in light of past events!
- Thread starter sscotty
- Start date
someplace
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2002
- Posts
- 21,215
While not all women are cut out for military service, there are those who are qualified and suited for it and they should be allowed to. They volunteered and they know the risks. In Operation Desert Storm there were more American WOMEN deployed than the total number of troops from the next highest contributing nation (which was Great Britain). There were over 30,000 American women troops doing what they were trained to do, and doing it well. I don't know the figures for this conflict, but I would expect there is probably a higher percentage of women now.
lorddragonwolf
proverted
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2002
- Posts
- 12,648
Cheyenne said:
men and women have now been held as pow's. let women serve. they have been on the front lines as nurses and in suport positions they have won their right to fight along side men.
someplace
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2002
- Posts
- 21,215
If I remember correctly, in Desert Storm women pilots were prohibited from flying combat aircraft and regulated to helicopters and supply craft. In the military hierachy this put the brakes on their career advancement, further training opportunities and their salaries reflected that. That ban has been lifted and we now have female fighter pilots (albeit only a few). They fought a long hard battle for that right and I'd hate to see people strip that away over isolated incidents.
sweet soft kiss
Tastefully Round
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2003
- Posts
- 16,101
Horrible things happen to people. It can happen in peace time and in war, in civilian or military life. You can be working in an office and be taken hostage by a nut job with a gripe against some one or something about the company you work for. Is being a POW that much different? Women should be in the military, and serve in any capacity that they are mentally and physically qualified for. We have a volunteer military and women who join should well understand what may lie in store for her, the same as any man should.
Small town girl
Experienced
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Posts
- 68
I agree
Like everyone else i agree that women should be able to be on the frontlines with their male counterparts. If she is mentally capable and physicly able, not to mention willing to fight then why the hell not?
Like everyone else i agree that women should be able to be on the frontlines with their male counterparts. If she is mentally capable and physicly able, not to mention willing to fight then why the hell not?
katelync
For those lost......
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2002
- Posts
- 2,744
I have been in the military for 7yrs...I knew what I was getting into when I signed up. It is hard to be a female in the army. You have to work hard to prove yourself...and still is not good enough. For me...I am a soldier...trained to fight. Proud to serve.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
A qualified yes, provided they can pass the physical fitness requirements without gender norming allowances.
However, this is something that should be thought through long and hard.
First of all, the POW thing is a non-issue. Women have been POW's or "spoils of war" for thousands of years. PFC Lynch is just the most recent.
A country that is not in jeapordy of the loss of it's national identity should carefully consider whether or not we should allow the only people that can secure the future generations to be sacrificed on the alter of war. While that may sound sexist to some, the pragmatic fact of the matter is that women bear the future because at this time they are the only ones that can.
There is no precedent for a military that routinely uses the female citizens of their nation in combat roles. Many like to point to the Isreali's as the model. This is a false perception. The Isreali's have never used their women routinely, or as a matter of policy, in combat arms. The notion that they have is nothing more than a persistant myth.
The role of the military is not to provide a career path for anyone based on race or gender. The role of the military is to as quickly and effeciently as possible reduce an enemy of this nations ability to be a threat to this nation to zero. Until such time as it can be proven that women in combat will not hinder that primary mission, they're use in combat should be limited or not permitted.
There has been no studies of having women on the front lines psychological impact on the male soldier that will continue to be the majority of any combat force. (This is based solely on measureable physiological standards that the majority of females will never be able to meet.) Perhaps this confict will provide us with some of that much needed information. The problem here is with the male component of the force. Just as most women have an atavistic protective reaction to dangers envolving their children, most men have the same atavistic protective reaction towards their female comrades. If this reaction hinders the overall goals of the combat operations, there is a problem that will lead to a greater loss of life than is necessary.
While these psychological concerns may turn out to be non-issues, the physiological issues will remain. And the arguments concerning the providing of 'career paths' as grand social experiments are non-starters in my mind.
Ishmael
However, this is something that should be thought through long and hard.
First of all, the POW thing is a non-issue. Women have been POW's or "spoils of war" for thousands of years. PFC Lynch is just the most recent.
A country that is not in jeapordy of the loss of it's national identity should carefully consider whether or not we should allow the only people that can secure the future generations to be sacrificed on the alter of war. While that may sound sexist to some, the pragmatic fact of the matter is that women bear the future because at this time they are the only ones that can.
There is no precedent for a military that routinely uses the female citizens of their nation in combat roles. Many like to point to the Isreali's as the model. This is a false perception. The Isreali's have never used their women routinely, or as a matter of policy, in combat arms. The notion that they have is nothing more than a persistant myth.
The role of the military is not to provide a career path for anyone based on race or gender. The role of the military is to as quickly and effeciently as possible reduce an enemy of this nations ability to be a threat to this nation to zero. Until such time as it can be proven that women in combat will not hinder that primary mission, they're use in combat should be limited or not permitted.
There has been no studies of having women on the front lines psychological impact on the male soldier that will continue to be the majority of any combat force. (This is based solely on measureable physiological standards that the majority of females will never be able to meet.) Perhaps this confict will provide us with some of that much needed information. The problem here is with the male component of the force. Just as most women have an atavistic protective reaction to dangers envolving their children, most men have the same atavistic protective reaction towards their female comrades. If this reaction hinders the overall goals of the combat operations, there is a problem that will lead to a greater loss of life than is necessary.
While these psychological concerns may turn out to be non-issues, the physiological issues will remain. And the arguments concerning the providing of 'career paths' as grand social experiments are non-starters in my mind.
Ishmael
SilvaTungDevil
Sexy Mother Clucker
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Posts
- 8,113
Hell, they should have to sign up for selective service if you ask me.
Bob_Bytchin
Lit Class of '02
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2002
- Posts
- 41,128
SilvaTungDevil said:
I agree. Fair is fair.
Bobmi357
Knit one, Perl two...
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Posts
- 2,529
I don't have a problem with the concept of woman in a combat role. If they can handle the job, let them do it.
What I do have a problem with, and this isn't gender related, is people that join the reserves and then bitch when they get called up. In Desert Storm we had press jumping on single mothers that had been called up, moaning over who would take care of their kids. We had fathers complaining about being called up.
Lets face a simple fact here people. If you join the reserves and never get called up to serve, lucky you. But if you join, you better expect that you might be asked to spend months, or even years away from your family in harms way.
The reserves aren't there for you to earn a few extra bucks from. They are there to augment our regular military in times of war.
What I do have a problem with, and this isn't gender related, is people that join the reserves and then bitch when they get called up. In Desert Storm we had press jumping on single mothers that had been called up, moaning over who would take care of their kids. We had fathers complaining about being called up.
Lets face a simple fact here people. If you join the reserves and never get called up to serve, lucky you. But if you join, you better expect that you might be asked to spend months, or even years away from your family in harms way.
The reserves aren't there for you to earn a few extra bucks from. They are there to augment our regular military in times of war.
