Question of the Day #8

My personal opinion is I don´t want women as frontline fighting soldiers - no matter in which army. That has nothing to do with discrmination. I was raised to respect and protect women - not to get protected by them. Apart from this, what is an educational thing, it can´t be the requirements will set lower only to get more people into the army. The conditions of a battlefield will not lower as well. So it can only mean the losses raise. And I think further to see a woman killed, maybe even slashed in pieces would be even more terrible to see as a man in that state. If women get allowed in the fighting forces they have to reach the same standard as the men. If they do so they should have the same possibilities as men - in every aspect and so long nature allows that.

We at Germany have often women in the ranks of the police for example. Often that are pretty ones. And it is clear they should de-escalate. That´s a nice idea. But more often they aren´t able to stand their "man"/ground during heavy excalations. The colleagues have to care for and protect them then. That lowers the combat effectiveness of that colleagues a great deal. Sure there are exceptions but they are very seldom. So seen from a realistic point of view - if police or army - women should get allowed to get into the same positions as men but only if they can achieve the same as men and don´t play the card to be a woman. For example: If a test says You have to jump over a vertical wall of 2 metres something then they have to reach that goal without any assistance as a stool or physical help by their male colleagues. In an emergency there is no stool and maybe the male colleagues are all fighting for dear life and have no opportunity to help - or maybe they are all dead or wounded. And so on.
From "my" educational point of view it shouldn´t get allowed in no way to get women in the ranks of a fighting force.

Greetings :)
 
Using women in frontline duty was in history mostly a sign of lacking manpower. It was considered as a exception in case of extreme emergency, e.g. during WW2.
Recently such makeshift measures meet the concept of emancipation of women, which acknowledges no real (but solely cultural) differences between genders.
In fact there is some evidence that women can perform well at the frontline: The Russians celebrated the successful deployment of units, consisting of women only (bomber units) and snipers too.
Mixed units don't seem to work well for reasons that mentioned @Sempai. The IDF made some attempts with mixed frontline units but did refrain again.
I myself tend to acknowledge "natural" differences between men and women (physical, mental, emotional) that make the usage of women in frontline duty not desirably.
If you think this attitude is conservative, you should read a short extract from Bill Lind on that topic:

November 10, 2008 [...] The military reformers rightly argued that for winning in combat, people are most important, ideas come second and hardware is only third. Allowing women into the ground combat arms and open homosexuals into the armed services will impact critically important "human factors" in strongly negative ways. They will strike directly at why men fight. It is a mistake to think that if you call a group of people an army, give them uniforms and hand them some weapons, they will fight. Throughout history, some armies have fought a lot harder than others. The specific reasons vary widely, but one way or another they all come down to human factors.

One of the most basic human factors is that men fight to prove they are real men. They join fighting organizations, whether the U.S. Army or U.S. Marine Corps or MS-13, because those organizations are made up of fighting men. Their membership is a badge of honor that says, "We are not sissies or pansies. We are men who fight, serving alongside other men who fight." That tells others and themselves they are real men. If ideologically-driven policies deprive fighting organizations of their ability to convey that message, men who want to prove they are real men will not join. Instead of men who want to fight and will fight, they will end up recruiting men who join for good pay, or education benefits, or because they can't get a civilian job. Armies like that may fight when they have no other choice, but if they come up against opponents who want to fight, they will be in trouble.

No two actions would more powerfully undermine the ability of the U.S. armed forces to recruit the kind of men who want to fight than allowing women into the ground combat arms and open gays into the military.
How can a man prove his manhood by serving with women and gays? The recruitment of women into the U.S. military has already gone far beyond what military effectiveness would counsel.
Martin van Creveld has written a whole book, Men, Women and War, arguing that women have essentially no place in a military. [...]
 
Hello Gentlemen!
In Polish military schools there are different conditions for taking in men and women, but recently headquarters are trying to change it. And I'm saying: thank God!
I don't want to be completely sceptical about this topic since there were quite many brave women fighting and doing heroic deeds. Also I don't consider myself an expert in history of women-at-arms, but in my country fighting women are usually assosiated with guerrilla warfare (or Red Army), and even then we imagine them as liaison officers or medics. And though I find it very sad and unnatural that they had to fight as partisans, well, it was occupation and they were already enslaved and often exposed for danger anyway, so ok.
But on other conditions, well, maybe I'm stuck-in-the-mud tribal or maybe it is because of my oldschool education, but when I think about myself during a potential war, I don't want women to be in it together with me. I want to defend my homeland, it's independence etc. but it means defending my beloved ones, my people, women, children and old. If there would be women in the frontline with me, it would be one thing less to fight for. Someone might say it's sexist that I expect women to obey men, prepare them meals and do cleaning up, but I also expect men to respect women and protect them with their blood if needed.
And I'm so glad that You guys think the same, it makes me belive in the world :)!
Greetings good people.
 
Should fitness requirements be different, no.
On the other questions I would disagee with you guys. Conservative ethics may often be a reason why young men join the army, but in the actual fighting any number of books, interviews, etc. will show you that men mainly fight for their buddies and don´t give a damn about the actual reason why they are fighting. I don´t expect women to be different. Mr. Crefelds arguments have been used in practically every case when women intrude in formerly male dominions.
Listen to saudi arabia grand mufti explaining why women shouldn´t drive cars ;)
 
As far as I understand there are two questions in this “question of the day”:

1- Is it relevant to lower fitness level to allow woman to be part of frontline soldier.
2- The other one is related to place of women at frontline.

As for the first question I really don’t know. The only relevant information would be to know if current fitness level is based upon operational standards or if this level is set only to avoid having women at frontline...

As for the second question, I must say I disagree with the educational ethic, protective behavior attitude toward women. If you’re married like me you should know that women can clearly defend themselves (@Strelok, @Mehlsack : honestly if you don't know what I mean, I will let my wife read your post, let her find you and I am sure this might change your PoV ;)) … More seriously, I am not sure that this protective attitude which comes certainly from a benevolent point-of-view couldn’t be viewed as a little paternalistic by women. But remind that the question is not whether we would like to fight alongside with our women, but whether women wanting to fight might be able to do it.

The last question is the military effectiveness of women. Guys, a lot of women would certainly reach physical standard of their male counterpart. As for different behavioral/mental/emotional attitude, I would like to believe that gender or sexual behavior may influence these criteria (at least part of humanity would be free of our “male gender” trend toward violence) but unfortunately I do not and to the best of my knowledge these beliefs remains unproven.
 
My opinion is that the physical (or mental) standards of any occupation should not be lowered (no "girl push-ups", being given a stool to climb over a wall, etc.) to allow women in. Conversely, if they are able to meet the same standards as the men are required to, then they should be allowed to do the job.

 
The crux of the matter is that only women have the ability to reproduce mankind.
Is it really desirable for a society to encourage women to become soldiers rather than mothers?

As experience shows you will never be able to prevent pregnancies in each and every case.
Also you cannot compel every enlisting woman to avoid motherhood or agree to abortion in advance.
So, how to deal with that issue? Can you imagine a young mother leaving her baby or toddler for frontline duty for several month?
Sorry, I don’t see that working.

@Strangelove : As for marriage, I know this battleground very well for more than 10 years...;)
In fact I don’t have a paternalistic attitude towards my wife as she gains more money and is even taller (1,86 cm) than me.
I did ask her if she would regard me as a protector. Answer: That’s a good one!
 
Well, I don't think we are in any danger of running out of humans. What's the count now, eight billion? ;-)

Pregnancy would, of course, disqualify a person from combat duty.

Don't we already have female combat pilots?
 
Mexico had a fertility rate of more then 6 childs per woman in 1970. It dropped to 2,2 in 2013. Just a little above the reproduction treshold.
I guess a lot of the "Mexican" immigrants come from even more southern countries, right?

I always thougt that women are to smart to enjoy playing soldier...;-)
 
Not sure to be convinced by your "fertility" argument (fertility dropped vastly before even thinking to question of the day n•8; rate of women soldiers remain ridiculous as regard to overall population; earth remain vastly overpopulated and ressources availability on long term is an increasing and major concern).

Perhaps from a purely "species survival probability" point of view, women on front line might even be a solution (irony inside of course)


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk
 
Would you regard female suicide bombers as frontline soldiers?
 
No, I regard them as brainwashed religious fanatics. My guess is that they have almost zero military training. Why bother to train someone who's sole purpose is to strap a bomb on themselves, run into a crowded area and blow themselves up?
 
Meat Grinder said:
No, I regard them as brainwashed religious fanatics. My guess is that they have almost zero military training. Why bother to train someone who's sole purpose is to strap a bomb on themselves, run into a crowded area and blow themselves up?
Click to expand...

Following Bill Lind I would call them soldiers of the 4th-Generation Warfare (4GW).
While I share your disgust for suicide bombers, I recognize a certain tactic of a certain kind of warfare.
Lind explained it in his lecture "The Four Generations of Modern War" at Marine Corps Base Quantico:

"To the knights on horseback, musketeers were terrorists. There were actually rules ordering their eyes to be put out if they were captured.
Other cultures don't fight the way we do. We fight like a football game. Everybody lines up, they blow the whistle, and go wham into one another. The phalanx. The joust.
Other cultures don't do that. Other cultures fight indirectly. We all celebrate the Athenian victories over the Persians at Marathon and Salamis. But the Persians ended up beating the Athenians. How did they do it?
They provided Sparta with money and a fleet. There are other ways to fight and most other cultures prefer indirect ways of war. We don't get it, because we say if it's not a joust, it's not war.
Sorry, if it changes the outcome on the ground, it's war, regardless of whether it is by playing King of the Hill or not. Yes, we can play King of the Hill better than anyone else.
We can be the cock of the dung hill on any dung hill on Earth if we want to. But there is more to war than that.
John Boyd used to say, “when I was a young officer they taught me that if you have land superiority and air superiority and sea superiority, you win.
Well, in Vietnam, we had land superiority and air superiority and sea superiority, but we lost. So there's obviously something more to it.”
Other cultures' ways of war play over a much broader spectrum and we are having real trouble coming to grips with that."
 
jby said:
Should fitness requirements be different, no.
On the other questions I would disagee with you guys. Conservative ethics may often be a reason why young men join the army, but in the actual fighting any number of books, interviews, etc. will show you that men mainly fight for their buddies and don´t give a damn about the actual reason why they are fighting. I don´t expect women to be different. Mr. Crefelds arguments have been used in practically every case when women intrude in formerly male dominions.
Listen to saudi arabia grand mufti explaining why women shouldn´t drive cars ;)
Click to expand...

Never been engaged in a serious combat, but I guess I would indeed don't mind my wounded butt being drgged to medic by some pretty lady. On the other hand being a soldier is not only fighting, but most of the time it means marching, sitting in barracks and cleaning toilets. And belive me or not, after all night manoeuvres most of us were still able to distinguish man from the women and treat them differently.

Strangelove said:
As far as I understand there are two questions in this “question of the day”:

1- Is it relevant to lower fitness level to allow woman to be part of frontline soldier.
2- The other one is related to place of women at frontline.

As for the first question I really don’t know. The only relevant information would be to know if current fitness level is based upon operational standards or if this level is set only to avoid having women at frontline...

As for the second question, I must say I disagree with the educational ethic, protective behavior attitude toward women. If you’re married like me you should know that women can clearly defend themselves (@Strelok, @Mehlsack : honestly if you don't know what I mean, I will let my wife read your post, let her find you and I am sure this might change your PoV ;)) … More seriously, I am not sure that this protective attitude which comes certainly from a benevolent point-of-view couldn’t be viewed as a little paternalistic by women. But remind that the question is not whether we would like to fight alongside with our women, but whether women wanting to fight might be able to do it.

The last question is the military effectiveness of women. Guys, a lot of women would certainly reach physical standard of their male counterpart. As for different behavioral/mental/emotional attitude, I would like to believe that gender or sexual behavior may influence these criteria (at least part of humanity would be free of our “male gender” trend toward violence) but unfortunately I do not and to the best of my knowledge these beliefs remains unproven.
Click to expand...

Didn't mean to offend your wife, she has likely better punch than I do if you say so ;). Also, don't get me wrong people, I know the woman can be strong, can shoot well and I strongly support women self-defence. But all this is still not enough to be a soldier.
I know that absolute-gender-equality trend is quite lively lately, especially here in Europe, but it has rather ideological than biological or cultural origin. Gender differences exist. Men have more androgens which stimulate aggression, muscle growth and competitive behaviour, especially under stressful conditions (many studies about this, behavioural research by HEC School here should be convincing, as this school is not so conservative from what I've heard). It was also proved, that spatial intelligence is linked with androgens quantity. And above all, there are differences in brain connectivity (here), which mean men and women think differentely.
Greetings good people.
 
Mehlsack said:
Following Bill Lind I would call them soldiers of the 4th-Generation Warfare (4GW).
While I share your disgust for suicide bombers, I recognize a certain tactic of a certain kind of warfare.
Lind explained it in his lecture "The Four Generations of Modern War" at Marine Corps Base Quantico:

"To the knights on horseback, musketeers were terrorists. There were actually rules ordering their eyes to be put out if they were captured.
Other cultures don't fight the way we do. We fight like a football game. Everybody lines up, they blow the whistle, and go wham into one another. The phalanx. The joust.
Other cultures don't do that. Other cultures fight indirectly. We all celebrate the Athenian victories over the Persians at Marathon and Salamis. But the Persians ended up beating the Athenians. How did they do it?
They provided Sparta with money and a fleet. There are other ways to fight and most other cultures prefer indirect ways of war. We don't get it, because we say if it's not a joust, it's not war.
Sorry, if it changes the outcome on the ground, it's war, regardless of whether it is by playing King of the Hill or not. Yes, we can play King of the Hill better than anyone else.
We can be the cock of the dung hill on any dung hill on Earth if we want to. But there is more to war than that.
John Boyd used to say, “when I was a young officer they taught me that if you have land superiority and air superiority and sea superiority, you win.
Well, in Vietnam, we had land superiority and air superiority and sea superiority, but we lost. So there's obviously something more to it.”
Other cultures' ways of war play over a much broader spectrum and we are having real trouble coming to grips with that."
Click to expand...

You win ONLY, if you have the will to win. Not even the complete destruction of the Vietnamese people would have been viewed as a victory. There was no exit plan, no thought about what victory looked like. The US military was a rudderless ship, sailing in a sea storm, with a mad Captain Ahab at the helm, seeking the great, white whale of victory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom