Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
betsy

Women Soldiers

Recommended Posts

How are women for the battlefield?   Jennette Goldstein, if not Sigourney Weaver, must likely comes to mind,  when feminists think of modern women warriors.  What feminist isn't wowed by her?

 

 

But.....real war, isn't fought in Hollywood.  And, not everyone is a Vasquez (if ever there is one).


 

Quote

 

A 2014-2015 experiment by the Marine Corps with a gender-integrated combat unit found that women were twice as likely to suffer injuries significant enough to remove them from duty, and that women's shooting accuracy was much less than that of men in simulated combat situations.

Female soldiers were also found to have lower performance in the basic combat tasks like negotiating obstacles and removing wounded troops from the battlefield.

 

In the Austrian Armed Forces and almost all NATO countries, significantly lower physical performance requirements for entrance and subsequent tests apply to female soldiers in determining fitness for service.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat

 

Now.  That should be a grave concern for any soldier fighting alongside a female.

Edited by betsy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost all NATO countries had lowered the physical performance requirements for women - just to boost their presence in the military.  What else has been lowered?   It doesn't help feeling the pressure to send more women to war, either......especially when you're trying to make a statement.  Women become just.......numbers. 


 

Quote

 

Yet Walter Dorn, an expert on peacekeeping at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto, said Canada isn't walking the walk, as only six of the 40 Canadians deployed as peacekeepers in January were women.

Five of those were police officers in Haiti, with the sole military member posted to Cyprus.

Dorn said Canada needs to dramatically increase its overall contributions to peacekeeping and the percentage of women if it expects other countries to follow its lead.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/women-peacekeeping-canada-military-1.4547644

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to choose where to send women, too.....and, where not to send them.  Is it practical to send them to places that look down on women?  Like Mali?

 

Quote

Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers. Similarly, Iraqi and Afghan civilians are often not intimidated by female soldiers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat

 

 

It's bad enough to be regarded that way as a woman.....what more, when you come from the west.

 

Quote

Since 2012, Mali has earned the unfortunate distinction of being the deadliest country for U.N. peacekeepers and a hub for violent extremists fanning across North Africa.

Local groups have joined forces with international jihadi organizations, including a branch of Al-Qaeda, and have seemingly gained strength in a complex conflict that also features dozens of secular anti- and pro-government armed groups.

http://www.newsweek.com/terrorism-africa-mali-al-qaeda-668803

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

YPJ - All female army in Syria fights ISIS.  

Canadian woman joins YPJ to fight ISIS. 

One from here just died for Kurdistan.   On the general point (is it?) some women like fighting, as do some men.   Most of both have more sense.

Quote

 

 

 

 

Edited by Penderyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

YPJ - All female army in Syria fights ISIS.  

Canadian woman joins YPJ to fight ISIS.

 

 

 

And?  

Is there something wrong with women joining the fight to protect their own?  Would they want ISIS to win and take over?  Wouldn't you do the same?

 

 

 

Quote

 

"It shouldn't be romanticized or glorified. This is a war at the end of the day, and people are dying. And for them, in some ways, the decision to join a militia or to take up weapons, it could be something where they feel they don't even have a choice." - Amy Austin Holmes

"I conducted a survey of around 150 combatants, both men and women. Many of the women, when you'd ask them why they joined, they would sometimes tell you, 'Well, it was because of the Islamic State taking over parts of Iraq and Syria.'
And so they were fighting to defend their homelands.

 

 

http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/06/26/kurdish-women-fight-isis

 

They're not the first, and they wouldn't be the last women warriors to come out to defend their homeland in any way or form!  It's a different story when you're defending your homeland in a siege.

 

Anyway, you're missing the point.  Sure, any woman can decide to fight - I'm not saying there aren't any. 

I'm talking about soldiers - real soldiers who work together as a  team!   When you're part of a platoon!

The standard for physical requirements is there for a reason!  Someone's life may depend on you. 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women should have the same rights and responsibilities as men when it comes to being in the armed forces.  No difference.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, betsy said:

Almost all NATO countries had lowered the physical performance requirements for women - just to boost their presence in the military.  What else has been lowered?   It doesn't help feeling the pressure to send more women to war, either......especially when you're trying to make a statement.  Women become just.......numbers. 


 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/women-peacekeeping-canada-military-1.4547644

Men have been predominantly part of those 'just numbers'  for centuries. And not in a good way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Women should have the same rights and responsibilities as men when it comes to being in the armed forces.  No difference.

"Should."

IF they pass the SAME STANDARD that's required from men! 

After all, the hazzards of war does not discriminate!

 

Quote

In the Austrian Armed Forces and almost all NATO countries,

significantly lower physical performance requirements for entrance and subsequent tests apply to female soldiers in determining fitness for service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat

 

 

That's the problem, isn't it?   Why is it a different set of standard for women? 

What happened to equity?

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, betsy said:

The standard for physical requirements is there for a reason!  Someone's life may depend on you. 

This can be applied to other areas, police, firefighters  ... however in the notion of equality, the standards for these jobs need to remain high, especially with the physical prowess needed in these roles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

This can be applied to other areas, police, firefighters  ... however in the notion of equality, the standards for these jobs need to remain high, especially with the physical prowess needed in these roles.

They lowered the standard of physical requirement for women......to accomodate this so-called equality for men and women. 

Ironic, isn't it?

 

The moron  who came up with that - and everyone who bought into it - never even saw the contradiction to this so-called equity.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, betsy said:

They lowered the standard of physical requirement for women......to accomodate this so-called equality for men and women. 

Ironic, isn't it?

 

The moron of who thought of that - and everyone who bought into it - never even saw the contradiction to this so-called equity.

Well that is something that most reasonable people have been saying from the start.  It's the same feeling I have with 'affirmative action',  Filling quotas and not the people who are qualified for the positions. But then again, if the notion goes that men and women are not equal, then that is also seen as problematic in the era of equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, betsy said:

"Should."

IF they pass the SAME STANDARD that's required from men! 

 

But of course!

They let me in, so it can't be all that tough...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If women want to join in and fight in combat, I'm all for it.  They can learn what men have done for thousands of years to provide them with safety and security.  I also believe in conscription.  I would suggest that they separate them into their own units - for obvious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bcsapper said:

 

They let me in, so it can't be all that tough...

 

Well, at least you have an idea how worse it is.  Imagine with the standard being lowered - passing the requirement (for women) must be a walk in the park.

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, betsy said:

Is there something wrong with women joining the fight to protect their own?  Would they want ISIS to win and take over?  Wouldn't you do the same?

Merely pointing out that women can be effective soldiers.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, GostHacked said:

This can be applied to other areas, police, firefighters  ... however in the notion of equality, the standards for these jobs need to remain high, especially with the physical prowess needed in these roles.

For soldiering and policing, weapons make physical prowess less of a factor.  Hand-to-hand combat and wielding a sword are much less fashionable than they used to be.  Female police officers bring certain social and negotiating skills that that reduce the incidence of deadly force.  

http://m.policemag.com/blogpost/724/how-to-recruit-female-officers

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/more-female-cops-will-benefit-american-policing/

Those same skills can be useful in a soldier, and women are not automatically less physically able than males for combat. 

https://sistersinarms.ca/history/women-in-combat-pros-and-cons/

The Army War College has published a paper "What Women Bring to the Fight" which also talks about the better social skills of women being a benefit, and also adresses the concern of female's lack of physical ability and gives the following examples out of many:

Quote

SPC Monica Brown, a combat medic, received the Silver Star in Afghanistan for bravery under fire when she rescued wounded male soldiers in the cavalry regiment to which she was assigned.
• MAJ Kellie McCoy, an engineer platoon leader, earned the Bronze Star with Valor when she ran through enemy fire not once but twice to rescue wounded soldiers in Iraq.
• SGT Julia Bringloe was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in 
Afghanistan for a particularly daunting 40-hour period in which she is credited with rescuing or recovering 11 wounded or killed soldiers. 
• SSG Jessica Packard, US Air Force, scored the fastest course time of both sexes in the 2009 Firefighter Combat Challenge which included carrying a 175-pound victim while wearing full bunker gear.

The paper also points out the military doesn't have a single standard that applies across the board, gender-normed standards follow the tradition of age-normed standards, which allows older men to qualify for service despite an age-related reduction in physical ability compared to young men.  

Quote

The combat arms branches have never established a single set of occupational physical standards 
required of all combat arms soldiers. Age-normed standards have long allowed for fluctuating physical performance for men based on age, not occupational requirements. It is time to reevaluate what the standards 
mean. Clearly, many women can meet the physical qualifications required of infantry soldiers.

Edited by dialamah
Typos, reference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Merely pointing out that women can be effective soldiers.   

Who's saying they can't? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, betsy said:

Who's saying they can't? 

Those who think feats of strength are the only or main criteria by which soldiers should be qualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Those who think feats of strength are the only or main criteria by which soldiers should be qualified.

Physical performance is important!

 

Quote

Conclusion: Soldiers’ physical training volume is associated with soldiers’ mental strength, a critically important aspect in stressful situations.

http://jmvh.org/article/relationship-between-soldiers-service-performance-and-physical-training-volume/

 

Quote

Researchers from around the world are working to improve soldiers' health and physical performance and health -- with the goal of increasing military readiness and effectiveness, according to a new article.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151028124001.htm

 

You should read this one below.  

 

Quote

Maintain the Standards: Why Physical Fitness Will Always Matter in War

 

The platoon needed to relieve a route clearance patrol that was no longer combat-effective. That lieutenant and his platoon promptly prepared for the mission and departed the combat outpost. They wouldn’t return for over fifty hours.

In those fifty hours the platoon endured multiple engagements. They were engaged by improvised explosive devices and direct fire from insurgent forces.

For fifty hours that platoon leader had to fight, he had to walk over rugged terrain at an average altitude of 8,000 feet, and his platoon couldn’t stop to sleep except for a four-hour halt at a small COP. In those fifty hours the platoon leader and his platoon sergeant had to manage communications with their platoon, the infantry company securing their peripheries, and rotary- and fixed-wing assets making precision attacks against the ground enemy they were fighting, and had to provide reports to their company and battalion headquarters. The level of both cognitive and physical stress placed on the platoon’s soldiers is immeasurable—which is why it is incredibly dangerous to suggest that one aspect or the other of the human machine is more important.

 

https://mwi.usma.edu/maintain-standards-physical-fitness-will-always-matter-war/

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love it when the arm chair soldiers sit there and tell you what isn't important in this particular profession. Of course those same arm chair soldiers have never had to make a 30 k forced march with full kit in 110 deg weather either so it's quite easy to opine on something of which you have zero knowledge. I also enjoy hearing them inform us as to how modern warfare is practiced, once again with zero knowledge of the subject. Here's a clue, physical conditioning and strength are incredibly important, always have been and always will be. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2018 at 3:21 AM, betsy said:

How are women for the battlefield?   Jennette Goldstein, if not Sigourney Weaver, must likely comes to mind,  when feminists think of modern women warriors.  What feminist isn't wowed by her?

 

 

But.....real war, isn't fought in Hollywood.  And, not everyone is a Vasquez (if ever there is one).


 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat

 

Now.  That should be a grave concern for any soldier fighting alongside a female.

The problem I see here is that the women will be kept at the back of the battle going on. In a way that is not fair as they are now a soldier and they should be up front with the men soldiers. And when those women get back home they will be treated like heroes even though they did not do all that much to win the battle. Even if they were up front with the men the men would almost certainly be more concerned about their well being rather than their own which could cost them their life. It's a man thing to want to come to the rescue of a female. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dialamah said:

For soldiering and policing, weapons make physical prowess less of a factor.  Hand-to-hand combat and wielding a sword are much less fashionable than they used to be.  Female police officers bring certain social and negotiating skills that that reduce the incidence of deadly force.  

http://m.policemag.com/blogpost/724/how-to-recruit-female-officers

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/more-female-cops-will-benefit-american-policing/

Those same skills can be useful in a soldier, and women are not automatically less physically able than males for combat. 

https://sistersinarms.ca/history/women-in-combat-pros-and-cons/

The Army War College has published a paper "What Women Bring to the Fight" which also talks about the better social skills of women being a benefit, and also adresses the concern of female's lack of physical ability and gives the following examples out of many:

The paper also points out the military doesn't have a single standard that applies across the board, gender-normed standards follow the tradition of age-normed standards, which allows older men to qualify for service despite an age-related reduction in physical ability compared to young men.  

I doubt that there are that many female soldiers out there that can be compared to Sigourney Weaver in Aliens. But then again that was Hollywood and not the real world. Myself, I cannot see where a woman soldier will be as tough a soldier as Weaver was in her Alien movie. I think that woman are being given the wrong impression by Hollywood and are being led to believe that they would be an asset on the battlefield. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2018 at 3:21 AM, betsy said:

Now.  That should be a grave concern for any soldier fighting alongside a female.

I guess it's too bad then that:

Quote

Earlier this year, the RAF became the first service to open all roles to women, when it extended the right to apply for its ground fighting force - the RAF Regiment.

It will be followed in 2018 by the Navy, when it opens applications for the Royal Marine Commandos to women.

Next year will also see the Army finish opening up all its roles to female recruits, a move which follows the lifting of the ban on women taking part in ground close combat and will bring the UK in line with many of its closest allies.

Only last year, three out of 10 Army positions were closed to women.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41969817

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AngusThermopyle said:

Gotta love it when the arm chair soldiers sit there and tell you what isn't important in this particular profession. Of course those same arm chair soldiers have never had to make a 30 k forced march with full kit in 110 deg weather either so it's quite easy to opine on something of which you have zero knowledge. I also enjoy hearing them inform us as to how modern warfare is practiced, once again with zero knowledge of the subject. Here's a clue, physical conditioning and strength are incredibly important, always have been and always will be. 

Not once the robots take over...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...