a total of 22,000 dollars for skills training.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1318/MR1318.ch4.pdf

Let's pretend that only 100 women want to join the infantry over the course of a year.

With 99 of them failing out, that amounts to a cost of over 2.1 million dollars, and is certainly an expense I'd be willing to look like a sexist jackass for preventing.

Offline Kotah

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #80 on: January 03, 2010, 10:31:48 PM »
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask for better then a poll of 137 women. Let alone the fact that it states that the main reason the women left training was due to harassment and abuse.

I can't copy and paste, but feel free to scroll up to page 8, and read about the navy itself.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2010, 10:50:30 PM by Kotah Kringle »

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #81 on: January 03, 2010, 11:20:46 PM »
Alright, finally a piece of evidence and research to take into account for this debate.  The sample size is certainly small with only 100 women being considered for infantry training.  Canadian military passed a single woman through the training process, which certainly does speak poorly for women.  Yet the author gives no specific reference for that evidence, but instead leaps to the attrition rate of women from the military being 42% as opposed to the men being 10%.  Reference is given for that number, but then the reasons are listed with “physical rigors” being the last.  The others given are harassment issues which the author chalks up to women being unable to psychologically cope with the rigors of combat.

Simply taking this part of the article alone raises questions regarding the bias of the author.  An important area that a researcher would consider with this evidence is how much of the woman’s attrition rate is due to harassment and how much is due to women being unable to handle the physical rigors.  Author does not provide that evidence, instead continuing to press toward psychological rigors.  The author seems to feel there is no difference between a woman leaving the service due to harassment by fellow soldiers and the trauma of actual combat. 

The author, in the paragraph prior, states that women cannot handle the rigors of Special Forces training psychologically.  Once more there is no evidence for this assertion or reference; he simply states that this is so.  He also says this is why women are excluded from Special Forces training, despite that exclusion having been in place since their inception and never having been tested.  The author also, in the paragraphs following, states that it a known fact women do not measure up physically.  Once more he makes this statement without reference or evidence.  He brushes over statistical data by saying there is no incidences of statistically insignificant evidence to disprove women cannot out perform men physically.  No data listed or references, just once more a statement of fact.

Now what is really amazing is the author goes on to state that it is the fault of women that they are being harassed.  Women are not able to cope with male bonding and horseplay as they should in order to fit into the rituals.  That women raise too many questions regarding touching and close proximity.  So therefore women should be excluded from such activities entirely so that men might feel free to frolic and touch each other without restriction.  I can see why men are so worried about homosexuals being allowed in the military, such activities might be seen the wrong way.  Women should come to terms that men typically grab each other at the breast and genitals, whisper threats about rape into each other’s ears and make unwanted sexual advances as part of their male bonding. 

So in closing the article highlights the sexist nature of men in the military and their inability to exercise any restraint when put into close proximity with a woman.  I would hope this article more infuriating to a military man than supportive to his argument.  Though I will say bravo on the study about 100 women from a country that occupies the majority of North America.

Offline IgnaddioTopic starter

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #82 on: January 04, 2010, 06:04:45 AM »
Considering that Canada allows its recruits to take on any training for which they qualify, it seems that it isn't only 100 women were allowed to attempt infantry training, but only one hundred women chose to take on infantry training.

And as for our unsubstantiated male bonding rituals, including harassment of one another, regardless of gender? I can attest to that, at least in my own experience. Roughhousing and verbal abuse are just about as sure to be encountered as bad food in a Navy galley. And yet, it sounds as if you are asking for special treatment, to be excluded from the bonding because you are a woman.  This isn't something that I hold with; if you wish to compete on equal terms, then you should expect to receive equal treatment. And that includes the bad with the good.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #83 on: January 04, 2010, 06:30:16 AM »
According to the article, 137 women were serving in combat assignments in the Canadian military as of 1998.  The Canadian military, apparently under pressure, rounded up 100 interested applicants for infantry training.  Of that 100, only one woman passed muster to qualify as infantry.  I would like to know what combat assignments the other 137 women had in which none of them were in the infantry.  What combat assignment did they hold that did not even come close to the rigors of being infantry?  None of these women before or since had attempted infantry training?  Only those 100 women in 1998 ever tried for training in the infantry?  Something is a bit off with those numbers.

Also, not quite sure where I demanded to have special privileges and removal from male bonding.  Unless you are implying that the United States military considers it normal male bonding when a male soldier is raped by another male soldier.  If that is the case then perhaps women should stay out of the infantry.

Offline ShrowdedPoet

  • Sexual Deviant
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2008
  • Location: Between the dark places in the world
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't tell the pirate that I'm under his bed. . .
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #84 on: January 04, 2010, 10:52:42 AM »
I have to agree with seed.  I don't think it's asking for special treatment.  Would you grab another guys private parts?  Would you sexually assault another man?  Would you rape another man?  Is this all part of the bonding process?  Do you sexually harrass the men you work with?  Is all of that normal with men in the military? 

Online Silk

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #85 on: January 04, 2010, 01:23:08 PM »
I doublt it, but I wouldn't put it past the female mind to miscontrude it as such

Offline IgnaddioTopic starter

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #86 on: January 04, 2010, 01:25:32 PM »
I have to agree with seed.  I don't think it's asking for special treatment.  Would you grab another guys private parts?  Would you sexually assault another man?  Would you rape another man?  Is this all part of the bonding process?  Do you sexually harrass the men you work with?  Is all of that normal with men in the military? 

To answer your questions truthfully and in order, no, no, no, no, no, and insufficient data; using the definition of sexual harassment as defined by the EEOC as a meter:

Quote
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical
conduct of a sexual nature when:
·  Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or
condition of an individual's employment, or
·  Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis
for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
·  Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an
individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment.
Unwelcome Behavior is the critical word. Unwelcome does not mean "involuntary."
A victim may consent or agree to certain conduct and actively participate in it even
though it is offensive and objectionable. Therefore, sexual conduct is unwelcome
whenever the person subjected to it considers it unwelcome. Whether the person in
fact welcomed a request for a date, sex-oriented comment, or joke depends on all the
circumstances.
Source: Preventing Sexual Harassment (BNA Communications, Inc.) SDC IP .73
1992 manual
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf

I can truthfully say that I never sexually harassed or assaulted any of my divisionmates. That doesn't mean I haven't said hurtful, heinous things to them, and wrestled with them in a way that would appear sexual in nature to the outside observer. This was typical behavior where I come from; it was expected, and it was welcome. And yes, it was hazing. I can't truthfully say if all men in the military act that way, because I haven't met all the men in the military, and nor do I have data to suggest such a thing.

Further, I fail to see how the concept of rape only applies to women entering combat roles. I am not condoning rape, or sexual assault by any stretch of the imagination. Near as I can tell, the article is not either. But if we intend to treat someone as one of the guys, and that's not something they're up for, it sounds like asking for special treatment to me. Typically such people were ostracised, socially, from the group. Professionally, no one cared; no one got special treatment either way in terms of duty assignments, advancement, and such. But being ignored by one's peers is stigma enough.

That said, I am not interested in what the whole of that article has to say; I was only looking for the data that I quoted. And seeing as 1998 was the first year that women were integrated into combat roles, I don't see 137 as too far off a figure, considering as of 2006 it contains only about 843 active duty women. (That is to say about 64,000 regular personnel, times 12.2 percent consisting of women, times 10.8 percent of those women in combat roles.) Those 137 women in combat roles may have served as Tank operators, pilots, radio operators, special forces engineers, cannon operators, or numerous other roles that may or may not put you in the line of fire without being in the infantry.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2008107/pdf/10657-eng.pdf

And here it is again, with a slight change for the sake of accuracy. And it has a reference.

Quote
Of 102 women who enlisted in infantry training, only one graduated.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/BG836.cfm
« Last Edit: January 04, 2010, 01:26:37 PM by Ignaddio »

Offline RubySlippers

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #87 on: January 04, 2010, 03:09:56 PM »
The only reason to have women in the military if there was a draft ,in the US, would be to free a man to serve IN combat and let the woman serve as another capacity such as a clerk, radio operator and the like. Unless the woman can do the job as well as a man - pilot or tank operators maybe where physical strength is less important as the infantry.

Offline IgnaddioTopic starter

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #88 on: January 04, 2010, 04:16:50 PM »
That reminds me of a point that I neglected to bring up. In the United States in 1981 it was determined that the prospect of the draft being men only was constitutional because the draft was intended to fill combat roles, from which women were barred. If the U.S. military were to allow women into combat roles, should all women 18 to 25 then be subject to Selective Service obligation?

http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html

This is intended to be a discussion point, and is not intended to back up the stance I have taken.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #89 on: January 04, 2010, 04:34:56 PM »
People often don’t check the source they use for numbers.  That is no great sin except for when those numbers are used to prove a point.  A source should always be inspected for its bias and content, especially when one is looking at a social issue.  The article submitted is obviously a biased one that would take even the most unskilled reader moments to recognize.  Unreferenced opinions stated as fact, side comments regarding sexual harassment and a smoothing over of facts.  Even the numbers you quoted from the article are not proven to be inaccurate as you present yet another number.  Truth be told I also saw differing numbers for that same study elsewhere.  So three separate numbers for the same study, which is highly unlikely for the military as they are very keen on bookkeeping.  Were this a chemistry experiment, the numbers would be called false.

I would also address the attrition rate from the previous article.  According to a report that I will link on the thread, the attrition rate for the Canadian army is 6.2% for men and women.  I submit the Canadian figures because to my understanding they are the only military being discussed where women are able to join all aspects of the military.  They had done this for some time so I assume the training tactics and integration policies have been refined.  This seems a far cry less than the other listed attrition rate of 42%.  Also in the article there is reference to women in combat units, women serving in the infantry and women in command positions over fighting personnel.

Now rape is not exclusive to women in combat roles as can be evidenced by women being sexual harassed and raped while unable to even try for combat positions.  By the same token, male bonding is not exclusive for infantry.  Women are allowed into the alternate roles where male bonding is important and women face “social stigma” because of that.  They continue to be leaders in their areas, do their duties and hopefully command respect from their peer groups.  The account I have heard from women in the military is that they do engage in horseplay, joke with their fellows and also get into altercations with other men.  Another interesting point to note regarding the male bonding argument is that the same argument was used against African-Americans joining combat units, until integration was demanded among the armed forces.  African-American men seem to be doing quite well in their roles.

Simply stating that this is the boy’s club and if you cannot act like a boy then you can’t join is not an acceptable reason to block a woman from a career.  Women participate in the corporate sector which was saturated in male bonding and ritual.  Women participate in fire departments and police departments which were also saturated with male bonding and ritual.  They do these with great success and promise for continued growth in those areas.  So I find it hard to believe that infantry male bonding is so exclusive as to be impenetrable by women where they have adjusted and advanced in other areas that involve male bonding.

The difference that you are failing to recognize is between typical horseplay and when sexual harassment is brought into the equation.  While the list you provide is extensive, it does not allow for the simple difference.  A woman, having grown up with the pressure of sex, knows when simple play has gone too far.  When I play basketball, I know the difference between someone playing defense and someone touching in a way they should not.  Women do not go looking for these signs but are simply aware of the mood through years of encountering the same incidents.  Just as men are aware of one another and their “pecking” order, women are aware of sexual aggression and behavior toward them.   When sex is brought into such an equation it is inappropriate no matter the instigator or the recipient. 

http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf

Offline IgnaddioTopic starter

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #90 on: January 04, 2010, 05:44:18 PM »
I'm fairly certain I can tell where the difference in attrition rates come from; the study that cites women's attrition rate at 42% refers to women in combat roles, versus the Canadian Forces' total attrition rate at 6.2%. In addition, the attrition rate cited by the Canadian Forces covers the years 2001-2006, while the earlier study was conducted in 1998. Personally, I think the difference between 100 and 102 is purely academic. Seeing as the earlier study did not cite a reference, it stands to reason that the author had a fairly accurate recollection of the reference, which was a telephone conversation someone had with a Heritage Foundation researcher. I wish said Heritage Foundation researcher had published their results, but I cannot find that. Heather Erlexben's article on wikipedia, however, states that she was the only one of twenty one to finish an infantry training class in 1989. Considering that the stat "one in one hundred two" includes a four year period, and the infantry training lasts sixteen months, if the classes are given back to back, two other courses could have been completed in that time. That said, in my experience the military works in parallel, not in series, meaning that multiple classes could have been run simultaneously.

My point referring to rape not being exclusive to women was intended to include men.

Quote
The difference that you are failing to recognize is between typical horseplay and when sexual harassment is brought into the equation.  While the list you provide is extensive, it does not allow for the simple difference.  A woman, having grown up with the pressure of sex, knows when simple play has gone too far.  When I play basketball, I know the difference between someone playing defense and someone touching in a way they should not.  Women do not go looking for these signs but are simply aware of the mood through years of encountering the same incidents.  Just as men are aware of one another and their “pecking” order, women are aware of sexual aggression and behavior toward them.   When sex is brought into such an equation it is inappropriate no matter the instigator or the recipient.

Correct me if I'm wrong (you'll find I often am), but it seems to me as though you are asserting that only women are capable of identifying when sexual aggression. Frankly, I disagree, having been falsely accused in the past. As I see it, the distinction between sexual assault and standard horseplay isn't a matter of gender, but is the interpretation of the most sensitive person in the room. I don't feel that women who do not wish to participate in our shenanigans should be barred from the job; if I said that, I rescind the comment now. What I meant is that I don't feel the environment should be forced to change as a result of the introduction of women. What I expect in that situation is a more natural evolution of camaraderie, similar to how it has happened elsewhere.

Offline Kotah

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #91 on: January 04, 2010, 06:02:47 PM »
It doesn't change the fact that in the article you cited where out of 100 women polled, and one passed, the majority reason to quite was do to sexual harassment and verbal abuse.

Offline IgnaddioTopic starter

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #92 on: January 04, 2010, 06:24:26 PM »
One of the common elements of training a soldier is aggression. Verbal abuse is a matter of course in a military environment, and I can see how that could be taken on board as sexual harassment.

However the study that picks out the reasons for women's attrition in combat roles is a separate study than the one that displays a failure rate of one in a hundred, meaning that the reason that 101 women dropped out of infantry training is not yet explained. Regardless, the vast majority in that instance were unable to complete the training course, for whatever reason. If I were looking at that data, and the decision whether or not to open the gates for women to train in the infantry rested on my shoulders, I would keep them shut, no matter the reason the women didn't make it through.

Offline Destiny Ascension

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #93 on: January 06, 2010, 01:07:35 AM »
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/11/marines_marsoc_111409w/

For the record, there exist zero 'non-combat' roles in Afghanistan or Iraq. Sitting around and looking interested, in a hawaiian shirt will get you shot up just as quick as walking around with a rifle.

Why not train women from the get go to do THIS, but also defend themselves as effectively as the men next to them. Women have always served in the Special Forces, from the SOE or OSS, to todays units. Maybe not the SEALs, but the CIA uses them with the SOG, and I'm sure the Army has them as well in not necessarily 'combat roles' but every role is a combat role today.

Offline Canuckian

  • Canadian
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Second star to the right- oh, who'm I kidding? I'm right here
  • Gender: Male
  • Insert message here
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #94 on: January 06, 2010, 01:10:12 AM »
I want to know what people's opinions are about the draft question a few posts back.  If the military forces become fully gender-neutral and integrated, does that mean that all women between 18 and 25 (I think?) should be subject to the Draft just as much as the men?  Not "allowed" or "accepted" but compulsory and required.

Discuss please.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #95 on: January 06, 2010, 01:18:26 AM »
No, no, no. You have it backwards, Canuckian. Gender equality should mean no one has to worry about getting drafted, not the other way around.

Offline Canuckian

  • Canadian
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: Second star to the right- oh, who'm I kidding? I'm right here
  • Gender: Male
  • Insert message here
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #96 on: January 06, 2010, 02:23:56 AM »
No, no, no. You have it backwards, Canuckian. Gender equality should mean no one has to worry about getting drafted, not the other way around.

Uh... me no grok?

Offline Kotah

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #97 on: January 06, 2010, 03:53:28 AM »
The idea is that if women were allowed a more active role in the armed forces, there wouldn't be a need for the draft. Those extra -omg must fill spaces would already be filled.

Not to mention they would be filled by a willing occupant, rather then someone that's prolly gonna wanna ditch the first chance they get.

Offline Jude

Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #98 on: January 06, 2010, 06:37:03 AM »
No, no, no. You have it backwards, Canuckian. Gender equality should mean no one has to worry about getting drafted, not the other way around.
Gender equality has nothing to do with whether or not the draft should be allowed.  Maybe it's your opinion that the draft should not be done, that's fine, but it doesn't answer the fundamental challenge.  Being drafted is a responsibility whether or not you feel that it should exist.

The question essentially is, if men are given this responsibility and gender equality is forced across the board in the military, doesn't that include the draft as long as it exists?  Saying the draft shouldn't exist is simply answering a different question in order to avoid admitting women need to have the same responsibility as men if and when they're given the same rights.
The idea is that if women were allowed a more active role in the armed forces, there wouldn't be a need for the draft. Those extra -omg must fill spaces would already be filled.

Not to mention they would be filled by a willing occupant, rather then someone that's prolly gonna wanna ditch the first chance they get.
I don't think it's fair to say that the draft would never be necessary if women were allowed to serve in every capacity in the military.  It's inarguable that it would make the draft less likely to occur, but you can't make that much of a sweeping conclusion.  Having more women serving really wouldn't defeat the need for a draft if, for example, we went to war with China.

Offline Ket

  • Electroslut Extraordinaire
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Location: You'll find me under the gun of a tattoo artist...
  • Gender: Female
  • The Onion Queen - crispy fried goodness
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 5
Re: On Gender and Combat
« Reply #99 on: January 06, 2010, 06:56:08 AM »
Here's the thing with the draft. It's sole purpose is to be able to form a large standing army of foot soldiers on a relatively quick basis.  Here's the thing with modern warfare. We don't use that large standing army of foot soldiers like we have in the past. Warfare has changed considerably since Vietnam, and is continuing to become less and less of two armies standing in front of each other shooting it out and more and more of the actual humans being in the rear while the technology works the front. I'm not saying there aren't front line soldiers, as there are, but the numbers are much lower than they have ever been.

If women aren't being allowed in direct front line combat roles, then why would they be included in the draft? If you want to argue for equality and equal responsibility's sake, then yes, women should be included in the draft. However, if there is nothing for them to do if they are drafted, then what is the point?

True equality is almost a utopian ideal. There will always be someone stronger, someone weaker, someone smarter, someone richer, someone poorer, etc.