Women in Warfare

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Macleod1701

But is not also demoralising to see men injured and killed? Agree with what you mean though.

Well - one thing I've picked up over the years, is that more people belive it is more demoralizing to see women then men getting injured and killed in combat.
My bet is that perception springs form the "weaker gender".
Now - personally - I do not agree with it, but it is one of the reasons I've seen mentioned, both when I was serving my conscription and outside in "society".

[Macleod1701]

Fair dos there matey! The only weakness is in the minds of those who beleive themselves superior to other sexes/races, etc.
Chavers don't count cause they really are inferior!

[oozae]

My future lord what are Chavers?

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Macleod1701

Ah my mistake, I did know about the pilot thing. I've never flown with a woman as yet though and it wouldn't be as a fighter pilot (bloody bad eyesight). There are more and more female pilots going into the military but like most things nowadays human ability only goes so far before technology surpasses it.

The differences are minor, but if you take 1000 women and 1000 men and compare the group average, women has slightly faster visual perception and men has solve mental rotation tasks slightly faster.

Originally Posted by Xan

Well - one thing I've picked up over the years, is that more people belive it is more demoralizing to see women then men getting injured and killed in combat.
My bet is that perception springs form the "weaker gender".
Now - personally - I do not agree with it, but it is one of the reasons I've seen mentioned, both when I was serving my conscription and outside in "society".

I am sure that's the way a majority of people see it now, but you can never change prejudice unless you start opposing it. As soon as women start to participate in military activities, people will adapt to it.

During the 19th and 20th century, there has been doubts surrounding almost any professional area and women. Are women strong enough to become doctors? To see blood? To have responsibility over life and death? Are women strong enough to be judges? CEO:s? Politicians? Should women be allowed to inherit property and money? Should women be allowed to vote? You name it - it all stems from the traditional western christian gender role that women and men are different in nature, and that women are weaker. But society changes, and the perception change.

[Macleod1701]

Originally Posted by oozae

My future lord what are Chavers?

Ah young oozae I have much indeed to teach you! You may not have them in the land down under but in the hellish cess pit that is the UK, Charvers are those ignorant troglodites who insist or wearing large plastic/gold jewelery and tracksuits and claiming beneifts instead of working. They are very common and beneath our majestic thoughts.

[Osiris]

In Australia, women are admitted to all branches of the military, but are not assigned to active combat areas. I cannot see any particular reason why they should not be able to participate equally in all activities.
There are many examples of women fighting alongside men in recent conflicts - women were in front line Red Army units in WW2, many young women fought for the Viet Cong etc etc.

[Brynn]

Who decides if they should be "allowed"? Men? HAHA! Come on, this is not he Middle Ages!

If someone wants to fight, it doesn't matter if it's a woman or a man, imho. I'd rather ask: why are men forced to fight? Who has the right to order someone else to go here and there and kill and have himself killed?

[Macleod1701]

Here here Brynn! If someone gave me a gun and ordered me to fight if i didn't want to I'd more than likely shoot them! But then again I'd shoot most people! Treat everyone the same, apart from charvers!

[fable]

you apparently haven't read the latest clinical studies results out of Berne labs. it has been scientifically proven that, though sometimes beautiful, women just don't have have what it takes for a vast plethora of vocations, particularly those involving science, math, art or any of the areas requiring higher brain functions.

Gimme the link to the published article/s and I'll demonstrate that you have most likely drawn premature conclusion based on subjective wishes for endless rows of women helplessly dropping their clothes before you.

it's only been a few weeks since i've seen a row of women dropping their clothes in front of me, but that is not going to stop me from wishing for it again...and stop trying to ruin my baiting....

Okay, this officially made my morning.

Back to what passes for reality. Demortis, any society which refuses to allow women to serve in combat is simply halving their military's potential effectiveness, in my opinion. Granted, cultural values may work strongly against this, but a reasonably shrewd government should be able to nudge a reexamination of this issue into active debate, and at least cause some longrange social rethinking. Few leaders are willing to surmount their own prejudices and see the logic of this, however.

[Macleod1701]

Fable I think you officially lost the plot for the first part of that, have you been at grannies special brownies again?

[fable]

Originally Posted by Macleod1701

Fable I think you officially lost the plot for the first part of that, have you been at grannies special brownies again?

You need to do something really unusual to figure it out, MacLeod. It's called reading the rest of this thread.

[Vicsun]

Originally Posted by Witch King

you apparently haven't read the latest clinical studies results out of Berne labs. it has been scientifically proven that, though sometimes beautiful, women just don't have have what it takes for a vast plethora of vocations, particularly those involving science, math, art or any of the areas requiring higher brain functions.

I laughed. And then cried when the rest of the SYM populace failed to detect the bantering tone.


Regarding the original question.
I voted yes because I didn't agree with the reasons given for no. The fact that women are physically weaker, might play a role as might the fact that due to the way our society currently works, they might not make the best of leaders among men.

However, I will just jump on the bandwagon saying women's emotional responses are no obstacle to their possible value as soldiers as I honestly do not believe them to be different.

[Macleod1701]

ah Fable my old sprout are you practicing your sarcasm now I had read the whole thread, just typical me had forgotten most of it due the distractions of scantily clad women outside the office. Now if that isn't a reason for them to be in the military what is? They could distract enemy troops then precision bomb them in F18's, (or the crappy Eurofighter if they're British).

[InfiniteNature]

I think in today's military it is little problem, in the pretechnological military though it was simply a question of strength. Men in general are stronger physically then women are (in terms of actual strength not emotional strength), technology such as swords, or blocking, hacking something's heads of lends itself to that. Women do in general have greater endurance, but warfare isn't about endurance its about a short battle, with lots of little long waiting periods in the interim.

I'll say it hasn't been proven to absolute certainty what women are capable of on the battlefield, they might be a asset or not; there is a lot of ideas that they are quite capable and its all a example of male predujudice. But the examples used just do not happen often enough to make a certainty, they are exceptions to the rule not rule, at least as yet anyway. Not to say it shouldn't be experimented with, but I would like to see more tests first to have a opinion.

It might be that because of technological innovation, women are now on par on men, or it also might be that combat is not in general for women (maybe women have not often fought in history for a reason). Even if this is true, there will be exceptions to the norm, so it still doesn't invalidate ALL women, just most.

On the other hand women still would be useful for combat logistics, and I know I know some are going to say stupid, sexual agression. Paired men women soldiers might fight better, rather like the old Theban soldiers in Greece, except those were men you might argue, yes but the concept still might be applicable.

Or it might be that feminists are right and that there are absolutely no significant differences in combat between men and women, and that every reason why men fight more often in combat is just predujudice, that there is no practical reason why, Maybe but can you explain the majority of history as just predujudice.

[fable]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNature

I think in today's military it is little problem, in the pretechnological military though it was simply a question of strength. Men in general are stronger physically then women are (in terms of actual strength not emotional strength), technology such as swords, or blocking, hacking something's heads of lends itself to that. Women do in general have greater endurance, but warfare isn't about endurance its about a short battle, with lots of little long waiting periods in the interim.

Actually, warfare today is about endurance. It's not about wielding a bayonet or using a scimitar to take on a mamaluke, but carrying large, powerful ranged weapons for long distances--and using them. Why couldn't a woman do that?

And men aren't stronger than women. On average, men have more upper body strength than women, but 1) that varies from one person to another in a great degree, and 2) it can be cultivated easily, with training. As anybody who has ever seen a woman working out with weights in a gym can tell you.