As opposed to your current average soldier, who just lets his fellow soldiers die? I don't think much will change. No soldier is going to be OK with seeing another soldier die if he can prevent it, no matter what sex they are. They probably won't be treated exactly the same. But then again, do white soldiers treat white soldiers exactly the same as they treat black soldiers? Do Catholic soldiers treat Protestant soldiers exactly the same as they treat Catholic soldiers? Do straight soldiers treat straight soldiers exactly the same as they treat gay soldiers? In all cases the answer is "not necessarily" but they still seem to do OK. What happens when a guy has to poop? Do they just pull over to the side of the road so he can poop right there on the street?
I think men will take more risks to save a woman. Will they look at her and see a soldier or a woman? I think they will see a woman. and everyone has to poop. Not every soldier gets their period
What a crock. These standards aren't about simulating the experience of specific combat missions, they're about achieving a level of personal fitness. Men and women are not built exactly the same, so expecting them to meet all of the same physical standards is ridiculous. It also has no bearing whatsoever on their abilities as a solider or a leader if they don't. And the military doesn't just set different standards for men and women, but also for people of different ages. So adjustments can be made depending on your age, but they shouldn't be allowed if you're a different sex?
I wonder, have you ever actually asked a serviceman what he thinks when serving next to a female? Or are you happy to just project your own shortcomings onto our military men? What's the difference? It's a bodily function. Women have been serving in combat for years and it hasn't been a problem.
It is a known fact that a fallen female soldier effects the troops more negatively than a dead male soldier. So that is about fighting morals...
This and That Indeed. I would go so far as to suggest that if there is actually a problem, it's with those who look at certain bodily regions in certain ways. That is, if a woman whipping down her trousers to change a pad where men can see is somehow a titillating distraction, the problem is in the eye of the beholder. Or, at least, so says me. • • • I would suggest this title is misleading, as women are already dying in combat. The big difference is that now their combat service can be properly recognized as equivalent to men's.
As for the subject of how the enemy would respond to female soldiers that might actually be a benefit, not only would it send the male "insurgents" for a loop but female civilians would likely be more open to female soldiers, in fact female soldiers might make our military look more benevolent (and also more pleasing to the eye.)
Is it? According to whom? I think it speaks to a fear of the vagina some men harbor. I don't understand it, but here's a great example of it. He literally just said "What if they get their PERIOD?!?!" I mean, come on.
do the math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_military_conflicts , while the pedicure is finished in the salon next door. For year 2012 the total deaths from major current wars for that year were: 1000+2061+1025+6211+18161+3200+41822+4565+779+239+2+620+1+253+287+1+40+8+585+50+4+8+600+150+574+5+63+633+89+2002+391=85429 people accounted for, or 234 men/day (just accounted for). The real number is muuuuch higher. Which wars you ask are these? Well these wars: Internal conflict in Burma Colombian conflict Conflict in Afghanistan Somali Civil War Al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen War in North-West Pakistan Mexican Drug War Sudanese nomadic conflicts Syrian civil war Iraqi insurgency Communist insurgency in the Philippines Balochistan conflict Israeli–Palestinian conflict Korean Conflict Nigerian Sharia conflict Papua conflict Insurgency in Northeast India Naxalite–Maoist insurgency Islamic insurgency in the Philippines Western Sahara conflict Insurgency in Laos Internal conflict in Peru Casamance conflict Kurdish–Turkish conflict Lord's Resistance Army insurgency Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir Cabinda Conflict Africa Insurgency in Ogaden Africa Dissident Irish Republican campaign Insurgency in the Maghreb Iran–PJAK conflict Shia insurgency in Yemen Conflict in the Niger Delta South Thailand insurgency Cambodian–Thai border dispute Insurgency in the North Caucasus South Yemen insurgency Bahraini uprising Sinai insurgency Sudan internal conflict conflict in Lebanon Libyan factional fighting Northern Mali conflict M23 rebellion SO I ASK YOU: WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON? nestled cozy right next to a tv screen in usa?
And I ask YOU once again - what planet do you live on??? 234 per day is a little short of THOUSANDS, according to any sensible person. And do you have any proof of your "The real number is muuuuch higher." statement? I really doubt it.
(Insert Title Here) Indeed. I would reiterate a point that Asguard—with whom I am known to disagree on many issues pertaining to women—made in another thread: "My feelings are that if its important enough for young men to come home in a coffin then its good enough for women and if the thought of women coming home in a coffin will stop the public wanting to fight the war then it cant be worth fighting" Whatever else I might disagree with him about in women's issues, he nailed that one squarely. While I have heard such points from men before, I would only note that, as far as I can tell, that point came from Orleander, who is female. Setting that aside, though, there are plenty of responses to a man making the same point, and some of them are downright indecent. In the end, though, a woman seeing a guy whip it out to take a leak at the roadside, generally speaking, isn't suddenly thinking of putting her mouth on it or cramming that thing between her legs. And as one who has had sex with a woman during menstruation three times in my entire life—okay, at least that I can recall—I have a hard time meeting halfway the guys who might find a woman changing her pad or tampon a titillating suggestion.
If Orleander is a woman, I have no idea how she can make such a statement. I don't even think her point was about the sexual connotation, but about the potential inconvenience of having to put a tampon in. Being a woman, how does she not understand how little of a problem it would be? I'm...I'm genuinely lost. At least if she were a man, it could be excused as a comment made because the vagina, to some men, is this great mystery. But to a woman? I don't get it.
And when the chips are down and Taliban shouts for everyone to drop and give them 20, then where will the US Army be? God forbid!
My own short comings?? what the hell is that about? I come from a military family. These are the things that get talked about. These are the things my father didn't have to think about. This is something my brother talks to his men about, goes to training about, etc. I grew up with and lived with these servicemen. What about you?
If I was in a platoon that was mixed men and women, I can't see that I'd be wanting any one of them to die more than any of the others - at least not based on their sex alone. Would I do less to save my male buddy than my female one? I'd certainly hope not. Why do you think there would be a difference? Also, there'd be women trying to save the women, too... What do you mean by "the same"? In what sense? And why is it important that everybody be treated "the same"? Everybody is an individual. How do women in ordinary life cope with getting their periods? Surely it must dominate their every waking thought. Edit to add: I see this post is superfluous. billvon already said exactly the same thing I've said here, and probably better than I have.
According to google.... "During the early Arab-Israeli wars, the IDF discovered not only that despite their gender-neutral training, women casualties caused whole units to cease operations while they were recovered, as well as disproportionate demoralization, but also that the knowledge that they were fighting against women decreased the willingness to surrender among bypassed enemy units." Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/women-in-the-military#ixzz2J5UKJ9l4" In plain English, female fighters were bad for your moral but boosted the enemy's fighting willingness....
you are the one who changed it to "thousandS", I said thousand. hidden casualties are many, especially in war: Iraq: http://atlantaunfiltered.com/2009/10/09/contractors-in-iraq-are-hidden-casualties-of-war/ Syria: http://www.newslook.com/videos/481623-many-undocumented-deaths-in-syria-french-medic In reality the death toll of wars is 5 times higher than what is reported, I remember this from a quote of general in Afghan war.
I also have servicemen in my family. None of them had women in their units, however. But about your brother, he's the one who told you that men in his unit were afraid of women getting their period? As a woman, you didn't reassure him that periods aren't going to hold up the whole So because there was a problem in one country (which is disputed, since other sources say Arab units were more likely to surrender, since dying by a woman's hand means a man can't have a desirable afterlife.) we're going to ignore the mounds of studies of the impact of female service in our own military that says there are no such issues? Untrue. At least untrue in the US. Combat readiness, troop morale, and every other measure is the same in mixed units.
Your source sergeant, are "G.I. Jane" and "Courage Under Fire"?)))) source: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA309830&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/us/17women.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Above: she kicked her guys out of the truck to pee in a bottle...and that is a life and death situation for them, in places like Iraq. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Are you prepared to have your men die so that a soldier gets to pee in privacy?
