Should women be allowed to serve in the infantry? (1 Viewer)

[Big Boss]

It does not matter whether you are a man or a woman.
I have recruited both men and women equally in the past.
The gender should not necessarily inhibit a person's survival.

Although I have encountered female officiers carrying the M1911 pistol as their primary weapon, women are as capable as men in using carbines, sniper rifles and rocket propelled grenade launchers and other heavy ordinance.
One of my female subordinates was able to take down a mechanical monstrosity more than 30 times her size on her own with an RPG-7.

 

[Iron]

They don't hurt morale.

Please my sweet let's not fight over this. You know what I think about gays.
I know what you think about gays.

There is no legitimate reason why homosexual men and women should not be allowed in the armed forces. There is no correlation between > butt rape incidences with > homosexual recruitment.

People don't go into battle thinking 'woe is me we're gunna die' because their dorm mate likes it in the pie ok?

Who's fighting? I dont have info on this, but ill safely assume that it supports my view :\

I mean, if I was a solider like my brother, serving my country, making my family proud and prepared to make the supreme sacrifice if necessary, i'd be pretty bummed if the guy next to me was a big flamming homo in an all-male environment. It might not be true, but the impression it gives is that theyre less interested in the duty and all that noble crap, and more interested in seeing my sweet ass in the showers, cuddling up next to me on some cold night in a far away land etc. It's a pretty big and, I think, intolerable mockery of military service imo.

Dont ask, dont tell.

edit: same goes for the girls to an extent. Although having them in the unit might be more consensual, it's still bad for morale. Is it so crazy to imagine some woman joining up with the main goal of finding love?

Soldiers have a specific and costly job to do. You dont want to muddy that purpose with sex etc.

 

[katie tully]

Who's fighting? I dont have info on this, but ill safely assume that it supports my view :\

I mean, if I was a solider like my brother, serving my country, making my family proud and prepared to make the supreme sacrifice if necessary, i'd be pretty bummed if the guy next to me was a big flamming homo in an all-male environment. It might not be true, but the impression it gives is that theyre less interested in the duty and all that noble crap, and more interested in seeing my sweet ass in the showers, cuddling up next to me on some cold night in a far away land etc. It's a pretty big and, I think, intolerable mockery of military service imo.

Dont ask, dont tell.

edit: same goes for the girls to an extent. Although having them in the unit might be more consensual, it's still bad for morale. Is it so crazy to imagine some woman joining up with the main goal of finding love?

Soldiers have a specific and costly job to do. You dont want to muddy that purpose with sex etc.

dude ... what?

 

[loller]

ok why are we talking about gays and muslims

 

[katie tully]

We had quitters in the rebellion too ... We called them Kentuckians.

 

[loller]

civil war dingus

 

[B_B_J]

Muslims are asking the real question unlike the the non believers. We Muslims are always struggling to fight the western enlightened that has creep-ed into our civilization. The real question we ask is should woman be allowed to do anything other than cook, used for sex by men, and be a delivery mechanism for the husbands offspring? And the Islamic answer is No.

 

[Iron]

Muslims are asking the real question unlike the the non believers. We Muslims are always struggling to fight the western enlightened that has creep-ed into our civilization. The real question we ask is should woman be allowed to do anything other than cook, used for sex by men, and be a delivery mechanism for the husbands offspring? And the Islamic answer is No.

Must be hard being a brand of evil that thinks the last 1300 years of human progress is heresy...

 

[loller]

like u can talk dingus

 

[Iron]

(dennis, there's some lovely filth over here)

 

[loquasagacious]

I don't think so. Forgetting emotional stability for a second, women are just not as physically strong as men. And in the rare cases where you find a woman physically fitter, it doesn't necessarily mean as strong. So whilst they might be able to run 20km and kick arse or whatever, doesn't necessarily mean they'll be able to trudge though the middle of nowhere with a 25kg supply pack, plus weapons, on their back.

This all depends how you define and test fitness. If the term is well defined and well tested then it doesn't matter the gender of the person taking the test. After all your proposition is basically that the current test may not be adequate but we get away with using it because most men who pass the test are good in the other areas we don't currently test.

As far as a useful definition of fitness I like the CrossFit definition, which basically takes fitness as a broad construct which is measured by performance across ten criteria: cardiovascular/respiratory endurance, stamina, strength, flexibility, power, coordination, agility, balance, and accuracy.

Also there is the issue of what they do when they get their periods unless they get depo or something beforehand and idk, they just seem like a liability. PMS. PMS whilst being shot at, can you imagine?

I recall seeing an interesting article which looked at women in units which deployed into Iraq during the first Gulf War. Immediately prior to deployment there was a spike in pregnancies - which obviously precluded the effected women from being deployed. The vast majority subsequently had abortions.

Aside of course from the moral questions surrounding their methods it is obviously unacceptable for women to avoid deployment and cause units to deploy understrength. The solution to which is women being required to receive an implanon or other similar contraceptive - this avoids both the pregnancy and period issue.

And what happens if they're away for ages at war and some dudes who have been with nobody but dudes for 9 months are like 'hay wimmens'. Sexual assault is already rife in the armed forces.

- Is it too much to demand (and enforce) professional behaviour?
- Women are already in this situation as they are allowed to serve on warships and in non-combat units which are nonetheless deployed close to the frontline.
- With the exception of special forces and navies modern military units are not typically out of contact with civilisation/local populaces for extended periods. E.g. they see plenty of wimmens.

And somebody mentioned it before, but in terms of a liability ... I really think that men would have a hard time accepting a female in the frontline infantry. I think there would always be that, well not desire, but the feeling that they would have to protect the female.

Idk, I personally wouldn't trust a woman on the front line. They're fucking nuts you guys.

edit: front line is fucking hardcore, what stupid bitch wants to be frontline anyway?

Other countries manage to (or have in the past) accept it, so really what is the big deal? IMO we should all just be grown ups about it and accept women into the frontline if they so desire (and pass the tests).

 

[loller]

I cant recall ever meeting a woman with the same level of strength as like say a man my size? that said i havent met any women body builders or elite athletes.

Edit: lol my point being, this isnt even worth discussing because there will be like 10 women who get in anyway

 

[Silver Persian]

I cant recall ever meeting a woman with the same level of strength as like say a man my size? that said i havent met any women body builders or elite athletes.

Well, as Kieran states, if women can't pass the tests necessary to participate in the infantry, they won't be allowed to participate. But if they can complete these tests, they will be able to participate. Same deal men face.

 

[loller]

um yeah i said that in like my 2nd post in the thread

like i said, my point was that there will be a tiny amount of women who get in, so why bother. because there will have to be special considerations made for them and you know there will in this day and age. and its not really worth it to get 20 women in the frontline lol.




in summary
bitches are like stitches, you pull em out and theyyy.......open up

 

[Silver Persian]

um yeah i said that in like my 2nd post in the thread
like i said, my point was that there will be a tiny amount of women who get in, so why bother. because there will have to be special considerations made for them and you know there will in this day and age. and its not really worth it to get 20 women in the frontline lol.

What special considerations? An extra bathroom? Some tampons?

 

[loller]

i dont know

dont try and have sex with your sergent classes

yes tampons
bulletproof bras lol i dont know

 

[loquasagacious]

The whole point though is not making special considerations....

And it would hardly seem a particularly onerous thing to implement - after all there wouldn't really be any changes; application doesn't change, tests don't change, training doesn't change, combat doesn't change, etc etc.

Pretty minimal effort to effectively double the recruitment pool (sure not all women will be fit enough, but it's not like all men are either).

I am quite fit and pass the entry tests relatively easily, several of the women at my gym are considerably fitter than me - albeit it is a relatively 'hardcore' gym but the point is that they aren't that uncommon.

 

[JonathanM]

Muslims are asking the real question unlike the the non believers. We Muslims are always struggling to fight the western enlightened that has creep-ed into our civilization. The real question we ask is should woman be allowed to do anything other than cook, used for sex by men, and be a delivery mechanism for the husbands offspring? And the Islamic answer is No.

The Islamic answer sounds very wrong in that case.

"Our" civilization. Come on BBJ, do you really associate yourself with Islamic civilization over Western civilization? I highly doubt that - otherwise you wouldn't be seen on forums of discussion like these, not to mention the fact that you are an Australian.

 

[Empyrean444]

I mean, if I was a solider like my brother, serving my country, making my family proud and prepared to make the supreme sacrifice if necessary, i'd be pretty bummed if the guy next to me was a big flamming homo in an all-male environment. It might not be true, but the impression it gives is that theyre less interested in the duty and all that noble crap, and more interested in seeing my sweet ass in the showers, cuddling up next to me on some cold night in a far away land etc. It's a pretty big and, I think, intolerable mockery of military service imo.

No, that's not a problem with gays being in the army, that's just a problem with your unreasonable and unfounded attitude. If a homosexual joined the armed forces, then it is almost certain (on average, at any rate) that he is just as keen in protecting his country and all that 'noble crap' as a straight soldier. The elite of the ancient Theban army - the Sacred Band - was in fact composed entirely of homosexual lovers.

edit: same goes for the girls to an extent. Although having them in the unit might be more consensual, it's still bad for morale. Is it so crazy to imagine some woman joining up with the main goal of finding love?

Soldiers have a specific and costly job to do. You dont want to muddy that purpose with sex etc.

If a woman is joining up to find love (with the intention of fighting on the front line) then she is a retard. I cant imagine any sensible woman doing that. Moreover, i dont think - especially if drill and discipline are being strongly and properly implemented - that there would be a problem with women fighting alongside men on the front line. And even if there were problems, I think - provided they passed the necessary tests etc - women could simply fight on the frontline in 'women-only' units. Now these units would invariably have to coop in battle with male ones, but this would be much less problematic.

 

[Iron]

I'm not denying that the homosexual probably joins for good reasons, but their sexuality is irrelevant to their work and knowledge of such orientation could, I believe, be harmful to morale, for the reasons I gave.

We want a very professional, effective, mobile fighting force. To reach goals like these, it's always good policy to throw sexual temptation out the back door.