women in combat: the baby problem....

[Asclepias]

So what you are retired from the military? That doesnt make you an expert on anything. What is the basis of your opinion since women have traditionally not been allowed to fight?

In my experience in the military there were way more males that wouldnt be worth a damn in combat as compared to women.

Just look at the casualty figures from the German attack on Stalingrad. The recon company of the 24th Panzer Division was advancing up to the edge of the city when they were fired on by an anti aircraft artillery unit. The Germans attacked and wiped them out super quick. When they went to inspect their handiwork, (and try and figure out why the Soviet unit faired so poorly) they discovered it was crewed by women.

They simply couldn't serve the weapons as fast as men could because they lacked the physical strength necessary.

.......Or may they werent trained as rigorously as the men and were only assigned as an after thought or out of need to a position they werent used to "manning". There is not one shred of credible evidence that says women cannot function in combat as well or better than men.

They were trained as well as the men. The Soviets used females for entire units and as a group they always did poorly compared to their male counterparts. They did passably well as snipers and they had a couple who were exceptional fighter pilots. Though, for the most part, their flying duties were in bombing and transport.

How long did this experiment go on? If it was not something normal then you are discounting the effect of life long training for combat. In a society where this is accepted women would perform just as well or better than men.

It wasn't an "experiment". It was normal for the time. The Soviets lost so many men in the initial invasion they mobilized everybody and they didn't care if you were male or female. Most of the female units were artillery. Mortar or light field guns.

That pretty much proves my point. It was a stop gap measure and not a normal part of their society. It was doomed to failure from the start.

 

[westwall]

Just look at the casualty figures from the German attack on Stalingrad. The recon company of the 24th Panzer Division was advancing up to the edge of the city when they were fired on by an anti aircraft artillery unit. The Germans attacked and wiped them out super quick. When they went to inspect their handiwork, (and try and figure out why the Soviet unit faired so poorly) they discovered it was crewed by women.

They simply couldn't serve the weapons as fast as men could because they lacked the physical strength necessary.

.......Or may they werent trained as rigorously as the men and were only assigned as an after thought or out of need to a position they werent used to "manning". There is not one shred of credible evidence that says women cannot function in combat as well or better than men.

They were trained as well as the men. The Soviets used females for entire units and as a group they always did poorly compared to their male counterparts. They did passably well as snipers and they had a couple who were exceptional fighter pilots. Though, for the most part, their flying duties were in bombing and transport.

How long did this experiment go on? If it was not something normal then you are discounting the effect of life long training for combat. In a society where this is accepted women would perform just as well or better than men.

It wasn't an "experiment". It was normal for the time. The Soviets lost so many men in the initial invasion they mobilized everybody and they didn't care if you were male or female. Most of the female units were artillery. Mortar or light field guns.

That pretty much proves my point. It was a stop gap measure and not a normal part of their society. It was doomed to failure from the start.

Equal training for both men and women and the men ALWAYS fared better. Makes my point.

 

[Asclepias]

.......Or may they werent trained as rigorously as the men and were only assigned as an after thought or out of need to a position they werent used to "manning". There is not one shred of credible evidence that says women cannot function in combat as well or better than men.

They were trained as well as the men. The Soviets used females for entire units and as a group they always did poorly compared to their male counterparts. They did passably well as snipers and they had a couple who were exceptional fighter pilots. Though, for the most part, their flying duties were in bombing and transport.

How long did this experiment go on? If it was not something normal then you are discounting the effect of life long training for combat. In a society where this is accepted women would perform just as well or better than men.

It wasn't an "experiment". It was normal for the time. The Soviets lost so many men in the initial invasion they mobilized everybody and they didn't care if you were male or female. Most of the female units were artillery. Mortar or light field guns.

That pretty much proves my point. It was a stop gap measure and not a normal part of their society. It was doomed to failure from the start.

Equal training for both men and women and the men ALWAYS fared better. Makes my point.

Couldnt have been equal training. You just admitted it was a stop gap because so many men were killed.

 

[westwall]

They were trained as well as the men. The Soviets used females for entire units and as a group they always did poorly compared to their male counterparts. They did passably well as snipers and they had a couple who were exceptional fighter pilots. Though, for the most part, their flying duties were in bombing and transport.

How long did this experiment go on? If it was not something normal then you are discounting the effect of life long training for combat. In a society where this is accepted women would perform just as well or better than men.

It wasn't an "experiment". It was normal for the time. The Soviets lost so many men in the initial invasion they mobilized everybody and they didn't care if you were male or female. Most of the female units were artillery. Mortar or light field guns.

That pretty much proves my point. It was a stop gap measure and not a normal part of their society. It was doomed to failure from the start.

Equal training for both men and women and the men ALWAYS fared better. Makes my point.

Couldnt have been equal training. You just admitted it was a stop gap because so many men were killed.

It absolutely was equal training. The Soviets got a huge influx of people. Trained them for all of two weeks and sent them into the field. Why the hell do you think they suffered 25 million combat casualties?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is no reason a woman should not be allowed to serve in combat providing she can meet the same standards a man can.

As far as the hypothetical rape/pregnancy situation I supposed you deal with it on a case by case basis in the most appropriate way. 11% of female soldiers already deal with unplanned pregnancies. How does sending one into combat make it any more likely?

 

[pwjohn]

Yes...one of the issues not examined by those eager to put women in combat roles...how do you keep them from getting pregnant?

I was wondering...let's say a female soldier is raped as soon as she is captured...and is "with child" shortly after that......do we insist as part of the next Geneva conventions on P.O.W. Day care centers in all prison camps? since John McCain was a prisoner in Vietnam for years before being released.....would a 5 year old child of a pow get special status in the prison?

Women In The Military Want More Access To Birth Control The Daily Caller

Accidental pregnancy is 50 percent higher in the military than among female civilians, based on results from a Department of Defense survey conducted in 2008. Almost 11 percent of 7,000 active-duty female servicemembers in the survey experienced an unplanned pregnancy. This rate has increased since 2005.

Costs associated with pregnancy are high. If a female servicemember becomes pregnant while at home, she cannot deploy, and additionally, if she becomes pregnant out in the field, the military has to evacuate her at a cost of $10,000 dollars, a figure which only counts raw costs of transportation.

So they're already giving birth in foxholes ! Is that what you're trying to say?

 

[Asclepias]

There is no reason a woman should not be allowed to serve in combat providing she can meet the same standards a man can.

As far as the hypothetical rape/pregnancy situation I supposed you deal with it on a case by case basis in the most appropriate way. 11% of female soldiers already deal with unplanned pregnancies. How does sending one into combat make it any more likely?

The only problem with the "standards" are that they are most likely defined by men. Until there is a agreement on what these standards are amongst men and women they dont really hold any credibility.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know.................trying to compare the performance of women back in WWII with the performance of women today is beyond crazy.

Why? The battle field has changed a great deal since then, we have smart weapons, as well as weapons that are lighter and better than what they had back then.

No, comparing them to what happened back in WWII is just nuts.

 

[EverCurious]

I know some fem's I think could/would perform really well in a combat situation. Of course, I know a /lot/ more who would faint. Of course, that pretty much goes for /any/ profession frankly, and it's not gender specific. We're individuals and we all have different strengths and weaknesses. I wanted to join the army, they wouldn't let me for medical and gender reasons. Personally, I think they made the right choice as far as combat goes because killing isn't really in my nature, I don't hate and I'm not about "revenge" ya know - basically I wouldn't have that instinct and edge in combat. However, I would excel in mentally inclined areas so maybe it was a mistake for them to not let me join.

I will say that you can't draw it on gender lines at all, I know some men who couldn't do shit in a fight, in fact some /military/ men who would be useless in a fight. Doesn't preclude them from having joined though.

 

[aris2chat]

I wonder how Israel handles the problem. I think they take pregnancy and neonatal time out of national service time. (I'm guessing) You have to do your 2 years regardless. I have seen pilots who have babies that they take care of on the flight line.

They do have policies in this, and 90% of military jobs can be handled by women.

That said, I think most Israeli female soldiers at the very least are rigorous about birth control.

The US military is entirely volunteer. They are gung ho and rigorous about birth control.

And I don't believe women are going to be pregnant on the firing line

Combat and stress have a way of making sex more urgent. Men have used sex to de-stress after combat for millennia. Sex increases dopamine.
birth control should be available to both men and women

Male Birth Control Is Here It s Safe Cheap and Lasts for a Decade

 

[September]

Can you have the best military in the world with an all female force?

Nope.

Yes, you can, considering that whether or not a military is subjectively considered to be "the best" is usually determined by their level of technology, weapons and war strategy... rather than the brute physical strength of individual warriors.​

 

[Godboy]

Can you have the best military in the world with an all female force?

Nope.

Yes, you can, considering that whether or not a military is subjectively considered to be "the best" is usually determined by their level of technology, weapons and war strategy... rather than the brute physical strength of individual warriors.​

Most women perform far below men in the military. The few women who are the exceptions will confirm this as well. Not only do they lack the physical capabilities, they lack the work ethic. Theres a lot of feet dragging and extra long breaks, and they run out of steam really quickly. Women are just as capable as men in the office, but in the military its a different world. We are not equal in that category at all.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Women have a place in the military, and if they wish to forward deploy to combat zones, they should be allowed to.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It should be pointed out that most MEN can't meet the standard of a modern combat operator. Women fare even worse. And why should women get the "choice" of serving in combat arms when men don't have a choice?

It also needs to be pointed out that there is no right to serve in the military and those the military takes are deployed at the pleasure of the military. Who the hell thinks this is a civil rights issue?

I smell Leftists.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yes...one of the issues not examined by those eager to put women in combat roles...how do you keep them from getting pregnant?

Require long-term contraception and make removing it punishable by a dishonorable discharge.[/thread]

 

[aris2chat]

Yes...one of the issues not examined by those eager to put women in combat roles...how do you keep them from getting pregnant?

Require long-term contraception and make removing it punishable by a dishonorable discharge.[/thread]

Make men require long term contraception..............

Some women cannot take birth control

 

[Jarlaxle]

Then they should have two choices: a tubal ligation or a discharge.

 

[aris2chat]

Then they should have two choices: a tubal ligation or a discharge.

Male birth control is safer and more effective

 

[Jarlaxle]

And when you can guarantee that every male in the world uses it, you might have a point!

 

[aris2chat]

And when you can guarantee that every male in the world uses it, you might have a point!

Men are not removed from combat if they are going to be a father. There are many jobs a woman, even in combat areas can still do. Are civilians removed from combat areas if they are pregnant? The choice should be up to the woman.