Now females can die in combat

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Syzygys, Jan 25, 2013.

  1. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    It's not really about vaginas, it is about gender equality. A trend of society which I agree with. However there should not be some easy paths for women in the army just because, nor should commanders discriminate against women. Obviously the world needs women at wars, I have no clue why, but seems there are not enough men around. What women however should understand is that a soldier belongs to the army and there is no such thing as privacy or easy going for them just because they are not men. Of course it is obvious to me that men do get distracted on war by women and this negatively affects the whole operation commencement...perhaps there are other types of duties they can excel at during war. I think the real battleground to test that will be...war.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Ingteresting, but nobody dared to address my quote on females dying on the frontline lowering fighting morals and rising the enemy's willingness to fight on.... Any takers???
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    I agree with you. I agree that if affects moral more than a man dieing. We raise our boys to protect the women folk. Boot camp doesn't take that out of them
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    Well I cannot really approve or disprove it, I could not find any literature or general quotes on it.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,263
    I think it would be just as likely to increase morale. As a country, we tend to not say "oh, so much injustice has been done to us! We should just give up."
     
  9. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    you think it increases the morale of a troop to have one of its female soldiers killed? LMFAO.
     
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Oh well it is obvious to me that aliens visit the earth often and abduct people to due crude experiments on their rectums. Perhaps a scientific study to determine what is fact and what is "obvious" or rather ones opinion.

    Is there a study that verifies the female troops damage group cohesion or what ever?

    As for giving women as easier time, I'm all for universal standards, and if that means only chiseled amazons can fight with the men with gender ratios of 1:10 or less, so be it.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,845
    AFAIK every modern war has been won by the side with the higher percentage of women in combat roles.

    Exceptions known to anyone?

    As far as dying in combat zones - women have been doing that for centuries.
     
  12. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    do you think that may be because the other side has issues with killing those women? Those soldiers faced with a woman with a gun may hesitate longer than they would if faced with a man with a gun?
    And yes women have been dying in combat zones for centuries. Mainly as support staff, not as front line soldiers. Not as cannon fodder
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,263
    Nope. Nor does it increase morale to have one's male comrade killed. Overall, though, when it comes to determination, killing US troops no matter what their sex (or color, or religion etc) is going to tend to increase our determination overall.
     
  14. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    The Israeli Defense Force employs woman soldiers and places them on the frontline (every able Israeli man and woman in the country has always been required to serve in the IDF a couple years) and although this has attracted criticism from abroad, the psychological phenomena that people are describing in this thread (men's morale being affected) isn't reported there.

    Meanwhile, the IDF is considered to be one of the best trained military forces in the world, due to their proximity to their many enemies. Women don't seem to be holding them back. Israel has an exemplary military record. They've won every war that their neighbors have started, at times against six nations at once.

    Can anybody show that half of their military consisting of women is currently hurting Israel?

    Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces
     
  15. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Maybe reading this thread would help. It was in my post numbered #37.
     
  16. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    It does. The enemies'. See the quote from post #37. Arab fighters were more willing to keep fighting on when they learnt that the Israelis had female soldiers. They didn't want to surrender to a woman...
     
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    How about this for a counter hypothesis to men's moral being sapped by women: what if women solider raise moral because they can provide a little aah "relief" now and then?
     
  18. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Depends. Is the US winning in Afghanistan?
     
  19. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Hypothesis is good, but facts are better.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Apparently, nobody here read post #37...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Nor you guys know how to use google... So for the blind:

    ""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.""
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Oh I agree but we really don't have much of that now do we? Scientific studies would be best, not unreferencing opinion and tripe like this:
    http://www.answers.com/topic/women-in-the-military#ixzz2J5UKJ9l4"

    "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." -- Christopher Dandeker, reciting this from his own anus apparently because he does not reference this, he merely claims it to be.

    [video=youtube;5BcMof_kwNk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BcMof_kwNk[/video]

    "now there is a wave of destruction that is easy on the eyes!"
     
  22. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    Answers.com is not a legit source, szygys. That is a known retard website.
     
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,557
    The Road Never Taken?

    Perhaps this is one of those radical, leftist pipe dreams, but here's a solution: Let's not get into any more wars for a while.

    I was born at the end of Vietnam, and we didn't go to war again until I was a senior in high school. Sure, there were wars around the world, but the one that stands out in my memory is the bloody Falklands War. Yeah. England and Argentina.

    And, yes, there were The Troubles, but that wasn't really a war. And there was Palestine, but that wasn't really a war. And there was Lebanon, but I'm an American, and as far as I can tell nobody in this country really gave a damn until we lost 241 Americans in one of the worst days in American military history. So, yeah. Call it what you want, but from the American perspective, I grew up during peacetime.

    My daughter, on the other hand, is ten years old, and has never lived a day of her life when the United States of America was not at war.

    And as we scream and whine about the country's finances, we can blame anything but the wars. And while conservatives are dismayed by the idea of homosexuals in the armed services, we also had to lower our enlistment standards to include people whose criminal records and other individual shortcomings would otherwise have disqualified them from service. We would rather put criminals in the armed services than gays, and criminals and gays on the front lines before women.

    Maybe all this would be easier to figure out if we didn't get ourselves tangled up in wars.

    Don't go to war, you don't have to put women on the front lines.

    But it's come to the point where lifting the ban on women in combat service is actually a matter of catching up to reality. Women are already fighting and dying in our war zones. And not just as quartermasters whose rifles jam when ambushed and then see their stories inflated into heroic folk tales that are pure crap.

    It almost seems like what people are objecting to is that women should be recognized for the duties they are already performing. And if we want to argue about whether or not they should be performing these duties in the first place, the answer is simple enough: Don't get into situations where it becomes necessary.

    But that, of course, is unrealistic. If Americans don't go to war, we can't borrow money to give to arms manufacturers, and that makes rich people sad.

    So if we must go to war, and we are supposed to object to women being in combat, send the rich men to fight.

    But I really do think the better alternative is to not go to war.

    And before anyone hops up on their soapbox and lectures about all the bad people who want to hurt America, well, that's what we get for starving people around the world for profit, propping up tyrannical theocracies in order to tamper with regional politics in order to starve people around the world for profit, and generally making a point of screwing with other people's lives in order to prevent rich people from being sad.

    And, yes, the WTC hit was a bit much, but all these years later I still remind my first thought after realizing that, yes, this really was happening: Well, somebody finally went and did it.

    The only surprise was that it was that day, and not the day before or the day after.

    Like the mysterious hole in the roof of a California house. So some blue ice from a faulty waste system fell off an airplane, crashed through the roof, and then evaporated. When you stop and think about it, this was going to happen eventually. Still, though, that doesn't prepare you if you happen to be the person who comes home and finds a gaping hole in your roof that is eventually explained to be caused by sewage ice falling off an airplane.

    Short term: Don't get in wars.

    Long term: Stop behaving in a manner that guarantees the wars will come to us.

    And then you don't have to argue about gays or women or whoever serving in combat zones.
     

Share This Page