# Women in Combat - What about this?



## muskrat89 (21 Apr 2004)

OK - I do not want this to spiral into a discussion regarding  _whether_  women should be in combat.

There are rumblings here in the US (rumours, agreed) that they may eventually need to re-institute the draft (selective service, for which I had to register by the way, when I moved here). If they do (or the next time they do, for that matter) - should women not be included? After all, they are an accepted part of the military now, for all intents and purposes....


----------



## wongskc (21 Apr 2004)

To add to this question, if Canada were to implement conscription, would include women as well?  I know chances of selective service in Canada are close to zilch now, but I‘m just curious.

Now, to answer the original question, I would expect so if trades that they can be accepted to are in serious need of warm bodies.  After all, if the US is really hurting for infantry, but women are not allowed on the front lines this would be a moot point.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Apr 2004)

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Right?

I think national service is a great idea.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## combat_medic (21 Apr 2004)

I disagree with conscription for a number of reasons, however, if a country does decide to implement it, I think it should be for both men and women. Any time conscription has been authorized, there are always a lot of "outs" for people with good reason. For example, drafting a mother and father from the same family would be a big no no.


----------



## Gunnar (21 Apr 2004)

Since we‘re not discussing whether or not women should be in *combat*, but rather, whether or not they should be in the armed forces...well, why wouldn‘t you draft them?

Women are capable of fulfilling a number of important and unique roles in the military, and always have been.  Even when they were restricted to clerk or nursing positions, it‘s not like they weren‘t NEEDED.  If you‘re gonna draft PEOPLE, you draft them ALL.


----------



## casing (21 Apr 2004)

I think they should be included.  In fact, I think that there should be a mandatory period of service for everyone once they reach 18 or 19.


----------



## GrahamD (21 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Casing:
> [qb] I think they should be included.  In fact, I think that there should be a mandatory period of service for everyone once they reach 18 or 19. [/qb]


Maybe mandatory service would be good for people who do not enroll in a post secondary institution within 18-24 months of graduating highschool or something.

However, I don‘t think people who are willing to fill the voids in skilled trades, medicine, etc. by starting into their education immediately should be burdened with a 2 or 3 year commitment to the Armed Forces.
The army isn‘t for everyone, and you only get out what you put in, and if you put in a bunch of people who are resistant to their mandatory service, then you would see a decline in the quality of personnel.
You would see resistance in those who didn‘t plan to attend college/university as well of course, but I believe they would be more easily broken of their defiant attitude, since they would obviously not feel as though they were genuinely missing out on better opportunities.


The draft for women?

Why not?  Even if you were going to limit them from being drafted into combat units, you could still free up a lot of human resources from the support trades to fill those combat roles.


----------



## Yes Man (21 Apr 2004)

I don‘t really like the idea of drafting women.  The first thing is it would cause a massive change in army's facilities/equipment (everything from washrooms to different size uniforms), to accommodate for a much larger female population.  This will cost a great deal of money, and will go to waste once the draft is stopped and male to female ratios return.  

The second thing would be forcing more men into combat positions.  Just because they are men does not mean that they will want to be at the pointy end of the stick.  If women fill up the majority of support jobs this means that many men will be forced into combat arms, I don't think this is a good thing.

Third stability at home would be even more damaged during a draft if women went to war.  This is not just an issue being at home with the children; this would be more of an economy issue.  Amongst the many countries in the world, which have mandatory army service, very few of them force women to join, because of the large impact it would have on the nation's economy.  You always want to have a stable job/buying presents at home and by guarantying that women will not be drafted, you keep a substantial part of the market intact.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (21 Apr 2004)

I don‘t think facilities (washrooms, equipment) are that strong of a concern, because its not like they will be drafting that many soldiers for garrison duty, they would be deployed, or replacing home units that are deployed.  I think the US can afford to acquire more uniforms as necessary.

Interesting second point however, since front line combat positions are limited to males, so females would need to be employed more in other areas.  Do drafted soldiers have any choice for what their MO will be?


----------



## condor888000 (21 Apr 2004)

Seems to me your views are a bit outdated yes man. I believe that Canada already allows women in infantry so how would the draft of women incerease the number of men in combat? If you are talking about the states with their slightly different views I understand. 

General question: Does the CF have two sizes of uniforms, one for men, and one for women? 

And could you please elaborate on the econmic impacts? Seems to me the economy would be just as affected if they drafted a large number of men.


----------



## Yes Man (21 Apr 2004)

How do they setup facilities in the CF right now?  Are there different showers, washrooms, and quarter, for women and men?


----------



## Yes Man (21 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by condor888000:
> [qb] Seems to me your views are a bit outdated yes man. I believe that Canada already allows women in infantry so how would the draft of women incerease the number of men in combat? If you are talking about the states with their slightly different views I understand.
> 
> General question: Does the CF have two sizes of uniforms, one for men, and one for women?
> ...


Well I was talking about the U.S in regards to the combat arms, but I think it still applies to Canada.  When you look at the physical shape (strength and endurance) of both men and women on average, men fair better, that's just the way we were born.  Now because you are picking these women at random there are going to be lots more that are not fit enough to fill a job in the infantry or other combat arm.  This will create a trend of pushing more men into the combat arms.  Though I am not sure if you get to choose you MO when drafted.

Also there are many sizes of uniform, its just that women are on average smaller so you are going to need smaller uniforms.  (note this will only really be a problem when you start talking about 100,000s of people)

The economic impact will come from the lack of job security when there is a draft (ie you will not know when you will be drafted thus you may have to leave you job at any time).  This has a huge impact on the buying market.  Now by making sure that women are not drafted, it will give them even greater job security (due to the male draft) and will help keep the economy working.


----------



## combat_medic (21 Apr 2004)

Yes Man: Of course they have washrooms, showers, living quarters and uniforms for women. Do you think we have communal showers or something? How do you think we‘re going to get clean?

As for uniforms, women are only a few inches shorter, on average, than men. To say that women can‘t serve because of size differences, then you could also say that Asian people can‘t serve or be drafted because they‘re smaller than the average Caucasian male, and the uniform sizes would be problomatic.

Forcing men into combat roles in a time of war is also a moot point. With the exception of consciencious objectors, the majority of people who are drafted will go into the combat arms. Also, as you may or may not have noticed, women are perfectly capable of serving in combat arms trades as well, and are doing so right now.

Third, your whole "economic impact" idea is insane! A wartime economy is not depending on the consumer at home to keep the economy running. During WWII, the vast majority of economic resources were focused on making war, and the people at home were discouraged from buying comsumer products at all ventures. Things like home gardens, recycling and all other methods of reducing purchasing were heavily encouraged. Shortages of everything was common, and people had to learn to do without. All the resources were devoted to making war, and even the women back at home were often required to do volunteer service for the war effort.


----------



## muskrat89 (21 Apr 2004)

No one has addressed this from a parent‘s perspective. I think many people (including me) are old fashioned enough that they would have a much tougher time with a daughter getting drafted, than with a son getting called up. Thoughts?


----------



## Yes Man (21 Apr 2004)

There are many ways that they could deal with the facilities, in some places in Europe they are communal.  Also they could take turns (ie guys take a shower then girls come in after guys have left) 

Uniforms would be just one small aspect of the overall cost of refitting an army for a 50/50 male female ratio.  The amount of Asians should stay the same in the army so their uniforms will be reused.  The ratio of males to females in the army will most likely return to its pre-draft ratio which is not 50/50 leaving 100,000s of small uniforms not being use.

In Canada there would be lots of consciences objectors, that is a huge exception.

The economic impact is not my idea.  But what you are talking about in regards to WWII was not the situation I was talking about.  That would be more of a total devotion to the war effort, were I was talking about needing a 100,000 more troops in Iraq.  I doubt they would change the whole US economy over that, but it would cause a major scare in the job market.

BTW this is just random thoughts from a 20 year old university student who has not slept in a week because of exams, there is good odds I‘m wrong. I would not even say my opinion is worth $.02.


----------



## condor888000 (21 Apr 2004)

What is the big deal with having a 50/50 male femal ratio? Contractors just need to step up production of smaller sizes. 

While there would be many consiences objectors I doubt that there would be so many as to render a draft ineffective. 

And if fewer people were avaible for hiring wouldn‘t companies raise pay to recieve more applicants, thereby giving the average consumer more money to spend? Then wouldn‘t most people spend more making the economy stronger?

If I‘m wrong correct me, I‘m a 16 year old kid that has too much time on his hands.


----------



## Yes Man (21 Apr 2004)

Uniform are just one aspect (and not that big of one) but it would cost money to create smaller sizes and then you are going to have a large stock pile of small uniforms.  After the draft is over the army would return it its current ratio of males to females and this stock pile could no longer be used.

The same would happen if they had to build womens quarter, bathrooms showers, none of these buildings would not be used after the draft.  Its really just an issue of cost.


----------



## condor888000 (21 Apr 2004)

First of all any excess uniforms could be saved for later use.
Second, I believe that both the US and the CF already have seperate quaters and if there are enough fewer females, they could move males into the unoccupied units.


----------



## Yes Man (21 Apr 2004)

I remember reading about similar problem that occurred with a logging company around Thunder Bay area.  The posted ads saying they were looking for men to do work over the summer.  Woman's rights groups got a hold of this and protested.  So the logging company said that they would take on women workers.  So they built new washrooms, showers, quarters for women to live in.  The first year, there was a bunch of women who went to work for the logging company (as a matter of principal I guess) but by the second year, no women applied.  So all that happened was the logging company was stuck with a few million dollar investment in new facilities and almost no return.


----------



## Yes Man (21 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by condor888000:
> [qb] First of all any excess uniforms could be saved for later use.
> Second, I believe that both the US and the CF already have seperate quaters and if there are enough fewer females, they could move males into the unoccupied units. [/qb]


Uniforms are saved for later use, but because there are going to be sizes that will no longer represent the sizes need by the army they will not be used.

But these buildings will only be needed during the time of the draft.  So when the draft is over and the number decrease you are not going to have any males to move into the unoccupied units.  The problem is during the draft you are going to have to have 2 units instead of 1.


----------



## Yes Man (21 Apr 2004)

it posted 2x


----------



## condor888000 (21 Apr 2004)

OK so the army has a couple thou extra uniforms. They surplus ‘em out and get aome money.

As to the quarters, I doubt they would stop the draft all of a sudden. They would most likely to draft x number of people per year to maintain or increase the size of a military. So if the number were increasing they would need more if they stayed the same you‘re set since you already have enough.


----------



## Yes Man (21 Apr 2004)

A nation could only keep a draft for so long, The cost of equipping and training a drafted army are huge.  Why spend more money on a drafted army of both males and females when you don‘t have to.  Equality is great but its not worth going bankrupt over and losing the war.

EDIT: this is my opinion, plz dont shoot me over this


----------



## willy (21 Apr 2004)

Yes Man: I don‘t think you‘ve said a single thing here that makes any sense.  The CF couldn‘t use the new buildings they‘d have to build because they were originally built for women?  Take a screwdriver, change the sign to read "Men", and I don‘t see the problem.  There would be a backbreaking cost issue for uniforms?  Quite simply, no there wouldn‘t be.  There is already quite a size range in the CF as it stands.

All these points you make about waste after the draft is over would be "concerns" even if they only drafted men.  Are you aware that at the end of WW II, the Canadian Navy was the third largest in the world?  How long do you think it stayed that way?  There would have been all kinds of surplus involved after WW II, and not a single woman was drafted.  Let‘s not forget the fact that Canada would never, EVER implement a draft unless it was a military neccessity, i.e. the **** had well and truly hit the fan, and we needed troops NOW.  In that case, I doubt that future "waste" would be too much of a pressing concern.  Furthermore, it‘s been proven that women can be effective members of the forces, in all capacities, and if we ever needed troops badly enough to implement a draft, we‘d be foolhardy to only draw from half the potential talent pool.


----------



## Yes Man (21 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by willy:
> [qb] Yes Man: I don‘t think you‘ve said a single thing here that makes any sense.  The CF couldn‘t use the new buildings they‘d have to build because they were originally built for women?  Take a screwdriver, change the sign to read "Men", and I don‘t see the problem.  There would be a backbreaking cost issue for uniforms?  Quite simply, no there wouldn‘t be.  There is already quite a size range in the CF as it stands.
> [/qb]


Its not that they could not use the new buildings, its that they would have to build two.  Two different showers cost more than one big one.  Also about the uniforms I have said this a few times, it would not that big of a deal, its just a small factor.

Also to my knowledge it has never been proven that a drafted army of 50/50 men and women has worked.  Im not saying that it wont, I‘m just giving a few points to consider.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (21 Apr 2004)

I can‘t speak for the rest of the CF, but at Dundurn, we just took turns using the showers on my basic, and in the Shilo ‘dorms‘ the 2 washrooms/shower rooms on each floor have switchable male/female signs.  You just adjust your schedule to compensate.


----------



## willy (21 Apr 2004)

They wouldn‘t neccessarily have to build two.  They‘d have to build MORE, to accomodate the extra troops, but there are very few unisex barracks in the CF right now, and I can‘t imagine that they would be assinine enough to insist on creating more in the midst of a panic that neccessitated conscription.  More barracks is more barracks, the cost is the same, and sex has nothing to do with it.  Moreover, the cost of building barracks and such would be a drop in the bucket when compared to the costs associated with raising, equipping, and running an army in a time of such desparation as to require conscription.  And what do you say about the fact that there would be surplus anyway, as there was after WW II?

Who cares if it hasn‘t been officially proven that female conscription would work?  It‘s been proven that women can do the job, as can men, so what‘s the concern?  It isn‘t like you‘re going to keep up current standards of professionalism in a conscript army anyway: the point is that you conscript not for quality, but for quantity.


----------



## Yes Man (21 Apr 2004)

Sorry, I dont start with the army untill June.  I was going by combat_medic post that they do have different facilities for males and females.

Now in regards to proof that women can do the same job of men, from what the DND website tells me there are only 252 women in combat arms and only about 20% of the force is female.  Going by these numbers why would you not want a 20/80 draft rather than a 50/50?  I know that its true that there are women as good are better soldiers than men but I don‘t know think that it would be equal.  I understand its quantity over quality during a draft, but i would still think if you could get more quality you would.


----------



## willy (21 Apr 2004)

I imagine that the 20/80 split is due to the fact that more men than women WANT to join the army.  If we are talking about a draft, that‘s hardly relevant, is it?  Not exactly a matter of choice at that point.


----------



## Yes Man (21 Apr 2004)

Would you say its want, or ablity. I‘m only saying this because when I went to do my PT test there were about 15 of us including 2 women.  All of the guys that were there passed, but the 2 women were not able to do the 13 pushups needed.  I belive that the 20/80 split has alot to do with the average ablity between males and females.


----------



## willy (21 Apr 2004)

Well, first off, females under 35 only have to do 9 pushups.  Whether I agree with the lesser requirement or not is a separate issue, the point is that it has been put in place so that women can more easily join.  Secondly, making generalizations based on 2 individual cases is a pretty poor application of statistics.  So I disagree that ability is the key factor here.  It has everything to do with the fact that boys play with GI Joe action figures, and girls play with Barbie dolls when they are growing up.  

Look, the point is that there are already women in the army.  That‘s a fact.  They are in every branch of service.  Some female soldiers are crap.  So are some males.  If we ever get to a point when we are in such dire straits as to need conscription, we would be stupid not to apply it on a gender neutral basis.  I don‘t see a single valid reason not to.


----------



## Yes Man (22 Apr 2004)

I know using 2 cases is poor statistics, but there are many other examples that can be used.  Just look at any sport.  If you watch a marathon, or a triathlon or any other sport were they race guys and girls at the same time, you will always see a bunch of guys at the front of the pact. If you were to take the top 100 finishers it would probably be about 70-80 men in the top 100 and 20-30 women. 

Well I think you are pretty fixed on your position, but one last question.  If you could only field 10,000 random soldiers and it would be those soldiers who determined the fate of not just your life but the life of everyone in the country, would you go for a 50/50 split or would you make them all men?


----------



## Tyrnagog (22 Apr 2004)

it depends, Yes Man.  If 5,000 of those women were crack shots, I would definitely take the women.


----------



## Yes Man (22 Apr 2004)

Because its a draft you would be doing it at random, so you would nto get to select all the ‘crack shots‘


----------



## Tyrnagog (22 Apr 2004)

maybe not, but how does gender choose who is the better shot?

I mean, if this were WW1, I would say men, because the tech wasn‘t as good as it is now, and it did sometimes get down to hand to hand combat.

With todays tech, though, it rarely gets to that point (ideally).


----------



## Yes Man (22 Apr 2004)

I wish it was just shooting that made a soldier...That would make for one fun BMQ/SQ/MOC


----------



## Spr.Earl (22 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Tyrnagog:
> [qb] maybe not, but how does gender choose who is the better shot?
> 
> I mean, if this were WW1, I would say men, because the tech wasn‘t as good as it is now, and it did sometimes get down to hand to hand combat.
> ...


It is a fact,on average women are better shots than men.


----------



## combat_medic (22 Apr 2004)

Even if all things were equal in the world in terms of gender, you wouldn‘t get a 50/50 spilt in the military, just as you wouldn‘t get a 50/50 split in careers like nursing and child care. There are some careers that just don‘t appeal as much to men, and some that don‘e appeal as much to women, but that shouldn‘t prevent anyone who is capable of doing the job.

Even if there were conscription, a lot more women would be exempted because they‘re pregnant or are mothers of young children. Also, since someone asked about conscientious objectors. In WWI, for the short period of time that conscription in Canada was in place, only a handful of soldiers ever made it overseas because everyone else claimed an objection of some kind. The vast majority were French Canadians who opposed the war.


----------



## CDNBlackhawk (22 Apr 2004)

Too me, if woman can do the job just as good as a man by the same standards, then i have no problem with them being in combat Arms, But in my opinion if they cant do the exact same job useing the same standards as men, then i dont believe they should be in combat arms.

This is in no way ment to be sexist, i am just saying that equal rights and equal opportunities should mean equal standards also.


----------



## GrahamD (22 Apr 2004)

> Well I think you are pretty fixed on your position, but one last question. If you could only field 10,000 random soldiers and it would be those soldiers who determined the fate of not just your life but the life of everyone in the country, would you go for a 50/50 split or would you make them all men?


A woman would still have to succeed at basic training, even if she was drafted.  It‘s not like you‘re going to have 5000 clueless cheerleader types, who freak out and can‘t handle shooting at someone running around screaming or something.

They will have been through the same training as the men, they will have the same conditioning, and they would be a soldier.
The argument about strength would be more valid if this was 1000 years ago and we were talking about swinging swords and axes, but the tools of war today do not require brute strength to operate that melee weapons did.

Just to get to a point where she may find herself in a combat situation she will already have demonstrated the ability to carry her own gear, assist in carrying wounded, and proficiency with her weapon.  What more do you want?

I‘d take the 50/50 split or any other ratio you could throw at me.  Basically, whoever has passed their training.

Did anyone here see the movie Glory?

Thats what the whole debate about women in combat roles reminds me of.

People back in those days had all kinds of pseudo-scientific reasons why black people were inferior, and incapable of fighting.
The day will come when insinuating that women shouldn‘t be allowed to fight, will be the same as making the same insinuation based on a persons race.
It‘s totally unfounded and will only become moreso as time goes by.  If you‘re holding your breath waiting for some great social experiment to happen and prove that women are not as efficient as men in combat,  then you‘ve got a long wait ahead of you I‘d wager.

Even if some "valid" flaw was found with women serving in combat, our technology is advancing at such a rate that we could eliminate the problem rapidly, either with equpiment innovations or psychological/physical conditioning.


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Apr 2004)

You know, I dont take movies as truth, direction or any of that nonsense, as they are just movies, sometimes stories based on the truth (??), but they are just entertainment. 

However, one of my favourite eastern front movies, is The Cross of Iron. made in 1977, and with a good cast, do go and hire it if you have not seen it already. I vividly remember seeing it in Brandon, Manitoba back in Aug 77 or 78, with a theatre full of young ‘Boxheads‘ from ‘GATES‘, and how they cheered when the Russians took a pounding. It had my hair on end, but it was all in spirit of course, and we all got into it with them.

Anyways I should stop rambling on, and say was I want to.... So here we go...

During WW2 the Russians haad whole battalions of women, who were armed with PPSH 7.62 x 25mm SMGs (known as burp guns)with 30rd and larger capacity drum mags.

They would do a frontal assault on German troops, who were armed with the 5 shot 7.92 x 57mm Kar 98K Mauser.

Of course we must consider the MG34 and 42, plus the MP40‘s etc, anad their ‘orbat‘ from within, but general issue was in fact the bolt action Kar98K.

Sure from a distance, the rifles had the range, and the Russians could be taken out at liesure, but as the Russians advanced well into SMG range the firepower from a battalion of p_issd off women, truly overwhelmed the German forces on many occasions.

Kinda makes ya wonder. There are many Russian women, now all old and weary, but 60 yrs ago, they were doing their bit, and helped save the ‘motherland‘ from the Germans.

Israel too, uses women only units, but to what success I do not know.

As they say "**** hath no fury as a woman scorned".

So with gender equality, if any woman can take it (PT and trg the same) as much as a bloke, the so be it, but my personal feelings are still the traditional ones, and I do not favour women in ground combat roles.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Infanteer (22 Apr 2004)

Its funny in a broken-record kinda way, every 2 or 3 months this arguement gets kicked into high gear again.  Never fails.

I‘ve said my piece before and am not going to waste the time dealing with a moot point like this one.  Don‘t bother trying to give some fact or evidence for either side of the argument, because its been posted on this board at some time or another.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Apr 2004)

> Its funny in a broken-record kinda way, every 2 or 3 months this arguement gets kicked into high gear again. Never fails.
> 
> I‘ve said my piece before and am not going to waste the time dealing with a moot point like this one. Don‘t bother trying to give some fact or evidence for either side of the argument, because its been posted on this board at some time or another.


Well, I didn‘t mean to regurgitate an old topic - but as I worried it might, it had developed into a "women in combat" argument. I wanted to stick with drafting women (or not).


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Apr 2004)

Little off topic. I found this little blurb about Feminists, thought it rather amusing. Few good points thrown in too.

****
Who‘s to say what‘s offensive anyway? Just because a few feminist extremists think that something‘s offensive, does the whole society have to change their way of doing things? I don‘t want mother nature being called mother nature anymore, but rather father nature. I don‘t want ships to be referred to as female anymore, but rather male. The phrase "she‘s a good ship" offends me. I don‘t want liberty to be a lady. Why does it have to be lady liberty? Why do people say "she‘s beautiful" when referring to cars? Why not he? Who cares? It‘s just the way things have always been. It‘s not meant to be offensive, so why doesn‘t the offended party pull their head out of their ***, and stop bitching about it. 

Why there will never be absolute gender equality is because of the inherent contradictions between equality and liberty. For example, if a guy wanted to say a joke about women at work, or hung pornography in the work place, it would make the women work in an environment that may seem hostile to them. If someone at work frequently referred to women as chicks, and a woman was offended by it, the woman would then be working in a hostile environment. If a woman wants to be treated equally in the work place, then she shouldn‘t be offended at what guys usually talk about. I think it‘s unreasonable for all women to be content with whatever people do at work, and for guys to go out of their way to change their lifestyles to conform to what‘s politically correct. It‘s impossible to live your life without being offended at something. Violence, foul language, pornography, sex, religion, whatever it is, you‘re bound to be offended by it sooner or later. So rather than bitching about it, just deal with it and move on. Men aren‘t out to get women.
****

Theres more to the article accusing Feminism being a lot like fascism, i‘ll post the link if anyones interested.


----------

