Women in combat not 'a big deal'

Yeah, I know a scientist's got to say that. But, humans are an exceptional animal. We have the wit to know better. We have sublimation, reason, etc. There's no real excuse to kill. We just wallow in old fashioned territorial instinct, drive for power, whatever - knowing all the killing won't do any good.

First of all, I agree that neither gender should be on the front lines. War is pointless because nobody wins.

But what's the point in having women in the military if you aren't going to use them to their full capacity.

Women want the same rights and privileges than men enjoy in the service so they should have to do all of the same things. Personally I think women should have to register for selective Service as well.

The myth of women not being in combat is just that, a myth. Women serve in combvat support and combat service support units that, while they may not initiate an engagement with an enemy, frequently are subject to being engaged. Look at the situations in both Iraq conflicts, where female soldiers from maintenance units, and other similar units have been engaged in active firefights. In addition, female medics serve in combat arms units, like the infantry, armour, cav, and artillery. We don't seem to value uterii that much.

You might want to check with the Jews who were on their way to the death camps when the Allies conquered Germany. The war stopped the Germans from killing them and they prayed the Allies would hurry up with it. They won.

You might want to consider the plight of the Asian people under the murderous rule of the Japanese in WWII. Their life improved immeasurably because the Allies won.

The slaves were freed as a result of the Civil War. They won.

You're repeating a liberal platitude that only sounds good to people who don't think.

Tantor
Editor For Life
Conservative Propaganda
Edit (Moderator): Please do not employ links or images in signature lines

Putting women in combat is a bad idea.

A previous poster has made the obvious point, that women are more biologically valuable than men. That's why Amazon societies exist only in myth. If a society allows a critical mass of its women to die, it ceases to exist. That's why throughout history women are protected in war rather than put at risk in combat.

Women also disrupt a military unit. The plain fact is that once a woman is assigned to a unit, she's very likely to hook up with somebody in it. A couple's loyalty will go to each other first and the unit second. Likewise, they are likely to isolate themselves from the unit to pursue their relationship to the detriment of the unit esprit de corps. In combat, a couple's first concern is with each other, not the unit. This endangers the unit.

Women become pregnant and therefore become combat ineffective. The practical experience of units which have a high proportion of young females is that a significant proportion of them will be pregnant at any one time, rendering the unit less combat effective. The resources devoted to the medical care of pregnant soldiers reduce the combat punch of the force.

Women tend to be the primary caretakers of their children. Experience shows that when a unit is recalled for combat, the women abandon their units to safeguard their children, naturally. Such an absence puts everyone at risk.

The practical experience of placing women in the military is that women are held to lower standards. Feminists insist that women of equal ability to men should be able to do men's jobs, which is fine rhetoric in the abstract. In reality, programs that seek to introduce women into military jobs degenerate into quotas where an arbitrarily defined number of women are forced into the jobs regardless of their qualifications. Any deficiency will ignored, finessed, or redefined. Anyone who brings attention to the discrepancy in performance will be castigated as a sexist and ruined.

Women are much more vulnerable in combat because of their sex. In the first Gulf War, all three US POWs were sexually assaulted. If you are a woman POW captured in a war in the undeveloped world, it is a virtual certainty that you will be raped. If you are a woman POW in a Hanoi Hilton type situation where you are imprisoned for an extended length of time, the best you can hope for is that you will return home with a half dozen rape children you were forced to bear in captivity. The worst scenario is that your captors will impregnate you, then kill the infants as they are born, as the North Koreans do to the newborns of their political prisoners. Keeping women out of combat spares us from this additional horror and minimizes our vulnerabilities.

Introducing women into combat is not done to improve the combat capabilities of the military. That's the last thing the feminists care about. They see the military as a jobs program for women and a venue for their social experiments. Implementing their pet programs will ultimately lead to the most gruesome sort of violence directed at women, the lessened combat punch of the units to which they are assigned, and the needless deaths of American military people.


Tantor
Editor For Life
Conservative Propaganda
Edit (Moderator): Please do not employ links or images in signature lines

Going to the past to justify wars is easy. Finding ways to head off new ones - That's the part I'm interested in.

I have to agree with tantor on women in combat, generally speaking. This is difficult for me to write, because it is the first time I recall agreeing with him on any point at all.

There have always been women warriors throughout history, however, in a very small number, just for defense or in disguise.

For the latter, see here these US-American examples:
Women Soldiers of the Civil War

AMAZING WOMEN in WAR and PEACE: Women Soldiers in the American Revolutionary War



The above quote and some dozen links here:
Distinguished Women of Past and Present: Military and Warfare

Matilda of Tuscany

I think Matilda had a varied military career; she seems to have gotten around, was in conflicts other than the one included in the link above. I don't remember where I read that right this minute.

yes, I knew there had been many past examples, Walter - but I didn't have any cites.

Hmmmm - seems we women canna win. To some, if we are NOT in combat we are shirking and failing to take up equality - wanting the benefits and none of the sacrifices. To others, we want to be there only because we view it as another job market, caring not a whit about the awful effects and the ruination of the military.

Hmmmmmmm.......

Did someone say keep them in the kitchen knocked up and barefoot? Only kidding ladies.

The Empress Maud, also known as Matilda, Empress of Germany, Countess of Anjou, Domina Anglorum, Lady of the English, Matilda Augusta and Matilda the Good, was the daughter of King Henry I of England and Normandy.
Her father made her his heir, but the Barons refused to accept her and her cousin Stephen was crowned King in 1135.
Maud then invaded England and a long civil war continued for many years until Stephen agreed to make Maud's son Henry his heir. She died in Normandy in 1167.
Matilda the Empress Maud

There's no evidence for this in human evolution, that I'm aware of. If there is, kindly provide a source for this information.

Oh, there is probably pretty good evidence that Maud existed..

There is a very simple way to solve the above-stated problems of of women in combat. Recruit menopausal women. Imagine an entire division of us. Think of the rage! Think of the aggression! Give us guns and we'll kill anything that gets in our way...

Miller, I am not sure what you are asking for.

Are you asking for evidence to back up my observations of human nature and history, or are you questioning my invocation of evolution?

I accept the fact that evolution has been very well proven scientifically - it is not worth debating here as this argument has been done way too much. But this is also not important to my point.

My main point was a observation how human nature "developed". The points I made seem obvious to me from what I know of history, sociology and of human nature.

Tell me which of the points I made you would like me to document - and I will be happy to respond with more detail.

But if it helps you can just replace the word "evolved" to "developed" or "were created".

The feminists do not want an equal position in society for women, but rather a superior one. That's why you never see feminists demanding women be drafted. They're perfectly satisfied to let men do all the storming of the beaches. They're not much interested in levelling the field where they have the advantage. For example, you don't see women crusading to raise their lower car insurance payments up to the level of men's.

It is perfectly true that feminists view introduction of women into the military in terms of the advantages they can gain, not the responsibilities they can bear. Virtually all the arguments made by feminists are about getting goodies for women. And when the women screw up when subjected to the same standards as men, they are protected by feminists who scream sexism. The result is to pull the standards down for all women, who become trophy soldiers there as ornaments to satisfy the politicians.

Tantor

Edgar, at long last you're finally making sense, and good sense at that! I have printed off your post above and tacked it with bear fat to the wall of my cave.

Tantor

Including each other.

Good soldiers are not consumed by rage but rather by discipline. You don't win by setting your hair on fire and running around in a rage but by professionally executing the plan in a methodical way and reacting calmly and thoughtfully to swiftly changing events. The foreign fighters of Saddam's fedayeen were consumed by rage when they charged the armored vehicles of the infidel American army in Baghdad. We killed them and camped in Saddam's palaces.

Tantor

Well, I've never heard of garage owners, civil servats, farmers etc (all those, who pay lower insurances here) to want to get up their payment sa well.


Women are not against the draft, where this is instituted, as far as I know.

You are exactly speaking about country, where they have draft?