Lifting ban on women in front-line infantry

[POOHsie]

Originally Posted by EllaM

...
The idea of this move is to remove a barrier for career advancement for women in the military. There are other ways of doing that.

There are many reasons for allowing women the choice to be in military combat situations. Your idea is only one of them. Lots of people in the military don't think ahead to a military career. They just want to serve and contribute fully. I served in the National Guard in the 70s and 80s. I was one of five girls in my family, no boys. I was relegated to "personnel" and typed and filed during duty hours. It was not what I would have chosen to do. We were a Field Artillery Battalion. I wanted to serve on a howitzer crew.

[chicagodisneyfan]

Originally Posted by luvsJack

As for your reasons for not wanting your sons/daughters in the military. I can understand your value system. But how do you justify that the freedoms you enjoy everyday are DUE to the military that you are speaking against?

Really - what freedoms are those? Please name one freedom we would have lost by not invading Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc?

War for reasons other than defending the borders of the nation does not make Americans freer. We send soldiers to countries that pose no military threat. There is no greater INSULT to the honor of soldiers by telling them to give there lives to defend freedom when in fact freedom is not at issue in the war.

[Sanchez]

Originally Posted by chicagodisneyfan

Really - what freedoms are those? Please name one freedom we would have lost by not invading Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc?

War for reasons other than defending the borders of the nation does not make Americans freer. We send soldiers to countries that pose no military threat. There is no greater INSULT to the honor of soldiers by telling them to give there lives to defend freedom when in fact freedom is not at issue in the war.

Not sure why you are laughing. You seem to agree that we need a military to defend our borders and that alone protects our independence and freedoms. Your point regarding invasions (and I, like you, disagree with every one you mention) has no bearing on this issue.

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Originally Posted by luvsJack

Here's the thing about the "southern gentleman" trait. Its not a cop out and its not about anyone trying to be a "damsel in distress". Its not really even about being southern. Its the way the young men are raised. Its the values that have been instilled in them.

From the time they are small they are taught to look out for or take care of their sisters, female cousins, etc. Then when older, dad may leave the son "in charge" of the house to take care of his mom and sisters.

Princess Dolly, you sound like dd. She has told many young men that she is quite capable of taking care of herself, tyvm. But, as I have explained to her, its instilled in them. They think they are doing the right thing because of what they have been taught. And of course it ruffles her feathers because of what SHE has been taught. I tell her just to mentally roll her eyes and go with it.

Anyway, the military is pretty good at training all those "home/parent " lessons out of someone so if this trait is being addressed in their training; I imagine they have a pretty good way of getting it out of them.

I will say, though, that the men I know in the military are some of the most protective guys I know and really and truly "southern gentlemen"; so I would really like to find out what they think about this.

As for your reasons for not wanting your sons/daughters in the military. I can understand your value system. But how do you justify that the freedoms you enjoy everyday are DUE to the military that you are speaking against?

In short, because I dispute your premise. There are very, very few instances in our military history that could not have been avoided by a change in the behavior of the protagonists (note that the protagonists who could have prevented war are not always the Americans).

Going back to the Revolutionary War, which was a result of needless oppression by England (independence wasn't what the colonists initially sought, they just wanted to be treated as Englishmen and not as second class citizens), through WWII, which saw the rise of Hitler due to the oppressive sanctions put on post-WWI Germany that caused the economic collapse that allowed him to rise to power, to the current battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. which are a direct result of America's decision to arm despots and two-bit criminals in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to destabilize our enemy at that time (the USSR) and who became angry at us when America pulled out its support when they were either no longer needed or got too big for their britches. The only time in our history that I see war as having been the only option was the Civil War, but even that could have been prevented if the south had freed the slaves and if the North and South had worked through the rest of the issues of economic inequity and states' rights as partners.

Please note, in no way do I excuse the actions of any of those evil men throughout history, but I think it is inaccurate to say that they were created in a vacuum and I believe in humankind's ability to negotiate and work things out.

The fact of nature, however, is that we have a military and in order to justify its existence, it needs to be used. Far too much money and power is riding on it, because if we don't use it, then it could be scaled down (to a size similar to every other nation on earth) and thousands of people would be out of jobs and billions of dollars would be taken from the military contractors, and we cannot have that! Of course, as a pacifist I believe those dollars could be invested in other job creation, but that takes thought and work, and so it's just easier to rally to the flag than it is to be humans and care for each other.

As to the "way they were raised" argument, I'd like to point out that none of that is location specific. Boys in the north also care about their sisters, are left in charge of the family, etc., so it should have nothing to do with being a southern gentleman. And if anybody cannot put that behind them, then it's their issue, it's their inability to follow orders, and so they should bear the brunt of the consequences.

[EllaM]

Originally Posted by POOHsie

There are many reasons for allowing women the choice to be in military combat situations. Your idea is only one of them. Lots of people in the military don't think ahead to a military career. They just want to serve and contribute fully. I served in the National Guard in the 70s and 80s. I was one of five girls in my family, no boys. I was relegated to "personnel" and typed and filed during duty hours. It was not what I would have chosen to do. We were a Field Artillery Battalion. I wanted to serve on a howitzer crew.

Allowing women to go on frontline infantry duty is setting the military up for a major fail. I'm sorry you don't like it, but there is a much bigger emotional impact for the citizenry if their daughters are captured. Don't you remember the stories of Jessica Lynch and Rhonda Cornum? Both female prisoners in Iraq and both survived some pretty horrible experiences. Rhonda Cornum reportedly was raped 50 times by her captors from a regime who used rape and torture to control its people. These are the type of opponents we have today.

It's easy to aspire to use the big guns or pilot the fighter jets. But that's not the consequence we're talking about here. We're considering what happens when that weapon fails or that plane gets shot down. Do we just ignore the bias of the opponent who already has an established sexist and abusive track record of women? We can be as progressive as we want. I can guarantee you our opponents are anything but.

It's easy to act all GI Jane in theory. It's another thing to do it in real life.

[snarlingcoyote]

Originally Posted by EllaM

Allowing women to go on frontline infantry duty is setting the military up for a major fail. I'm sorry you don't like it, but there is a much bigger emotional impact for the citizenry if their daughters are captured. Don't you remember the stories of Jessica Lynch and Rhonda Cornum? Both female prisoners in Iraq and both survived some pretty horrible experiences. Rhonda Cornum reportedly was raped 50 times by her captors from a regime who used rape and torture to control its people. These are the type of opponents we have today.

It's easy to aspire to use the big guns or pilot the fighter jets. But that's not the consequence we're talking about here. We're considering what happens when that weapon fails or that plane gets shot down. Do we just ignore the bias of the opponent who already has an established sexist and abusive track record of women? We can be as progressive as we want. I can guarantee you our opponents are anything but.

It's easy to act all GI Jane in theory. It's another thing to do it in real life.

Because, really, thus far women haven't served on the front line or even in enemy territory, and been captured by the enemy.

They've been there, done that for 60 years. Now they just get to serve in combat troops.

[low-key]

Cant argue with all that like this, your reasons are right and should happen. But on a personal level I dont like it, in my "old fashion" world women dont take out the trash, pump gas, mow the yard or fight in combat (but I cant defend my logic)

[snarlingcoyote]

Originally Posted by low-key

Cant argue with all that like this, your reasons are right and should happen. But on a personal level I dont like it, in my "old fashion" world women dont take out the trash, pump gas, mow the yard or fight in combat (but I cant defend my logic)

Low-key, at least you're honest.

[Jennasis]

Originally Posted by EllaM

Allowing women to go on frontline infantry duty is setting the military up for a major fail. I'm sorry you don't like it, but there is a much bigger emotional impact for the citizenry if their daughters are captured. Don't you remember the stories of Jessica Lynch and Rhonda Cornum? Both female prisoners in Iraq and both survived some pretty horrible experiences. Rhonda Cornum reportedly was raped 50 times by her captors from a regime who used rape and torture to control its people. These are the type of opponents we have today.

It's easy to aspire to use the big guns or pilot the fighter jets. But that's not the consequence we're talking about here. We're considering what happens when that weapon fails or that plane gets shot down. Do we just ignore the bias of the opponent who already has an established sexist and abusive track record of women? We can be as progressive as we want. I can guarantee you our opponents are anything but.

It's easy to act all GI Jane in theory. It's another thing to do it in real life.

As it would be on a voluntary basis and women wouldn't be forced into frontline infantry, I would like to think that the brave ones who do volunteer for that assignment would take ALL the assorted risk factors into account before stepping up...and if they are willing to do so who are you (or me or anyone else) to tell them they can't?

BTW, it has been stated by many military analysts that by the time this is implemented and the first crop of women would be fully trained and ready to be deployed, combat operations in Afghanistan will be over.

[luvsJack]

Originally Posted by A_Princess'_Daddy

In short, because I dispute your premise. There are very, very few instances in our military history that could not have been avoided by a change in the behavior of the protagonists (note that the protagonists who could have prevented war are not always the Americans).

Going back to the Revolutionary War, which was a result of needless oppression by England (independence wasn't what the colonists initially sought, they just wanted to be treated as Englishmen and not as second class citizens), through WWII, which saw the rise of Hitler due to the oppressive sanctions put on post-WWI Germany that caused the economic collapse that allowed him to rise to power, to the current battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. which are a direct result of America's decision to arm despots and two-bit criminals in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to destabilize our enemy at that time (the USSR) and who became angry at us when America pulled out its support when they were either no longer needed or got too big for their britches. The only time in our history that I see war as having been the only option was the Civil War, but even that could have been prevented if the south had freed the slaves and if the North and South had worked through the rest of the issues of economic inequity and states' rights as partners.

Please note, in no way do I excuse the actions of any of those evil men throughout history, but I think it is inaccurate to say that they were created in a vacuum and I believe in humankind's ability to negotiate and work things out.

The fact of nature, however, is that we have a military and in order to justify its existence, it needs to be used. Far too much money and power is riding on it, because if we don't use it, then it could be scaled down (to a size similar to every other nation on earth) and thousands of people would be out of jobs and billions of dollars would be taken from the military contractors, and we cannot have that! Of course, as a pacifist I believe those dollars could be invested in other job creation, but that takes thought and work, and so it's just easier to rally to the flag than it is to be humans and care for each other.

As to the "way they were raised" argument, I'd like to point out that none of that is location specific. Boys in the north also care about their sisters, are left in charge of the family, etc., so it should have nothing to do with being a southern gentleman. And if anybody cannot put that behind them, then it's their issue, it's their inability to follow orders, and so they should bear the brunt of the consequences.

the south wasn't willing to release the slaves and the north wasn't willing to work out anything. Hence, the war. and that's the basic fact of most wars.

Hitler wasn't backing down. somehow I think those that barely escaped with their lives and whose countries were being destroyed or that lost their entire families have a different opinion of the need for that war.

I don't believe every war or invasion is necessary but I do believe that a strong military is necessary to protect this country.


Southern gentleman is a descriptive phrase of a personality trait and of course it is not regional and as I said if it can be addressed in training then no problem. I only said that its not a cop out or bs as it is a trait instilled in some men regardless of what part of the country they live in.

[aaarcher86]

Originally Posted by low-key

Cant argue with all that like this, your reasons are right and should happen. But on a personal level I dont like it, in my "old fashion" world women dont take out the trash, pump gas, mow the yard or fight in combat (but I cant defend my logic)

Originally Posted by snarlingcoyote

Low-key, at least you're honest.

Agreed - at least you know it's just a personal feeling versus logic.

And I don't mind the thought of not most of the things you mentioned being done by the males If I could just add cleaning and laundry to that list I'd be in heaven!