HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Feminists (Group) » Shall women serve in comb...

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:08 PM

Shall women serve in combat?

A thread was started here but so far I was the only one replying.

Would be interested to hear more opinions from this community.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10021893341

35 replies, 2982 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply Shall women serve in combat? (Original post)
question everything Nov 2012 OP
Warpy Nov 2012 #1
question everything Nov 2012 #2
Gormy Cuss Nov 2012 #3
Cleita Nov 2012 #4
longship Nov 2012 #6
Cleita Nov 2013 #29
Kaleva Nov 2012 #7
De Leonist Nov 2013 #28
Cleita Nov 2013 #30
De Leonist Nov 2013 #32
Cleita Nov 2013 #33
MotherPetrie Nov 2012 #5
Kath1 Dec 2012 #12
Lugia Dec 2012 #16
MotherPetrie Mar 2013 #21
Cleita Nov 2013 #31
smirkymonkey Mar 2013 #17
stevenleser Mar 2013 #18
MotherPetrie Mar 2013 #20
stevenleser Mar 2013 #22
MotherPetrie Mar 2013 #23
stevenleser Mar 2013 #24
Shankapotomus Sep 2014 #34
stevenleser Sep 2014 #35
noamnety Nov 2012 #8
Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #9
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #11
One_Life_To_Give Dec 2012 #13
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #14
Neoma Dec 2012 #15
Neoma Nov 2012 #10
stevenleser Mar 2013 #19
HappyMe Mar 2013 #25
idwiyo Mar 2013 #26
shall_not_tell Apr 2013 #27

Response to question everything (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:11 PM

1. It would be nice if the military would recognize

that women are already serving in combat. Wars aren't nice and tidy any more, with discernible front lines. Anyone in a war zone is serving in combat, whether it's a woman driving a truck or a guy with guns and grenades sitting next to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:17 PM

2. Quite right. Combat does not necessarily mean charging up a hill

or checking a village for any ambush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:30 PM

3. I agree with Warpy. The line has already been crossed in many ways.

Should women be combat boots-on-the-ground? If anyone needs to be in that position then women can certainly serve as well as men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 09:31 PM

4. They do already, inadvertently, but to put them into that

role deliberately seems to me not to be a stretch. In today's warfare, they can handle just about anything the men can. It's not like they have to do hand to hand combat with swords and axes. Does the military even use bayonets and face to face combat anymore? For that I would say, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 11:03 PM

6. Inadvertently? Really?

Ask Tammy Duckworth. Her combat position was not inadvertent. She volunteered. And that was back in GWB's Iraq war.

So, women are serving in combat positions as pilots and have been for years. Their numbers are few, but they're there.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 01:02 PM

29. I thought that is what I said.

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:33 AM

7. In urban combat, the fighting can be face to face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 03:29 AM

28. Actually

There are numerous examples of women in pre-gun powder ages who fought directly in Battle. One better known example is Boudica, queen of the Iceni in Roman occupied Britain. She led the warriors of her tribe against the Romans and won more than once. However she was defeated, certainly not due to her being a woman of course. But rather that she choose to fight the Romans in a Pitched battle. The Iceni, like many Tribal cultures it would seem were better with hit and run, ambush, irregular warfare, etc. Romans( along with the Greeks, Persians, and Eqyptians to some extent or another) on the other hand had pretty much set standard for the fighting of pitched battles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to De Leonist (Reply #28)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 01:10 PM

30. Spare me the lecture. I write stories about amazons and shield maidens.

My latest research is on queen Maeve of Ireland. Warrior queens like Boudicca "led" from mostly the rear in a strategic position so they could give orders. Generals like Julius Caesar did the same and so did Patton and Eisenhower.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #30)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 02:49 PM

32. From the Rear?

Leading from the Rear? Every thing I've read implied that Boudicca led from the front. Again, the Iceni being a Tribal Society I had always assumed that a War Leader would have been expected to lead from the Front. I know you see that with various Germanic and Gallic Tribes on the Continent at the time. But then the size of Warbands amongst tribes of both Cultures as far I've read weren't very big and Boudicca wasn't leading a Tribal Warband either but a rather large force made up of the Iceni and various allied Tribes so I guess a Leading from the Rear approach probably does make more sense in that regard. You say write stories? Are you a published Author? If so mind pointing me in the Direction of your books? I'm always looking for a good read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to De Leonist (Reply #32)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 03:05 PM

33. Nobody knows how Boudicca actually waged war. We only know from a few

written references of the time and archaeological evidence how she might have. Most of what is said about her is mostly fiction. I don't publish books. I'm not that good of a writer. I like ancient history and like to write stories about them from the female POV for my own entertainment. I don't share them and frankly haven't finished most of them.

The warrior kings who led from the front usually ended up rather dead. They were usually in a place where they could observe the battle and run the operations do it. They had champions who did that for them instead. This is why you have legends about Achilles, Lancelot, Cuchullain et al

Did you know Cleopatra was a warrior queen? She only gets credit for being some kind of femme fatale but in fact as Pharoah, she was general of her armies and admiral of her navy. She went to war, but of course remained in the relative safety of her barge or camp, but was otherwise quite involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Wed Nov 28, 2012, 10:54 PM

5. As a feminist, I said FUCK COMBAT.

 

FUCK the military and fuck war.

They would not exist if it were not for men.

Feminism took a permanently wrong turn when feminists took men as their role model.

It should be the other way around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 09:44 PM

12. I pretty much agree with that.

When issues of war, recruitment, the military, combat, etc, come up, feminists should respond with an uncompromising, "HELL NO!!!"

"Feminism took a permanently wrong turn when feminists took men as their role model." I agree with that 100%.

Feminism should be about peace, even radically for peace, not trying to get a woman promoted to be a general in charge of killing another thousand people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:09 AM

16. Here's a crazy idea...

Why don't we quit the gender bashing?

There's a ton of other (good) things that wouldn't exist without men:

-Science
-The internet
-TV
-Cars
-Radio

and so on. Oh, you say, that's because women never had the opportunity to invent those things (and I agree with you). But by that logic, aren't wars started by men b/c they have the power?

Why is it that when men do good things, it's because women never had the opportunity to, but when men do bad things, it's a reflection of how evil men are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lugia (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:27 PM

21. There is nothing bashing in what I said. I didn't say they didn't invent anything.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lugia (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 1, 2013, 01:16 PM

31. How do you know? Men used to take credit for what women

invented and discovered. And when there were women, who got too big for their britches, taking credit and all, like Hypatia of Alexandria, then the men killed them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 08:53 PM

17. Hear, hear!

War is a man's game. Only they should play it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #5)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:06 PM

18. That is wishful thinking. Just think Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir

There is absolutely nothing to indicate women would be less likely to go to war or less likely to adopt extremist political ideologies than men.

If anything, politically, women have shown themselves to be completely equal with men, in the good and the bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #18)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:26 PM

20. Wow - out of thousands of years of countless male warmongers, you manged to find

 

TWO women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:50 PM

22. There havent been that many women leaders to examine. The fact that there

have been two that have been warlike out of the few women leaders we have had so far speaks to how much the "war is all men" idea doesnt work.

And by the way, those aren't "the only ones I can find", those two women just happened to immediately come to mind. Im sure with digging, we could find more.

Disappointing as it sounds, I am convinced women are the equal of men in every way, and that includes propensities toward bad behavior and psychiatric and emotional issues like aggressiveness and megalomania.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 01:20 AM

23. If so, that's because women are trying to emulate men -- AKA the power sex.

 

And as I said -- that is where women's liberation took a wrong turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 7, 2013, 09:50 AM

24. You are taking wishful thinking to a new level with unintended consequences and meanings.

I'm sure you think that you are saying something positive about women by claiming that, absent men, women aren't capable of certain things or wouldn't come up with certain ideas about how to act, but what you are saying isn't a net positive for women at all.

You are taking part of women's humanity away from them if you are claiming that, absent a male example, they are not capable of the same range of emotions, motives, responses and actions that men are.

And the evidence suggests otherwise, both on a macro and micro scale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #24)

Mon Sep 1, 2014, 11:25 PM

34. As women are child bearers

and having been the primarily caretakers of children over thousands of years of evolution, on average, women have less a propensity to be risk takers than men. And going to warfare is certainly a major survival risk probably less likely to be rewarded with ones continued survival than evasion of confrontation entirely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/9005552/Men-twice-as-likely-to-take-risks.html

Given the destructiveness warfare brings to the world and humanity itself, I don't think it's damaging to women at all to maybe conclude they have less propensity for it. How could a propensity for seeking a peaceful resolution over a violent one degrade anyone's humanity? Doesn't it enhance it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shankapotomus (Reply #34)

Mon Sep 1, 2014, 11:38 PM

35. Like those who commit murder don't think they will be caught, those who start wars assume they will

win.

They do not see it as a risk-taking endeavor. They have convinced themselves their side will come out on top in the end.

In the case of Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher, they turned out to be right. But the fact is, you never know what is going to happen in war. History is replete with examples of wars where one side seemed to be at massive advantage and somehow managed to lose. My favorite such example is the Spanish Armada in 1588. The Spanish should have won that war and conquered Great Britain. If they had, Spanish would probably be the national language here in this part of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:58 AM

8. Yes, but

only voluntarily - and I would say the same for men.

That includes those who volunteer for military service in general. If the powers that be can't convince enough individuals in the military that a particular war is worth fighting/dying for, they get no troops for it and the mission doesn't happen. The troops should be able to opt out. Maybe outprocess them from the military at that point - and I'd even be okay with saying with a loss of benefits, to prevent people from making a 20 year career of refusing to serve in combat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:47 PM

9. Yes.

 

I thought they pretty much already did? The women who can hack the physical requirements should be fine. Don't other countries have women soldiers in combat?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:01 PM

11. They do -- they just don't get the medals and promotions

And pay and distinctions that officially "allowing" it would do.

Jessica Lynch: technically a "REMF" support soldier, and look what ahppened to her and all of her buddies. Killed, injured, and/or POW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 04:37 PM

13. Support soldiers have always had casualties

Be it the RedBall Express in Europe to the stand of the Marine Depot unit on Iwo Jima. Support doesn't mean no risk, never did. Direct combat units in WW2 comprised only 10% of uniformed forces. The other 90% being required to maintain the lines of supply to keep that 10% engaged in combat.

Qualifying for Direct Combat units should be based solely on merit and ability not gender. As all of you who have seen the movie Hell and Back recognize Audie Murphy wasn't the stereotypical Combat Soldier either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One_Life_To_Give (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 05:14 PM

14. I know, but I mean female service members are seen as support

Even when they aren't.

WWII: nurses were killed and became POWs, and many died in captivity. There are female names on The Wall, too, and finally a statue there, although one Senator sneered why didn't the K-9 Corps get one, too (I think we should have a memorial for animal service members, but...).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:52 PM

15. I've become a WWII buff, somewhat.

If there's anything I love from it, It's the Russian flying night witches.

"A stealth technique of the night bombers was to idle the engine near the target and glide to the bomb release point, with only wind noise to reveal their location."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Witches

Badass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:17 PM

10. Yes, absolutely.

Reading about women in combat is refreshing. Maybe that's sort of a historians point of view... But I do like to dig around for strong women in books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Wed Mar 6, 2013, 11:07 PM

19. 100% equality and equal opportunities in the military and beyond. Period. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Fri Mar 8, 2013, 12:26 AM

25. Yes, I believe so.

Equality is equality. 18 year old females should have to register.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Fri Mar 8, 2013, 01:09 AM

26. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:25 AM

27. And pregnancy shouldn't matter.

Just because some women choose to voluntarily take themselves out of combat status by becoming pregnant does NOT mean they should be disallowed from holding combat positions. Pregnancy is beautiful and completely different than other kinds of malingering. The military has plenty of other people it can use to go out on those combat rotations, so it should just recall their stateside tours and use them for what they are trained: combat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread