What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
119 Comments
- modad, on 09/10/2009, -3/+45Perhaps this controversy about women serving in the military can be resolved by a simple policy. The military simply will not ask a soldier if they are a woman, and the soldier in turn will not tell the military they are woman.
- pegothejerk, on 09/10/2009, -17/+41Is there a need for sandwiches on the front line? I'm confused.
/s - EverTheCynic, on 09/10/2009, -3/+21Not really. Women have lower physical fitness standards in the military.
- schnikies79, on 09/10/2009, -9/+26I don't even see a need for a discussion. If they want to be on the front lines, let them. End of discussion.
They should be deciding, not us. - meruru, on 09/10/2009, -1/+18It should be about standards not gender. Either you can do the job (carry the "full combat load") or you can't. If they can pass the test let them serve on the front line, but in no way should standards be lower for women or anyone else.
- ricemonster, on 09/10/2009, -3/+16It would have been cooler if you proofread before you posted, but dugg nonetheless.
- Klinky, on 09/10/2009, -0/+12So it's okay to hit a guy? I think violence is looked down upon in civilized society, regardless of gender. If you're in an escalating situation where confrontation may take place, it's best to try to remove yourself from the situation, be it a bar fight or a crazy ex-girlfriend trying to stab you. If you cannot remove yourself safely from a situation that could cause serious bodily harm to yourself, then it doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman, you will need to defend yourself.
There are some very strong females out there and some very whimpy males. Just because you have testicles doesn't mean you're going to automatically handle a combat situation better. - LeanneOHare, on 09/10/2009, -0/+11Perhaps the soccer team lacked the level of professionalism that is expected of modern military soldiers due to their training (not only combat training, but ethics, harassment, etc). In the Canadian Forces, women are employed widely in all units and regiments, front-line, combat support, CSS, Arty, you name it. There are not love-triangles (or variations thereof) that result in a degradation of esprit-de-corps. Attractions, mutual attractions, and conflicting attractions are bound to take place where genders mix, in any setting and workplace, not just military. Most organisations recognise this and take steps to prevent such activities from hampering the greater aims and goals.
- RoadDoggFL, on 09/10/2009, -2/+13Holy *****, schnikies79 comes from a military family? *****, why would anyone even bother arguing with him? Clearly an authority on all military-related subjects.
- g0atm0nster, on 09/10/2009, -1/+11Maybe this is no longer true today, but the biggest reason we don't have women on the front lines is because men become retarded and self sacrificing when you throw a woman in front of them. An IED that might have just killed her could take out the whole platoon because men in America are still brought up under the idea that women must be protected. I'm not an expert, but when the recruiter told me I couldn't be a field medic that was the explanation he gave me.
I've seen guys so weak they got their first stress fracture within a week of starting basic get accepted in, and women in viable shape be denied. I don't really think it's exclusively physical. - apetrie, on 09/10/2009, -3/+13Women should be allowed to do any job that they are capable of doing.
No role should be denied to women just because they are women. There should be no job that is "male only" in the armed forces. Before any of you attack me for trying to push women into roles they shouldn't be, let me just say that I don't feel that the standards should in any way be altered in order to make it easier for them. As a result, there would likely be roles that a woman would never or almost never actually be in. Most of them would simply not be physically capable, but those few that would be should be allowed the opportunity to prove it. That is only fair, logical, and safe.
Rules against women doing a job = bad
Rules making it easier for women to get a job/perform that job = also bad - jlm408, on 09/10/2009, -2/+12But...but we ladies can't fight because of the bears! The bears can smell the menstruation!
- PowderedToasty, on 09/10/2009, -1/+10Are you arguing that men and women have the same physical abilities? You don't need to pretend we are the same to not be sexist.
- EddiePotato, on 09/10/2009, -0/+9Wouldn't a woman prone to freaking out and crying reveal such during the brutality of basic training? One of its main purposes is to find out who cracks under physical and emotional pressure.
Perhaps less women are cut out for combat than men, and fewer would make the cut, but the ones who do should be welcomed additions to our fighting forces. Hell, I know several women I'd hate to go up against on the battlefield. - rssmith, on 09/10/2009, -0/+9It's shameful, I agree. In the olden days, I proudly fought alongside female troops, shoulder to, uh, shoulder. Alas, after a series of deadly blunders caused by distracting low-cut fatigues and lots of harmless pinching, the army decided women weren't fit for service. Not when I'm in charge.
-Zapp Brannigan - BohicaTwentyTwo, on 09/10/2009, -0/+8When my co-ed unit went out to the field for training exercises, the standard operating procedure stated that females were allowed to go back to the rear every two days for showers. Males were allowed every five days. This was for hygene reasons.
- pegothejerk, on 09/10/2009, -6/+13i don't think you understand how a military functions.
- LeanneOHare, on 09/10/2009, -0/+7reenxor makes a good point.
Saying women shouldn't be allowed because they distract men, is not too far a cry from forcing them to wear burqas because they attract men. Men are responsible for their own actions and feelings.
Reiterating what I have said in a comment above, the level of professional training and military harassment standards ensures that most of these hypothetical scenarios that people here are using to justify precluding women from combat roles do not happen. You are not the first one to think of these problems, people much smarter and more capable than you though of these and many more possible problems and devised policies and procedures to optimize the fighting force's and individual soldiers' combat effectiveness by minimizing or removing entirely the problems you think you just thought of. - sulci, on 09/10/2009, -1/+8imagine going for a week without a shower... while your vagina was bleeding for said week.
- schnikies79, on 09/10/2009, -2/+9In a civilized society, ability and merit should be a deciding factor, not gender.
- BillE3, on 09/10/2009, -0/+7I think the I.D.F. has proven that theory wrong for a long time.
- santiago1, on 09/10/2009, -2/+9 Let me put it this way: Why do we need to have women on the battlefield? Is it to prove they are capable? of what; dying?
and also to Ronin: thank you for your service! - Enkairi, on 09/10/2009, -5/+11I think women should be able to serve in front line duties. In all female units though. Women unintentionally dilute the unity and bonding when they are in a group that is overwhelmingly men. The men will begin to compete with the affection of the woman in most cases, and this will make a units cohesion not as strong. It happened on my high school soccer team (single a so it was co-ed) we had 2 girls on the team, they were great players, better than me. However alot of the guys got yellow and red cards on the team due to hard fouling against an opposing player who had fouled one of our girls in play just a few moments earlier. Also most of our team began trying to get with the girls ( they were hot) and this lead to fights among the team itself.
- apetrie, on 09/10/2009, -0/+6Exactly what proof do you have that women act that way in those situations? Exactly what studies have shown that women do not deal as well in times of crisis or on battle fields?
I don't believe women would be better at dealing than men, I'm pretty sure it depends on the individual. My Mom goes into a crisis mode when something is going horribly wrong and seems to be able to handle anything, including blood and guts. My Dad faints at the sight of blood. I don't for a second think that my parents are representative of men and women everywhere, but my point is that you can't make sweeping generalizations like that just because they fit with how you want things to be.
As far as physical strength, as I stated in my comment below.. I don't think the standards should be any different for women. That would likely result in less women than men in many positions, and I don't see a problem with that. - ronin4740, on 09/10/2009, -14/+20As someone who served in the Infantry I'll always be opposed to females in combat positions. Nothing creates dissent more than a woman "playing" with the men she's serving with. And, while there are some females who will be able to toss a full combat load on their back and hang with the boys, most can't. If they do end up in true front line combat units then women should serve in companies of women, not in co-ed infantry companies.
- stuffradio, on 09/10/2009, -0/+6Timeout I'm having my periods!
Wait... that doesn't sound right to me... I don't think I can do that. - reenxor, on 09/10/2009, -1/+6so that would mean men should learn to not try to "show off" for lady affection. it doesn't disqualify women from being on the front lines at all!
- EddiePotato, on 09/10/2009, -0/+5This does touch upon perhaps the strongest argument against mixed gender fighting units. It's inevitable that romantic feelings will develop between some soldiers that spend so much time in close proximity, which often leads to jealously, resentment, and soap opera dramas that have no place on the battlefield.
- inactive, on 09/10/2009, -2/+6No need, your misogyny is clear as a bell.
- stk198323, on 09/10/2009, -0/+4And yet a woman hitting a man in a public place usually end up by everybody thinking he either deserved it or he cheated on her!
- LeanneOHare, on 09/10/2009, -0/+4Yes, Nairebis, it does mean what Plato thinks it means.
- Erenthia, on 09/10/2009, -1/+5how about to prove that women are just as ready to die for their country as men?
Or to prove that men are no less valuable than women since we are equally ready/not-ready to see them die. - apetrie, on 09/10/2009, -0/+4You're absolutely right and are not being sexist at all, IMO. Women should not be barred from combat, but they shouldn't be given special consideration either. That is what equality means!
- JoeHague, on 09/10/2009, -0/+4If Chris Brown had of punched 50cent he would still have a career/
- JBregard, on 09/10/2009, -0/+4Thank you for this enlighting and mature comment.
- apetrie, on 09/10/2009, -1/+43 people have dugg me down so far, yet none of you can actually reply with a decent argument?
If you are the kind of supposed feminist who believes special concessions should be made for women, then try giving some logical arguments in favour of that.
If you are being sexist and don't feel women should be allowed to do jobs they are capable of, well, its pretty ***** pathetic that you think so little of women yet aren't brave enough to actually argue with one. Congratulations on being pieces of *****, AND cowards! - Sylocat, on 09/10/2009, -0/+3A man is responsible for his own actions, and that includes NOT showing off for the ladies when there's a ***** war going on. If the men can't handle the distractions of having girls about, maybe they're the ones who shouldn't be soldiers.
- Evilblobs, on 09/10/2009, -1/+4It's about unit coherency. Its a simple biological fact that most women cannot compete with conditioned men in terms of physical strength.
I'm not saying that there aren't women who can't or couldn't with training, those who can should be able to serve on the front lines; but a fair majority would simply drag down the unit which could cost lives, missions, etc.
No offense towards women, blame biology or god or whomever you prefer. - apetrie, on 09/10/2009, -0/+3Same kind of argument was used to justify restricting women showing their ankles, wearing pants, etc. etc. Its a distraction! The thing is.. its a distraction only because its not the norm. Remove the barriers and society will adjust.
I don't know if women could do it more often than not, I just believe that those who could shouldn't be punished just because most couldn't. Equal opportunity. Make it on your own merit or not. - Sylocat, on 09/10/2009, -0/+3Saying that women shouldn't be allowed because they distract men is akin to saying that women should be forced to wear burquas because they attract men. A male soldier is responsible for his own actions, and that includes NOT showing off for women at the expense of the mission. If men can't handle that kind of "distraction," then maybe it's them who shouldn't be soldiers.
- inactive, on 09/10/2009, -0/+3And the physical fitness standards are different by age group as well so the point is what?
- stanleyford, on 09/10/2009, -1/+4"If they want to be on the front lines, let them." -- This may surprise you, but the purpose of a military is not to promote equality: it is to win wars. If having women on the front line helps the military win wars, then women should be allowed on the front line. If having women on the front line detracts from the military's ability to win wars, then women should be denied that ability. In any case, the people best equipped to make such decisions are not the women in question, who by definition are just grunts, not military theorists.
- stk198323, on 09/10/2009, -0/+3Technically he isn't wrong because an opinion can't be wrong or right!
But since he cannot give valid point for his opinion, it will remain valid but only to himself! - LeanneOHare, on 09/10/2009, -2/+5*Also from a military family*
Besides, have several friends in the military.
"not all armies allow their property (soldiers) to pick where they end up"
I don't think the article talks about 'all armies'. Besides, almost all first-world armies are volunteer forces, the soldiers are not 'property'. I won't claim intimate knowledge of all militaries, but the Canadian Forces, I know pretty much all there is to know. The first edict of the CF military ethos is 'Respect the dignity of all persons', and it's not just words, it's strictly adhered to and enforced.
Women in the CF serve on the front-line along with men, and if you take a look at casualties in Afghanistan and read the details into how each one died, you'd realise just how front-line they are.
"I haven't even began to talk about all the ***** that would take place."
It takes place whether they are front-line or not. Google fodder: Regimental Ground Sheet. Just like any group of people (college/uni for example), there are really horny promiscuous individuals, and then there are the non-promiscuous ones. I know rape has been an ongoing issue in the US military. Perhaps it has been hyped up and skewed by the media. CF, on the other hand, takes standards of harassment very seriously and the level of training and professionalism ensures misconduct is prevented or immediately identified and punished.
So I have to say to pego, I don't think *you* understand how a real military works, as far as western first-world militaries go. (Hollywood military doesn't count) - Klinky, on 09/10/2009, -0/+3@duncan202 Perhaps someday you'll take women off that pedestal you've put them on and bring them down to being human beings. I don't think anyone could make the hard decision of if they'd prefer for their mom or dad to be dead or alive. For all you know the father was the one who cared for the child and the mother was the bread winner or they both had extremely important roles. Either way it's a loss, but you're effectively condoning that father's have less value to their children than their mothers. Frankly you sound like you're aiming for something noble, but it comes off as backwards and insulting to women/fathers.
Also while you're protecting women, you can make sure they stay in the kitchen and never leave the home because they might get killed, murdered or raped outside the door. There's a lot of danger in the world and it's best to try to judge situations given the circumstances, rather than making blanket statements. - vault, on 09/10/2009, -0/+3Yes...but if young men have to register for selective service, so should young women, even if they're not likely to be assigned to all the same roles.
- darwininmotion, on 09/11/2009, -0/+2Easy have men only divisions and girls with gay guys divisions, noone will get distracted.
- supersonicjim, on 09/10/2009, -28/+30Women: the only soldiers they bleed without being shot.
- SpookyET, on 09/10/2009, -0/+2That discussion was over when the Israeli Defence Forces have been formed.
- g0atm0nster, on 09/11/2009, -0/+21# Women in general aren't nearly as well suited for combat or physical activity as men, but you're right. That's just biology. A set test that you were required to pass would put everything to rest once and for all, and with probably similar results.
2# Maybe you won't admit it to yourself, but odds are if you've spent months training with a group of people, and developed close friendships with them, were there one or two women in your group and the rest men you would, unintentionally, put them on a pedestal above the whole of the group because of inherent genetic programming. It's not that they're irresponsible or poorly brought up, it's just the way things are. -
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is