Advice for women on BMQ and other courses [MERGED]

[Bringer]

Rape is only one of many not-good things that can happen in war. Using that as the single reason to deny women the right to join the combat arms is re-d@mn-diculous. Rape is just a means of psychological torture. Men can be affected the same way through different means.

I think the real question here is whether or not we should allow men in combat because they have fingernails that bamboo shoots can be shoved under?

 

[MuayThaiFighter]

Originally posted by Riggah052:
[qb] Windwolf;
WRT your message about women being able to bear children, I think that you and yours might be on to something. It certainly would be a powerfull motivation psychologically for protection and or disdain for having women serve. Never thought of that.
As for you MuayThaiFighter I can see that you seem to think very low of some of the opinions expressed here. Keep in mind that it is a DISCUSSION forum, and that we all have an opinion, wether you believe it right or wrong. [/qb]

What makes you think I have a low opinion on what is expressed in this thread? I haven‘t once disagreed with anyone in here yet.

It‘s you guys that started this **** about how a woman can do just as good a job as men,I never once disagreed with that.Infact I totally agree with every single thing in this thread,only thing that gets me upset is that no one seems to know what the **** this thread is about.Everyone is bringing in their own crap about how a woman can do just as good a job or better,funny thing is I never once said a woman can‘t do as good a job,because that is not what this thread is about,but obviously most of you people in here can‘t freaking read or you would know what this thread is about.

The way everyone is talking about how good a job women can do in the army,I might as well change the title of this thread.

People are calling me stupid and ignorant in here yet I think these people are stupid for not realizing what this thread is truely supposed to be about and what I had said originally.

Starting to make me think you need to be stupid to join army.

But if you honestly want my opinion on whether I think women can do just as good a job as men during war,my answer is YES.

This is how I see it,if you can run,you can shoot,and have no fear,then you can fight regardless of what sex you are.

 

[Gunnar]

If you agree with most of the people here, why ask the question(s)? Just as "No answer is sometimes an answer", a question often reveals much about the questioner...if you don‘t think something is debateable, you don‘t ask the question in the first place. Asking the question implies that you think the answer is somehow in doubt or is at least debateable.

If you want to do an opinion survey, you could always do a poll. Or simply state "it is commonly accepted that NNN should be allowed in the infantry/battlefield. While I agree with the sentiment, what are your opinions on why this is true (or not)...?"

Or even ask the negative: I have heard that some people don‘t believe nnn should be allowed in the infantry because of X, Y and Z, why would they (or you) think this?

This way, you lend no personal credibility to the statement itself, but still get the reasoning and answers for which you are looking.

Regardless of phraseology, you will find that certain topics are likely to stir up a hornet‘s nest anyway, so it is best to sit back, relax, and treat the postings as purely an intellectual exercise. Remember that printed communication hits home like a sledgehammer, and that you‘re as likely to be affected by the response as some people were affected by your posting. Craft your posts with care, and read other posts with an eye towards someone‘s emotional response. Don‘t take it personally. The guy who is convinced he‘s "right" doesn‘t necessarily get to rule the world tomorrow: it isn‘t life or death. Calmly and rationally prove him wrong, and if he doesn‘t accept it, oh well...move on...

 

[MuayThaiFighter]

Originally posted by Gunnar:
[qb] If you agree with most of the people here, why ask the question(s)? Just as "No answer is sometimes an answer", a question often reveals much about the questioner...if you don‘t think something is debateable, you don‘t ask the question in the first place. Asking the question implies that you think the answer is somehow in doubt or is at least debateable.

If you want to do an opinion survey, you could always do a poll. Or simply state "it is commonly accepted that NNN should be allowed in the infantry/battlefield. While I agree with the sentiment, what are your opinions on why this is true (or not)...?"

Or even ask the negative: I have heard that some people don‘t believe nnn should be allowed in the infantry because of X, Y and Z, why would they (or you) think this?

This way, you lend no personal credibility to the statement itself, but still get the reasoning and answers for which you are looking.

Regardless of phraseology, you will find that certain topics are likely to stir up a hornet‘s nest anyway, so it is best to sit back, relax, and treat the postings as purely an intellectual exercise. Remember that printed communication hits home like a sledgehammer, and that you‘re as likely to be affected by the response as some people were affected by your posting. Craft your posts with care, and read other posts with an eye towards someone‘s emotional response. Don‘t take it personally. The guy who is convinced he‘s "right" doesn‘t necessarily get to rule the world tomorrow: it isn‘t life or death. Calmly and rationally prove him wrong, and if he doesn‘t accept it, oh well...move on... [/qb]

For me there is no for sure answer,I can say yes and no to women fighting on battle field

Yes:

1/.They can fight just as well as any man,in war killing is killing no matter what sex fires the gun.
2/.Women are sometimes more realiable then men
3/.Some women probably have more courage then some men.

No:

1/.Rape usually happens more to women then men when in captivity,or at least it is more heard of anyways.

2/.The species must continue & females are
the pivotal point in this.

3/.Men are by nature usually more aggressive then women and can handle that kind of stress better.

These are my reasons so there is no for sure answer,it just depends on how you look at it.
Overall I would say no they shouldn‘t fight on battlefield,but that is just my opinion.I don‘t say it to be an @sshole or to be sexist,it is just an opinion of mine.

 

[combat_medic]

Originally posted by MuayThaiFighter:

Yes:

1/.They can fight just as well as any man,in war killing is killing no matter what sex fires the gun.
2/.Women are sometimes more realiable then men
3/.Some women probably have more courage then some men.

No:

1/.Rape usually happens more to women then men.
2/.The species must continue & females are
the pivotal point in this.
3/.Men are by nature usually more aggressive then women and can handle that kind of stress better.

For your "Yes" answers:

1. OK, I‘ll agree on this one
2. Saying women are more reliable is also sexist; it‘s sexist against men.
3. Also sexist, neither is more courageous. It‘s the person, not the gender.

For your "No" answers:

1. Rape is far more prevalent among male POWs than female ones. Don‘t believe me? Look it up. Rape is also FAR more common in civvie life than in a POW scenario.
2. Hate to explain the birds and the bees to you, but men are required to propagate the species as well. If you think women should be breeding factories, you should probably read "The Handmaid‘s Tale" by Margaret Atwood.
3. Men do not handle stress better. That is also a sexist attitude. Actually, women have a phusically higher pain tolerance than men and have better hand/eye coordination, and take G-forces better.

All of your attitudes are very sexist (against men AND women), whether it‘s your intent or not. Saying that one person can or cannot (or should or should not) do something based solely on their gender is sexism. Yes it is just your opinion, but it is still sexist.

 

[Gunnar]

MTF, was it really necessary to quote the entire message that immediately preceded your reply? I mean, c‘mon man!

Combat Medic: You recommended an Atwood book. Ew!

 

[Deleted member 585]

Q: "Should women be aloud to fight on the battlefield during time of war?"

A: Yes, because they‘d be out of place if they were to fight on the battlefield during time of peace.

Cheers!

 

[WINDWOLF]

Your hanging the wrong guy on point #2 on
NO.Was not MTF, it was me that posted that
on the 2nd page Combat_medic.

I did not mean to imply that females are breeding mares.This was in regards to older times ie:
gothics,roman & before.
That the mind set could come from the need to
procreate the species for war.

If i offended you or other ladies,my apologies.
Regards.

( I knew i was gonna get fragged over that one)

 

[Albertan]

Generally speaking, it is true that men are better skilled at performing infantry jobs during combat than women. Women for a variety of reasons cannot, or do not wish to negotiate the rigors of front line combat.

When men are bunkered in trenches for weeks on end in close quarters, women will not have the luxury of ‘special shower hour‘ and the question of female hygene becomes more of a concern than that of men. When a soldier develops disentary and has to drop their drawers then and now, will the rest of company be obligued to guarantee the females privacy? When a woman is required to march with her section to a tasking point double time, should the rest of the men in that section be obligued to help her with her heavy gear should she begin having problems? Generally speaking, women are not as physically able as men, is it fair to the rest of the men to allow a woman to potentialy slow them down or get them in danger?
I could go on, but the point is that women seem to have many more special concerns and needs, of which a war fighting unit may not have the luxury of supplying or supporting in a time of war. As a result, women can be a potential liability to her unit. We are talking WAR here.

Perhaps an all female infantry unit would solve many problems (but then again you need enough female volunteers)

It is OK to admit that there are certain things men are better skilled at than women. And vice versa.

Women for example are better at multitasking, able to withstand higher G‘s, and many other things that men just aren‘t naturally skilled at. These are skills that can provide the CF advantages in other military trades, such as communications, logisitics, piloting etc.
It does no one any good, to place women in infantry roles just to prove some neo femminist agenda.

 

[NMPeters]

Interesting how this topic is coming up more frequently of late. I have my own opinion on this which I will keep to myself and which would probably surprise each one of you.

But I think that you all are missing a very valid and salient point in all of these discussions. Women in combat is a done deal. So I‘m thinking that this argument is rather moot.

MTF if you don‘t like the direction in which a topic you started is heading, then take the initiative to try to steer it back on course. Any conversation and/or debate, whether written or verbal will veer off course. That is human nature. So instead of stomping your feet, calling people names and using the vernacular, take the moral high ground and guide people to where you want them to go. Hissy fits will get you nowhere.

 

[Cycophant]

*applauds*

Considering your well-phrased and intelligent response, I personally would be eager and willing to hear your take on the matter.

Even if I may disagree, I enjoy hearing many sides and opinions during a debate. I feel we all benefit from it. And it would seem that these forums offer a good haven for intelligent, mature individuals. Perhaps that‘s another drawing point of mine to the CF: if many of you act the way that a good majority of others in the CF do, I look forward to serving.

Of course, the key would be ignoring those who might post immediately in response to a differing opinion with hostility and bias. But luckily, the anonymity of the internet allows for the ignoring of these people with relative ease.

 

[muskrat89]

Frankly, I was raised to believe most of what Albertan has posted. If that makes me sexist, so be it. At the time it was being ingrained into my skull, it was for the purpose of chivalry and male obligation, as a result of 10s of thousands of years of human evolution; not to perpetuate oppression of women, unequal treatment, or the callous disregard of totally capable ladies.

That being said - as NMP and others have intimated - this debate is moot. The CDS is not going to undo politically correct and forward-thinking policies to appease the musings of some folks on a message board. Part of being a soldier is following orders. The CF has chosen this path, and created policies to ease its implementation - if I questioned, perused, and debated every order I was given that I disagreed with, I wouldn‘t have gotten past Week 1.

I say we debate more important things - like "Should retired reservists be awarded retroactive pensions and severance packages, even if they have moved to the US?"

 

[gate_guard]

If we only debated issues which can be changed, we‘d have a lot more discussions on boot polish techniques. The CF is operated according to the Liberal agenda no matter what we think so why bother discussing anything to do with it? My point is that this and other forums are a place to voice opinions on matters that concern the CF, not just issues that haven‘t already been decided upon. I‘d hate to see the day that any opinion becomes "moot" just because it seems unchangeable.

As for the issue of females in combat roles, yes, it has been decided upon. So what? Does that mean that it is written in stone? Does that mean I can‘t have an opinion addressing it? Every forum that concerns the CF has the same topics rotating through discussion and once we stop posting about issues that have already been discussed to death, Mr Bobbitt isn‘t going to have to worry about bandwidth and storage issues cause he won‘t have any posts on this site.

 

[muskrat89]

Yes, for all intents and purposes, I think this one is carved in stone. Canadian politicians never back up, in case you haven‘t noticed. I‘m just saying we‘ve discussed this to death. In my opinion, energy is better spent on the future. Correcting flawed policies BEFORE they get written in stone. Help shape the future of our Army. Help steer Canadian social consciousness, and all that good stuff. Beating this dead horse is like debating the tactics used at Vimy, for pete‘s sake...jmo

 

[gate_guard]

Comparing women in combat roles to tactics used at Vimy as topics of discussion is a bit of a stretch. Why should we bother discussing reinstating the Airborne? We all know the gov‘t isn‘t going to do it. Why discuss anything that has happened in the past, for that matter? Your logic, Muskrat, is lost on me. Ever try the critical thinking concept of questioning everything? I can think of many instances where if people merely accepting things as being "written in stone," we would be a lot worse off than we are now.

And as I stated earlier, if we stopped discussing issues that have been "debated to death" we wouldn‘t have anything to talk about. I‘m tired of people saying "we‘ve already discussed this" etc. What else do you want to talk about on here? You may as well get rid of 90% of the posts on here. If you only discuss the future and ignore the past, your bound to repeat it.

 

[muskrat89]

It‘s odd that for such a fan of rhetorical discussion as yourself can‘t seem to stand that someone doesn‘t agree with you. You keep insisting on debate - I would point out that if we all agreed, 90% of the posts wouldn‘t exist, either, as unanimous agreement equals no debates at all. So there. Cheers ;-)

 

[Bill Smy]

Does anyone know whether women will take part in the Afganistan deployment -- and I mean on the pointy end?

 

[Duotone81]

Can‘t believe I missed this thread!

Posted by MTF,

The reason was because they know that during war and in countries like Afghanistan and other middle eastern countries,when women are caught they are often raped over and over again.

MTF, I‘m not too clear on the point you‘re trying to make. Male soldiers are also captured and subjected to inhuman treatment, extreme torture and execution. Are you saying that men are more capable in dealing with that sort of trauma? After reading your "insights" on the matter I am lead to believe that that is what you‘re implying. Whether or not this is true is up to interpretation. I remember seeing the men and women of the maintenance company that were ambushed in Iraq and in all fairness they all looked scared s***less. In the event that women are captured and raped, I’m sure more horrific things are happening to them as well as men who are captured. It’s war. Plain and simple. It’s not fair or civilized. There is no such thing as a civilized war. Just pay attention to the media and it will be apparent to you. Why don’t you grow some balls and say how you really feel! Quit with the foreplay and just admit that you don’t think that women are combat capable. Not that your opinion on women serving (because that’s what your really arguing about) counts as you don’t serve yourself.

 

[gate_guard]

Duotone,
Lose the condescending, elitist attitude. This isn‘t starship troopers where only those with service can voice their opinion. And why don‘t you grow some balls and join the world of proper conversation which doesn‘t involve juvenile insults (s***, now i‘m talking like you).

 

[humint]

Hey MTF:

Don‘t pretend to be voicing the best interests of women (i.e. protecting them from rape, etc), you know nothing of gender issues.

If a woman wants to join, can achieve the standards, prove herself accordingly, and can accept the challenges and risks inherent with the environment, than there is NO reason why she can‘t be in the combat arms.

The same goes for every recruit, regardless of sex, religion, political belief, disability, ect. If they can do it, than they should be permitted.

FYI: Women have played the role of fighter for thousands of years, so why is it any different now? Women gladiators, women fighers in Germanic tribes, women fighters on horseback across in nomadic tribes across Eastern Europe and Central Asia more than 3,000 years ago -- fighting is nothing new for women, and certainly (in a historical perspective) not out of the ordinary.

I am wondering whether you are afraid of being outdone by a woman. Is this where all the anger, frustration, and anxiety stems from (i.e. your fear of coming in second to a woman)? Do you have the same performance anxiety when competing against men?