Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bree · 03-26-2003, 09:25 AM

Celsus · 03-26-2003, 09:39 AM

I'm not sure I understand how the US military works, but surely 507th Maintenance is a logistics and therefore non-frontline unit? In which case, her capture could have happened with or without the cited changes in regulations? Anyway, the simple answer is, "No." If women want to do it, it's their prerogative--they probably have thought longer and harder about the risks of capture than anyone else. Anyone who hasn't shouldn't be applying, male or female. The US is decades behind most modern forces.

Joel

The Other Michael · 03-26-2003, 09:47 AM

Hi Bree,

It looks to me like combat is dangerous, no matter what the gender (or sexual orientation) of the people caught up in it.

As that NYPD case (Abner Louima) a couple of years ago showed, male captives can be sexually abused by male captors, even when all concerned are heterosexual (at least I never saw any indication that wasn't the case).

Women may be at a greater risk of sexual assault due to the majority of their captors tending to be heterosexual men. But I'd think that after a point torture is torture, and whether it includes a sexual component may be moot in re the overall level of mental and physical pain experienced by the captive.

The propensity for individuals to sexually abuse within their gender (when heterosexual) may have a very large variance depending on the culture they come from. If you are a heterosexual male who comes from a society where buggering your defeated male foes is a traditional way of showing dominance, you'd probably be more apt to engage in that behavior than if you come from a society where any same-sex sexual behavior is strongly taboo.

If the military is going to be concerned about troops being mistreated if captured, they should be concerned about all of them equally.

cheers,
Michael

Optional · 03-26-2003, 09:49 AM

The answer is no, with qualifications.

I think women should be allowed in any military role they are capable of taking on, combat or non-combat. The idea that somehow only men are capable of actually fighting is an archaic idea.

HOWEVER, combat is inherantly physically demanding. A grunt has to be able to carry all the food, supplies, ammo, and weapons s/he might need for an extended time, march for long distances, and still be in fighting shape. In the M1A2 Abrams MBT, the role of loader requires extraordinary upper body strength. The shells are stored in the back part of the tank, and there is no automatic mechanism for getting the shells off the rack and into the breech. It was noted during the design phase that in tanks that DID have automatic loading, there was a fairly high incedence of soldiers getting mangled in the mechanism. Therefore, the loader has to take the (extremely heavy) shell off the rack, slog it over to the breech, get it in there correctly, and get out of the way... And the speed with which the loader can accomplish that might very well determine life and death in a combat situation. And because of possible casualties from a near-miss, everybody in the tank MUST be able to perform the role of loader.

So, to make a long story short (I know, too late, never mind) women should be allowed in any combat or non-combat role they are physically capable of performing... But the guidelines and expectations for strength and endurance should not be lowered by ANY amount in order to 'diversify' the force.

-me

Evangelion · 03-26-2003, 10:31 AM

Anyone for Women's Lib?

Ladies...?

Perhaps you there, ma'am. Yes, you up in the back row.

No...?

Ab_Normal · 03-26-2003, 11:20 AM

Optional: I concur, as long as the guidelines actually define what is needed to do the job, and aren't exaggerated to specifically exclude women. (not that I'm saying that happens, just being paranoid)

Evangelion: I'm too dense to get your point. Can you help me out?

Evangelion · 03-26-2003, 11:25 AM

Ab_Normal - it was just a little dig at the feminist movement, that's all.

lunachick · 03-26-2003, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evangelion
Ab_Normal - it was just a little dig at the feminist movement, that's all.

Why?

Jacey · 03-26-2003, 11:38 AM

Just to clarify, women aren't allowed in "combat" MOS's, mainly infantry and artillery. They are allowed in all the other support fields however.

RufusAtticus · 03-26-2003, 11:42 AM

Does anybody know if NOW or a similar organization supports women signing up for Selective Service (the draft)? Until I start seeing them demand this "right" too, their pleas for military equality seem hollow to me.

03-26-2003, 09:25 AM	#1
Bree Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Twin Cities, USA Posts: 3,197	Should the US limit women's exposure to combat? POW Video Reopens Gender Debate

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-26-2003, 09:39 AM	#2
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	I'm not sure I understand how the US military works, but surely 507th Maintenance is a logistics and therefore non-frontline unit? In which case, her capture could have happened with or without the cited changes in regulations? Anyway, the simple answer is, "No." If women want to do it, it's their prerogative--they probably have thought longer and harder about the risks of capture than anyone else. Anyone who hasn't shouldn't be applying, male or female. The US is decades behind most modern forces. Joel

03-26-2003, 09:47 AM	#3
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	Hi Bree, It looks to me like combat is dangerous, no matter what the gender (or sexual orientation) of the people caught up in it. As that NYPD case (Abner Louima) a couple of years ago showed, male captives can be sexually abused by male captors, even when all concerned are heterosexual (at least I never saw any indication that wasn't the case). Women may be at a greater risk of sexual assault due to the majority of their captors tending to be heterosexual men. But I'd think that after a point torture is torture, and whether it includes a sexual component may be moot in re the overall level of mental and physical pain experienced by the captive. The propensity for individuals to sexually abuse within their gender (when heterosexual) may have a very large variance depending on the culture they come from. If you are a heterosexual male who comes from a society where buggering your defeated male foes is a traditional way of showing dominance, you'd probably be more apt to engage in that behavior than if you come from a society where any same-sex sexual behavior is strongly taboo. If the military is going to be concerned about troops being mistreated if captured, they should be concerned about all of them equally. cheers, Michael

03-26-2003, 09:49 AM	#4
Optional Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 1,049	The answer is no, with qualifications. I think women should be allowed in any military role they are capable of taking on, combat or non-combat. The idea that somehow only men are capable of actually fighting is an archaic idea. HOWEVER, combat is inherantly physically demanding. A grunt has to be able to carry all the food, supplies, ammo, and weapons s/he might need for an extended time, march for long distances, and still be in fighting shape. In the M1A2 Abrams MBT, the role of loader requires extraordinary upper body strength. The shells are stored in the back part of the tank, and there is no automatic mechanism for getting the shells off the rack and into the breech. It was noted during the design phase that in tanks that DID have automatic loading, there was a fairly high incedence of soldiers getting mangled in the mechanism. Therefore, the loader has to take the (extremely heavy) shell off the rack, slog it over to the breech, get it in there correctly, and get out of the way... And the speed with which the loader can accomplish that might very well determine life and death in a combat situation. And because of possible casualties from a near-miss, everybody in the tank MUST be able to perform the role of loader. So, to make a long story short (I know, too late, never mind) women should be allowed in any combat or non-combat role they are physically capable of performing... But the guidelines and expectations for strength and endurance should not be lowered by ANY amount in order to 'diversify' the force. -me

03-26-2003, 10:31 AM	#5
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	Anyone for Women's Lib? Ladies...? Perhaps you there, ma'am. Yes, you up in the back row. No...?

03-26-2003, 11:20 AM	#6
Ab_Normal Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 2,842	Optional: I concur, as long as the guidelines actually define what is needed to do the job, and aren't exaggerated to specifically exclude women. (not that I'm saying that happens, just being paranoid) Evangelion: I'm too dense to get your point. Can you help me out?

03-26-2003, 11:25 AM	#7
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	Ab_Normal - it was just a little dig at the feminist movement, that's all.

03-26-2003, 11:38 AM	#9
Jacey Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: the gulag Posts: 3,043	Just to clarify, women aren't allowed in "combat" MOS's, mainly infantry and artillery. They are allowed in all the other support fields however.

03-26-2003, 11:42 AM	#10
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Does anybody know if NOW or a similar organization supports women signing up for Selective Service (the draft)? Until I start seeing them demand this "right" too, their pleas for military equality seem hollow to me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.