Women in War.

29 public posts in this discussion.

Post 1

I'd like to open a discussion about the roles of Women in war, especially given the recent capture by Iraqi forces of U.S. Army Spc. Shoshawna Johnson ([url]http://www.msnbc.com/news/890275.asp[/url]).

The topic question: What role, if any, do you believe women have in modern warfare?

Bear in mind that the Russian army, amongst others, has a history of fielding women in front line combat, or indeed in any position that a man could fill. In fact, the records will say that the most successful infantryman of all time was in fact a woman; a female Russian sniper who's rifle claimed over four hundred Germans. Women in the front line are nothing new to most countries.

My personal opinion is that women should not be exposed to front line ground combat because the chance of capture is relatively high. Women as pilots, technical, support or mechanical/maintainance roles I fully support. While some feminists will immediately jump up and down on me upon my utterance of said comments, one must recognise that men and women are very physically different and thus display different characteristics under extreme stress.

Women are (albiet slightly) more sensitive to physical pain then men, however, they deal with it far better (consider the birthing process). In addition, women are generally far better multitaskers then men; this makes them [b]better[\b] pilots then their male counterparts due to their ability to juggle several complicated physical and mental tasks while under extreme stress or paniced. This ability also makes them excelent command staff; I have no problem with female authority, simply because I know that she is probably doing a better job then a man could in the same position.

On this note, I find it disheartening that some women feel they need to be unnaturally assertive/agressive/dogmatic when in leadership/management positions due to their concerns that to lack such qualities makes for a poor boss. Some women in the United States take it a little far and actually wear shoulder pads underneath buisness suits in order to enhance their masculinity; I find women such as these impossible to work under as they fail to carry the supposed 'authority' of their male counterparts and at the same time suppressing their own female qualities which make up the balance. In short, they try too hard to please.

But any woman reading this shouldn't worry. Men are guilty of this too, it's just a little less obvious. Who here believes their boss would treat them worse if they drove a better car then him, or lived in a more expensive house (that you owned; IE not your parents)? What if you were promoted above him?

I digress.

Women have other qualities which give them the edge over their male counterparts. Women are the better communicators, both in speach and in the written word. Anyone who has had to make a 000 call will find that, more often then not, a woman answers the phone; and she doesn't just talk to you. She listens, evaluates the situation, contacts the relevant authority (police/ambulance/fire) all without missing a beat. This is in part because of training, and part because (as afore mentioned) women multitask far better then men. In my opinion, a woman would out preform a man in a communication/radio role as well because of this quality; in addition, it is biologically coded into the male psyche to feel calmer and to pay more attention when being spoken to by a female. Therefore, their natural skills in this field would no doubt be appreciated.

However, with these benefits come disadvantages; just as women are better at some things then men, there are some things which men can do better then women. The brains of men and women differ in their makeup; the male brain is spacially orientated and therefore handles space/distance tasks quicker and with more accuracy then the female brain. Women are generally worse shots with weapons then men, are not able to throw as far or with as much accurately as their male counterparts and have a far weaker ability to block out distractions to accomplish one single goal (ie; shoot this person). This is, of course, balanced by a greater ability to do more then one thing at once; but the jack of all trades is the master of none, as the saying goes, and men are generaly better at doing one single task at a time.

Although this is often debated to deadlock, I believe women are also more vunerable to sexual abuse, rape, or sexual torture if captured in a combat situation. Those who support women in combat argue that the risks are equally shared; men are just as easily sexually interfered with, and the results can be just as humiliating and degrading. I'll not go into this too much, but my personal opinion is that women are more vunerable to this combat hazard.

Opinions? Comments?

Post 2

I spent 10 years in the Navy, and was on the ship that was first to allow females to go to sea. This was met with great controversy at the time, however, times move on, and it's not an issue anymore.

It also used to be a rule that women were not allowed to serve in any frontline role within a conflict. Obviously, this is no longer the case.

I honestly believe that sex should no longer be an issue with a person serving in military conflict. He/she joins the Defence forces knowing full well that there is every possibility of eventually seeing some form of combat.

The main controversy on the ship I was on at the time females were allowed to go to sea was that they weren't going to pull their weight; that they'd put on tears to get out of hard work, making it harder for everbody else. This never happened - in fact, the females (mostly) worked harder to prove that they were just as capable as the males.

Finally, the strengths/weaknesses you've pointed out about each sex aren't really valid in terms of deciding who should/should not serve in military conflict, because you could say the same thing about different types of males who display typical male characteristics compared to males who are "more in touch" with their feminine side (I'm not talking about gays - we won't even go there for this topic :wink: ).

Should we weed out those males who are more feminine than machos? If you answered no, then I believe you should also say no to women being exempt from fighting.

If there is a problem with ANYONE who doesn't want to serve in a military conflict, it is quite easy for them to get out of it. I think that as long as everybody (regardless of sex) is pulling their weight, playing as part of the team, then they should be there.

My 20c. 8)

Post 3

Well a side to the topic. Women have fought to be treated as equals. If one day we all have to be conscripted. Sure as hell they're not going to get left out of that one.

Post 4

Quote from Jay:
Well a side to the topic. Women have fought to be treated as equals. If one day we all have to be conscripted. Sure as hell they're not going to get left out of that one.

I absolutely agree, equality isn't something they can choose to turn off when it suits them.

Post 5

I think that to-ing and fro-ing about the relative statistical differences between males and females did not so much affect the thinking on front-line women, as did this question:

What if they got raped?

Admittedly men can be raped too, but the rape of women has been used, and will be used again, as a weapon of war.

Post 6

Quote from El Presidente:
Admittedly men can be raped too, but the rape of women has been used, and will be used again, as a weapon of war.

....and rape hasn't been used against men as a weapon of war?

Masato

Post 7

That was my point, El Presidente... It was in my post above. ;P

Post 8

When it comes down to it, to create the most effective army, people would be put in different jobs according to their personal ability and not be generalised.

Also, wouldn't a Fighter Pilot also need good spacial perception?

Post 9

Quote from Wolfspirit:
That was my point, El Presidente... It was in my post above. ;P

I must have missed that point amongst all the socio-biological twaddle. :)

Post 10

Quote from Masato:
[quote:8c6a0eab53="El Presidente"]Admittedly men can be raped too, but the rape of women has been used, and will be used again, as a weapon of war.

....and rape hasn't been used against men as a weapon of war?
[/quote:8c6a0eab53]

Not systematically, and not to a similar scale. Instances of male rape in wartime are far lower than rape of females, which, as you can imagine, follows the distribution of sexual preference.

Indeed for many early conquestors, rape was seen as part of the point of going to war: violence, sex and booty.

Post 11

Your topics continue to astound me Kitsume. I mean, if you can type all of that in this little box - you wanna hope no blackout occurs. But onto the topic at hand, I'm not old, wise or well versed in how females are involved in military action. I do, however have and 18 year old sister - who ever since i figured out what a girl and boy was; i was continually humbugged in relation to female rights. I appreciate the fact that women do want to be able to earn the same amount, if not more money in certain situations. But shouldn't work be associated with skill, not gender? If a woman can fight [i use that term in the broader sense, basically front line style - if not in the air, water - whatever] just as well as the men, and that is proven, then they must accept what comes with war. Raping and pillaging has been and is the atrocities or acts of war since young. The chicks have to accept this, on top of the risk of death, injury and such - as do the men. Fair is in fact fair, and if women lobbyers [typo?] and some feminist union somewhere in the world do want equality - then freakin give it to them.

Post 12

Shouldn't we just wipe away the characteristics that define between woman and man and concentrate on wether or not the individual is a soldier.

There are tests that must be passed in order for a person to be recruited. If they are not emotionally and physically able they will be refused.

So therefore there should be no difference between men and women. I dont deny men are physically stronger then females however there are the few men that wouldn't get far in combat situation. Likewise there are a few women who would excell over the men.

Let the tests decide.

Post 13

It looks like the australian defence force are already treating the sexes the same in terms of phisical fitness. I also belive that most defence jobs are open to both sexes now as well.

Quote from The Australian Army web site:
The ADF uses the "Multistage Fitness Test", produced by the Australian Coaching Council as its Personal Fitness Assessment. It measures your maximum aerobic capacity - in other words, it measures how effectively your heart and lungs work together.Here's how it works: You run to and fro - a shuttle test - along a 20 metre track, keeping up with a series of beeps on a cassette. The timing of the beeps starts off slowly and gradually gets faster, so it's harder and harder to keep up the required speed.
When you can no longer keep up the required speed you stop, and this provides a good indication of your current aerobic fitness level. The minimum requirement for each service
differs slightly. For Army, the level for both male and female is level 7.5. This equals 56 shuttles or a total of 1120 metres in 6 minutes 30 seconds. For Navy and Air Force, the requirement is Level 6.5, or 46 shuttles.

Personaly I beleive that they should be treated/respected as equals, with everything that goes with that.

Post 14

the women should be at home ....cooking & cleaning......ohhh and washing the dishes.....& the nagging

Post 15

Quote from cockroche:
the women should be at home ....cooking & cleaning......ohhh and washing the dishes.....& the nagging

lol i can see someone getting shot...... :shock:

Post 16

He'll only get shot if his wife asks his permission first, and only then if he says yes :lol:

Ah, married life - who needs room service?

Post 17

Quote from cockroche:
the women should be at home ....cooking & cleaning......ohhh and washing the dishes.....& the nagging

Greel Culture.
Gotta love it.

Australian women have a lot to learn.

Post 18

Hmm a point you may have all been missing is this.

It is a natural instinct of ANY creature to preserve your ability to breed.

Those that continue the species, in Humans that is the female.

A male is distracted whenever a female is in danger, it's part of the human condition. It has enabled us to survive and breed to the point we are now.

A soldier cannot do his duty completely if a female nearby is in danger.

30 weeks of training cannot beat 100,000 years of evolution/creation.

This is not the female's fault at all but something I don't believe males can overcome at this point in our evolution.

See Korny's post from a few weeks ago.

If it was 2 aboriginal males beating the shit/raping each other he wouldnt have done shit.

Because it was a woman, a woman he had no attraction to keep in mind, he was concerned and took action.

Go out at night, see two guys slugging it out, walk on.

See a guy picking on a female and you arc up, regardless of your size or the size of the other male.

Over protective perhaps but it is inbuilt in males to protect females.

For this reason I do not support females in front line military roles..yet :)

Post 19

I don't beleive they should be on the front line as soldiers, however female pilots should be allowed to fly missions in wars if they wish.

Also women usually make great marksmen, hence why that russian women in WW2 was so good.

Post 20

i support the cause for men and women having equal rights, however i am against women going to war particularly in frontline services as infantry. at some point in time, people have to accept that men and women are not the same, and despite what feminists and shite may say, our roles should be reflecting that. if a woman wants to go into battle on the frontlines, it is her right admittedly, but the effects and hazards for men and women on the frontlines are not distributed equally.

as previously mentioned, there is a far greater chance of a woman being raped, and this can be used against captured soldiers in particular as a form of leverage. also on average women are far lighter and weaker than men. assuming an average female weight of around 60kg, and an average male weight of 75kg, that's around 15kg difference in muscle and fat - beef them up a bit through military training and the difference will be even more pronounced, as males will bulk up quicker due to their physiology. this equates into males not only being stronger, but faster and able to handle the physical rigours of war far more effectively.
in the airforce and navy i don't think it would matter so much, as the battle is far more tactical and machine driven, although pilots do need to be fairly muscular, particularly in the upper body as they must constrict their chest and neck muscles to prevent blood flowing away from their head and blacking out (my dad is a pilot and was considering joining the navy or airforce, and my grandfather was in the airforce so i have a bit of background knowledge on this one). also, from what i've been told (by my father who has actually done aerobatics), the stress of aerobatic maneuvres physically hurts the body (as though you're being crushed), and wears you down quite quickly.

as previously mentioned though, men and women (should) have equal rights, and if a woman chooses to go into the military, then she should at least consider ALL of the options and risks before joining.

Post 21

Quote from NerdBurger:
It looks like the australian defence force are already treating the sexes the same in terms of phisical fitness. I also belive that most defence jobs are open to both sexes now as well.

the fitness requirements for service have significantly declined over the last 20 years. i had my final fitness test for navy entry just last week and it was a joke. for navy entry i was required to attain a 6.5 on a bip test. the army recruits were required to perform 15 pushups and 45 half ass sit ups + the bip test.

the comprehensive selection process ensures the most suitable person gets the position. regardless of sex. i think the general fitness levels are too low though.

Post 22

LOL. Im 14 and i got 9.9 on the beep test at school. we recently had a defence force guy come to our school, and he said that women are not aloud to beany kind of infantry. They said something liek only 11 of 130 jobs in the defence force are ones women cant join.

Post 23

Pilots of fighter jets have to wear G suits, which tighten to prevent the flow of blood from the upper body and lessen the actual effort required by the pilot to control it themselves. There are alot of women pilots who fly fighter jets (especially Hornets and Super-Hornets), they are able to do the job. If they weren't able to do the job they wouldn't have made it to active duty.

Post 24

Quote from Sa' Martok:
Pilots of fighter jets have to wear G suits, which tighten to prevent the flow of blood from the upper body and lessen the actual effort required by the pilot to control it themselves. There are alot of women pilots who fly fighter jets (especially Hornets and Super-Hornets), they are able to do the job. If they weren't able to do the job they wouldn't have made it to active duty.
even with a G suit it's still very physically demanding. i never said women couldn't be fighter pilots, only that physically it would be tougher for them.

Post 25

Women can't serve in infanty or armour in the australian army.
The phiscal test to enter the army is the same for both men and women but testing once in the army is different.

Post 26

Clearance Diving in the Navy has been opened to women too. Ttheres only one problem for them. They have to pass the same physical fitness tet as the males, which is strenuous. The basic ships diver course I know was 9 overhand heaves and I think for the clearance diving course (which no female has passed) its 30 heaves.

I personally feel chicks shouldn't be frontline, but anytime you go into war well, its a risk. That American private after all was a cook!!!

Smiddy 9.9 aint impresive. I used to cruise in around 12.5 or so at your age.(Mind you dodgy knees have killed that).

And m8nkey where are you getting the idea that physical standards in the navy have fallen in the last twenty years from? The Navy only in the last 5 years has introduced a fitness test. And more importantly when you are at sea, if you survive recruit training, you never run on a ship. Too dangerous by half. Even when it is calm, it can be a struggle to run doing some sport on the safety of the flight deck.

PS What are you trying to join up as?

Post 27

Quote from Danny G:
PS What are you trying to join up as?

Me?

Army Reserve, Officer. Probably going to apply for le oxymoron (Military Intelligence), since that's what my mother did. My dad was a grunt, till he went Legal corps. *shrug* :D

Post 28

Quote from Danny G:
And m8nkey where are you getting the idea that physical standards in the navy have fallen in the last twenty years from?

PS What are you trying to join up as?

my father and several other relatives have served in different armed services and although they may not of had an initial fitness test they were ran into the ground during basic training. i'm basing my judgement on stories they have told me.

i realise fitness isn't required to perform many duties but it instills/requires a degree of discipline and unfit officers reflect poorly on the image of the defence force.

i have accepted a position as a combat systems operator which consists primarily of monitoring sensor equipment.

Post 29

M*nkey

What type of CSO? Air, Underwater or EW? Bet you didn't know there were three types. And by the way when you have completed Recruit School let me know how many bull rungs you have completed. And any ancestors you had in the navy would have done them too now. Some of the more ridiculous punsihments have gone ie running around with a bed. But there still is punishment none the less. Trust me on that one.

Physical Fitness is not necessary, I know. We only need so much. There is no need to break people getting them to a level of fitness that they dont require. In the same argument a Defence Force crying out for people should not exclude people because they can not obtain fitness levels that are over and above what is required for their primary role.

I do agree that looking like a sack o shite does not benefit the ADF, but you get that. After not everyone is the perfect body shape, nor will they after 20 years service either. Good Luck at CERBERUS. At least you will enjoy your PQ training. Hopefully you are good at staring at a screen for hours without falling asleep. And as aditional duties you will team up with BMs. I also hope you are good at painting and operating hand tools.

Wolspirit. Its true it is an oxymoron. I dont think ANU has a Uni Regt but seeing as you want to join Int thats an advantage. Good Luck.