Author Topic: Women in Combat - What about this?  (Read 17688 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sierra Kilo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 9,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 554
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #25 on: April 21, 2004, 22:10:00 »
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.

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #26 on: April 21, 2004, 22:17:00 »
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

  • Guest
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #27 on: April 21, 2004, 22:31:00 »
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.

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #28 on: April 21, 2004, 22:33:00 »
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

  • Guest
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #29 on: April 21, 2004, 22:43:00 »
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.

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2004, 22:56:00 »
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

  • Guest
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2004, 23:09:00 »
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?

Offline Tyrnagog

  • Member
  • ****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 165
  • Civilian
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2004, 23:12:00 »
it depends, Yes Man.  If 5,000 of those women were crack shots, I would definitely take the women.
But the Sons of Martha favour their Mother of the careful soul and the troubled heart.
And because she lost her temper once, and because she was rude to the Lord her Guest,
Her Sons must wait upon Mary‘s Sons, world without end, reprieve, or rest.

Yes Man

  • Guest
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #33 on: April 21, 2004, 23:15:00 »
Because its a draft you would be doing it at random, so you would nto get to select all the ‘crack shots‘

Offline Tyrnagog

  • Member
  • ****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 165
  • Civilian
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #34 on: April 21, 2004, 23:18:00 »
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).
But the Sons of Martha favour their Mother of the careful soul and the troubled heart.
And because she lost her temper once, and because she was rude to the Lord her Guest,
Her Sons must wait upon Mary‘s Sons, world without end, reprieve, or rest.

Yes Man

  • Guest
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #35 on: April 21, 2004, 23:29:00 »
I wish it was just shooting that made a soldier...That would make for one fun BMQ/SQ/MOC

Offline Spr.Earl

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,719
  • Grizzled Old Veteran
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #36 on: April 22, 2004, 00:09:00 »
Quote
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.

With todays tech, though, it rarely gets to that point (ideally). [/qb]
It is a fact,on average women are better shots than men.
THE PRECEDING POST AND OTHERS MADE BY MYSELF ARE MY PERSONAL VIEWS, NOT FOR REPRODUCTION, NOT FOR CUT AND PASTE OF ANY PORTION THEREOF, NO QUOTES ARE PERMITTED ELSEWHERE,ANYWHERE OTHER THAN EXCLUSIVELY IN THIS WEB FORUM.




UBIQUE
Be Safe

Offline combat_medic

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 2,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,537
  • Mod of burninating
    • Seaforth Highlanders of Canada
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #37 on: April 22, 2004, 00:10:00 »
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.
"If you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck." - Paracowboy

Offline *CDN*Blackhawk

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -5
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 309
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #38 on: April 22, 2004, 00:11:00 »
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.
Pro Patria

Offline GrahamD

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 357
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #39 on: April 22, 2004, 00:25:00 »
Quote
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.

Offline Carcharodon Carcharias

  • Drawing the crabs from Downunder :) WTF is TWL?
  • Banned
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 28,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,232
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #40 on: April 22, 2004, 00:45:00 »
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
"You've never lived until you've almost died; as for our freedom, for those of us who have fought for it, life has a flavour the protected will never know." - Anonymous

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 159,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,021
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #41 on: April 22, 2004, 01:30:00 »
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.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline muskrat89

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 25,967
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,480
    • Desert Rat
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #42 on: April 22, 2004, 08:59:00 »
Quote
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).
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 269,426
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,349
Re: Women in Combat - What about this?
« Reply #43 on: April 22, 2004, 12:31:00 »
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.
There are no wolves on Fenris