Sure put women in the military but treat them the same!

[britishboy]

I'm all for putting women in every military role but the rules can not be weakened, they should be of the same size and same work expected of them. What do you guys think?

[tovaris]

They alerdy do that...

[Harry Smith]

One Fuhrer, One Reich, One Volk

We don't need women in combat roles in the military, if anything we should be looking to reduce the number of people in the armed forces, not forcing more people into combat, we're not Israel. This has essences of the desperate scramble in 1945 where the Germans gave knives, brooms and hammers to men, women and children to help defend the third reich.

We shouldn't be encouraging any-one to join the military.

[Vlerchan]

If a woman volunteers to partake in military service then that should be her right. I wouldn't encourage any individual to enter the armed forces - actually, I'd actively discourage it - but if a man or woman wishes to serve then that is entirely their decision.

[tovaris]

If a woman volunteers to partake in military service then that should be her right. I wouldn't encourage any individual to enter the armed forces - actually, I'd actively discourage it - but if a man or woman wishes to serve then that is entirely their decision.

In most modern countries one only HAS to join the army if a state of war is declared. And the army is conpletly profesional, mening its like any other job.

[shotgungirl]

Of the same size? What? You do realize that men and women are naturally built very differently, yes? The military is working on setting one set standard for both females and males. I can only speak for the Navy as that is the branch I serve in, but the basic physical standards are not very far apart anyways. I absolutely agree that women that desire to be in a "combat" role (because let's face it...even pencil pusher jobs can see combat because in modern day war there are no "front lines") should be able to handle the strenuous physical aspects just as well as the men. I absolutely believe that women should be given the option to jump into combat roles. I'm no feminist (or that I will admit to at least), but my problem with a lot of people that disagree with women in combat roles is that they usually say something along the lines of "America isn't ready to see their daughters and wives in a coffin with a flag draped over it" and that grinds my gears because to me that sends the message that we put a higher value on a woman's life. And in reality, many female soldiers/Marines/airmen/sailors/coasties have already made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Holy cow I rambled. Sorry. This is a sore subject with me because I am a female in the military.

[Tarannosaurus]

In most modern countries one only HAS to join the army if a state of war is declared. And the army is conpletly profesional, mening its like any other job.

Actually in some countries it's only required that men join the army in a state of war.

[tovaris]

Actually in some countries it's only required that men join the army in a state of war.

Oh yes i forgot to mention that.

[britishboy]

Of the same size? What? You do realize that men and women are naturally built very differently, yes? The military is working on setting one set standard for both females and males. I can only speak for the Navy as that is the branch I serve in, but the basic physical standards are not very far apart anyways. I absolutely agree that women that desire to be in a "combat" role (because let's face it...even pencil pusher jobs can see combat because in modern day war there are no "front lines") should be able to handle the strenuous physical aspects just as well as the men. I absolutely believe that women should be given the option to jump into combat roles. I'm no feminist (or that I will admit to at least), but my problem with a lot of people that disagree with women in combat roles is that they usually say something along the lines of "America isn't ready to see their daughters and wives in a coffin with a flag draped over it" and that grinds my gears because to me that sends the message that we put a higher value on a woman's life. And in reality, many female soldiers/Marines/airmen/sailors/coasties have already made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Holy cow I rambled. Sorry. This is a sore subject with me because I am a female in the military.

Firstly I take my hat off to you for serving in your navy, very brave:)

I agree with what your saying, I am fine with women in every role from maintenance to SAS solider to General but they must be treated the same, even if that means fewer women can be recruited.

[Harry Smith]

Firstly I take my hat off to you for serving in your navy, very brave:)

I agree with what your saying, I am fine with women in every role from maintenance to SAS solider to General but they must be treated the same, even if that means fewer women can be recruited.

It's interesting that you only stand up for women rights of 'equality' when they're fighting for our armed forces but you have openly encouraged women not having equal pay, maternity leave or abortion rights

I think in order to treat 'everyone' the same you firstly need to tackle the issues of woman being overtly serialized, abused and degraged throughout society. I mean the armed forces is hardly the most progressive place, I doubt they'll be rolling out the blanket and treating the women with respect. That;s the most important thing in this whole debate- making sure that women are treated with respect because if you look at many other workplaces that's simply not happening

[britishboy]

It's interesting that you only stand up for women rights of 'equality' when they're fighting for our armed forces but you have openly encouraged women not having equal pay, maternity leave or abortion rights


what?


I think in order to treat 'everyone' the sameyou firstly need to tackle the issues of woman being overtly serialized, abused and degraged throughout society. I mean the armed forces is hardly the most progressive place, I doubt they'll be rolling out the blanket and treating the women with respect. That;s the most important thing in this whole debate- making sure that women are treated with respect because if you look at many other workplaces that's simply not happening
I think it would be women that want the lighter load in the military in general, as far as i'm concerned a soilder is a soilder, gender shouldnt be a factor, they should have an equal load.

[Harry Smith]

what?


I think it would be women that want the lighter load in the military in general, as far as i'm concerned a soilder is a soilder, gender shouldnt be a factor, they should have an equal load.

I'd want a lighter load in the military, heck I've been in cadets and nobody wants to carry the field radio,that doesn't mean that every gay wants a lighter load (pardon the pun)

it's actually ironically sexist of you to suggest that 'women' as a gender want to get some sort of freebie from the armed forces. Do you have any evidence that women want a lighter load in the armed forces?

I'll happily dig up quotes where you've advocated dismissal of woman for going on maternity leave, removing female abortion rights and encouraging a pay gap

[Vlerchan]

Okay, I've put some thought into this: I'm agreeing with - and this feels horribly strange - BritishBoy's side of the argument. I believe that men and woman should be treated equally in all areas of society and that should extend to the military, too. Whilst it's obvious that men and woman are inherently physically different - though isn't everyone? I've seen no bid made at individualised training regimes, in that case - I don't believe that a standardised training regime would deter woman who are genuinely interested in choosing a career in the military.

I think it would be women that want the lighter load in the military in general, as far as i'm concerned a soilder is a soilder, gender shouldnt be a factor, they should have an equal load.
It's funny because most of the regulations are designed by men and are merely a product of benevolent sexism.

[TheBionicWorm]

On standard I guess some women are slightly weaker than men. But if they are going through military training I assume they get toughened up enough to handle it. It also just depends on the individual, I've met women who were stronger than men and men who are stronger than women.

PS: Thank you for your service shotgungirl.

[britishboy]

I'd want a lighter load in the military, heck I've been in cadets and nobody wants to carry the field radio,that doesn't mean that every gay wants a lighter load (pardon the pun)

[url]www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512412/Female-RAF-recruits-100-000-compensation--march-like-men.html[url]
there is a difference between complaining the weight you havr to carry is to heavy and using you gender or sexuality etc as an excuse.

Again trying to discredit me, if not not wealth it is something that came out wrong or something you misinterpreted.

[Harry Smith]

[url]www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512412/Female-RAF-recruits-100-000-compensation--march-like-men.html[url]
there is a difference between complaining the weight you havr to carry is to heavy and using you gender or sexuality etc as an excuse.

Again trying to discredit me, if not not wealth it is something that came out wrong or something you misinterpreted.

I'm sorry but asking for evidence isn't me discrediting you, it's me asking you to back up a statment with evidence, it happens in every debate and it allows the ideas to factually correct rather than hot air

The Daily Mail having a article about a woman suing the RAF doesn't prove that every women wants a lighter load which is what you suggested.

I think it would be women that want the lighter load in the military

This isn't factually correct, I've served with women in the cadet corp and generally they were much fitter than me and happy to carry just as much if not more kit

[Sir Suomi]

I'd only suggest that if women are allowed to volunteer, they should be required to sign up for the draft. I have no problem with women serving in the armed forces, in fact, I'm glad that they want to serve their countries. But if they want equality, they're going to have to abide by the same terms as us males do.

[Harry Smith]

I'd only suggest that if women are allowed to volunteer, they should be required to sign up for the draft. I have no problem with women serving in the armed forces, in fact, I'm glad that they want to serve their countries. But if they want equality, they're going to have to abide by the same terms as us males do.

I'm surprised that America didn't scrap the draft after Vietnam, it took a big chunk out of the war effort when everyone moved north to Canada.

Out of interest do you support women having full legal,social and economic equality?

[Sugaree]

One Fuhrer, One Reich, One Volk

Will you stop with the "Everything that I don't agree with is fascist!" bullshit. It's getting old.


Out of interest do you support women having full legal,social and economic equality?

Now you're grasping at straws.

[Vlerchan]

I'd only suggest that if women are allowed to volunteer, they should be required to sign up for the draft. I have no problem with women serving in the armed forces, in fact, I'm glad that they want to serve their countries. But if they want equality, they're going to have to abide by the same terms as us males do.
The Draft - although it was discontinued after Vietnam - would apply to both woman and men (aged between 18 - 26) equally in America if it was ever reinacted.

(I'll add now my belief that it's effectively military slavery and it's awful that it would affect anyone - male or female - in the first place.)

[Harry Smith]

Will you stop with the "Everything that I don't agree with is fascist!" bullshit. It's getting old.



Now you're grasping at straws.

I was saying that this idea that we need a mobilized military is extremely desperate and that we're sticking onto this idea that we need to constantly stream people in the armed forces, women should be in the armed forces along with men but we should still reduce the number of people in the armed forces both in the UK and across Europe. We're not Israel

I'm not grasping at straws, I'm showing how this argument is hijacked by people on the right of the political spectrum who say that if women want equality then they can serve in combat roles where as they then deny women fundamental rights, I'm sick of people extending this argument to extreme lengths in order to some how force gender equality without addressing the problems of every workplace where women are present such as sexism, sexual harassment and wage inequality.

If we work towards solving these issues then we can stand up and say that we support equality for women, because giving a women a gun and sending her to middle east doesn't mean that she has equal rights in the same way than DADT laws didn't suddenly make gay and lesbian citizens equal. If you stand up and call for equality in the armed forces then it's common sense to stand up for equal rights in all other areas of life but the sad truth is that many people who advocate integrated military service don't advocate female rights

[Name1ess]

I was saying that this idea that we need a mobilized military is extremely desperate and that we're sticking onto this idea that we need to constantly stream people in the armed forces, women should be in the armed forces along with men but we should still reduce the number of people in the armed forces both in the UK and across Europe. We're not Israel

I'm not grasping at straws, I'm showing how this argument is hijacked by people on the right of the political spectrum who say that if women want equality then they can serve in combat roles where as they then deny women fundamental rights, I'm sick of people extending this argument to extreme lengths in order to some how force gender equality without addressing the problems of every workplace where women are present such as sexism, sexual harassment and wage inequality.

If we work towards solving these issues then we can stand up and say that we support equality for women, because giving a women a gun and sending her to middle east doesn't mean that she has equal rights in the same way than DADT laws didn't suddenly make gay and lesbian citizens equal. If you stand up and call for equality in the armed forces then it's common sense to stand up for equal rights in all other areas of life but the sad truth is that many people who advocate integrated military service don't advocate female rights

If a woman volunteers to partake in military service then that should be her right. I wouldn't encourage any individual to enter the armed forces - actually, I'd actively discourage it - but if a man or woman wishes to serve then that is entirely their decision.

My thoughts exactly :)

[britishboy]

I was saying that this idea that we need a mobilized military is extremely desperate and that we're sticking onto this idea that we need to constantly stream people in the armed forces, women should be in the armed forces along with men but we should still reduce the number of people in the armed forces both in the UK and across Europe. We're not Israel

I'm not grasping at straws, I'm showing how this argument is hijacked by people on the right of the political spectrum who say that if women want equality then they can serve in combat roles where as they then deny women fundamental rights, I'm sick of people extending this argument to extreme lengths in order to some how force gender equality without addressing the problems of every workplace where women are present such as sexism, sexual harassment and wage inequality.

If we work towards solving these issues then we can stand up and say that we support equality for women, because giving a women a gun and sending her to middle east doesn't mean that she has equal rights in the same way than DADT laws didn't suddenly make gay and lesbian citizens equal. If you stand up and call for equality in the armed forces then it's common sense to stand up for equal rights in all other areas of life but the sad truth is that many people who advocate integrated military service don't advocate female rights

This thread isn't about military strength nor the social issues for women or gay/ lesbians instead, should women have the same physicals demanded

[Harry Smith]

This thread isn't about military strength nor the social issues for women or gay/ lesbians instead, should women have the same physicals demanded

But it's an onshoot of the argument, you have to think about the bigger picture, you can't advocate women having the same rules and regulations in the armed forces if you then go and advocate against women right's the next day.

As I said before it's a argument hijacked by right wingers to force equality in one area but not in others.

Have the fitness set to the role and adjusted for age and gender, I wouldn't expect a 40 year old female pilot to be as fast as a 20 year old male pilot on average-that's something which works well for the RAF

[britishboy]

Have the fitness set to the role and adjusted for age and gender, I wouldn't expect a 40 year old female pilot to be as fast as a 20 year old male pilot on average-that's something which works well for the RAF

No, it's not about employing everyone, it is about getting the people fit enough for the job, if a women is the same in mental and physical ability she should be accepted and treated the same, anyone that dosent whether man wonen or elderly should be sent away.

[Jess]

I'm not sure women should have the same physicals demanded...women ARE physically weaker, even though there are some women who are stronger than men and vice versa...but you can't expect every women to be able to do what most men can do...so I agree with Harry, it should be adjusted for age and gender.

[britishboy]

I'm not sure women should have the same physicals demanded...women ARE physically weaker, even though there are some women who are stronger than men and vice versa...but you can't expect every women to be able to do what most men can do...so I agree with Harry, it should be adjusted for age and gender.

No only those fit enough should compete, weak soilders on the battlefield are a hazard to themselves and theit comrades.

The target is not getting women in the army, it dosent matter if it is 100% male or 100% female but they must be fit enough

[Harry Smith]

No, it's not about employing everyone, it is about getting the people fit enough for the job, if a women is the same in mental and physical ability she should be accepted and treated the same, anyone that dosent whether man wonen or elderly should be sent away.

How is 40 elderly?

http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/applicationzone/fitnesstests.cfm

The RAF has the distinction of having separate entry requirements for men and women and I think that works well because it allows for a fair entry, especially in careers where fitness doesn't really matter.

they must be fit enough

That's why the RAF has a fitness test...

[britishboy]

How is 40 elderly?

http://www.raf.mod.uk/careers/applicationzone/fitnesstests.cfm

The RAF has the distinction of having separate entry requirements for men and women and I think that works well because it allows for a fair entry, especially in careers where fitness doesn't really matter.



That's why the RAF has a fitness test...

ok explain this to me, why say to have this job you must be so fit but for the same job if your a women you can be slightly less fit, the minimum fitness is there for a reason, if the job requires you to be less fit, still have the minimum fitness the same.

if it is ok for a women to be slightly less fit, why can't a man be slightly less fit.

[Vlerchan]

I'm not sure women should have the same physicals demanded...women ARE physically weaker, even though there are some women who are stronger than men and vice versa...but you can't expect every women to be able to do what most men can do...so I agree with Harry, it should be adjusted for age and gender.
I'll suggest that rather than mandatory segregation of men and woman in training we simply split recruits into non-gender discriminatory groups based on the grounds of testing taken before recruitment. Organise individuals - men and woman - into training groups that reflect their potential fitness and strength and whatnot. I don't see why it's needed to generalise all woman as weaker and all men as stronger and then split them into groups based on that - considering it further I think it's an absolutely awful practice. It seems a rather apt solution to the pro-segregationists problems.

Though I still believe we should be expecting the same standard of training for everyone considering active duty. I'd like to think that if we're forced to send our men and woman off to some foreign country to engage in another pointless war we'd be sending what is our very best and not simply under-trained cannon-fodder because it was felt one group of soldiers wouldn't be up for full training.

[Harry Smith]

ok explain this to me, why say to have this job you must be so fit but for the same job if your a women you can be slightly less fit, the minimum fitness is there for a reason, if the job requires you to be less fit, still have the minimum fitness the same.

if it is ok for a women to be slightly less fit, why can't a man be slightly less fit.

The minimum fitness is their to ensure that a women is fit enough to be able to serve as say in this example a pilot, this is why it's also adjusted for age which makes sense. It's used in the police and the army because it's likely that the average men who enters will have more natural strength that then women meaning for an entry test it works.

I like the idea of male/female testing groups based on age and fitness stature because I know that in the armed forces some of the best pilots, mechanics and tank drives are extremely unfit yet they have the skill.

You have to remember that Infantry play a much smaller part in warfare now, and that we want well rounded candidates to be fighting for our armed forces

Are you saying that the Royal Air force which has been operating for the last 30 years under the system has it wrong?

[britishboy]

The minimum fitness is their to ensure that a women is fit enough to be able to serve as say in this example a pilot, this is why it's also adjusted for age which makes sense. It's used in the police and the army because it's likely that the average men who enters will have more natural strength that then women meaning for an entry test it works.

I like the idea of male/female testing groups based on age and fitness stature because I know that in the armed forces some of the best pilots, mechanics and tank drives are extremely unfit yet they have the skill.

You have to remember that Infantry play a much smaller part in warfare now, and that we want well rounded candidates to be fighting for our armed forces

Are you saying that the Royal Air force which has been operating for the last 30 years under the system has it wrong?

I don't care what part what plays in something, it is sexiest and it us stupid, if it is ok for a women to be weak, why cant a man be at the same level

[shotgungirl]

I'm not sure women should have the same physicals demanded...women ARE physically weaker, even though there are some women who are stronger than men and vice versa...but you can't expect every women to be able to do what most men can do...so I agree with Harry, it should be adjusted for age and gender.

See I disagree. Let me just give an example. Some of the equipment we work with is big, bulky, and heavy. Now just because I am 5'5" 130 pound female you think that the guys are gonna carry all of my shit around for me? Hell no. If women cannot handle the physical expectations of being in the military and they have a problem with having to match up with the guys, then they picked the wrong career.

[Harry Smith]

I don't care what part what plays in something, it is sexiest and it us stupid, if it is ok for a women to be weak, why cant a man be at the same level

A women isn't weak for having two more minutes to pass a test, that's like saying someone with a IQ of 129 is stupid because they can't get into mensa. The men and woman take part in the same training, it's simply to help members of the public join the armed forces, all the tests I'm talking about our civy tests that are pre-armed forces.

See I disagree. Let me just give an example. Some of the equipment we work with is big, bulky, and heavy. Now just because I am 5'5" 130 pound female you think that the guys are gonna carry all of my shit around for me? Hell no. If women cannot handle the physical expectations of being in the military and they have a problem with having to match up with the guys, then they picked the wrong career.

I appreciate that, I know that women are just as capable as men and in my case more so, but I think that women should be given an equal opportunity to join the same way a 30 year old should or the same way that a minority can in running for public office

[TheBionicWorm]

See I disagree. Let me just give an example. Some of the equipment we work with is big, bulky, and heavy. Now just because I am 5'5" 130 pound female you think that the guys are gonna carry all of my shit around for me? Hell no. If women cannot handle the physical expectations of being in the military and they have a problem with having to match up with the guys, then they picked the wrong career.

Exactly. It depends on the person. And if they can't handle it they got the wrong career.

[shotgungirl]

A women isn't weak for having two more minutes to pass a test, that's like saying someone with a IQ of 129 is stupid because they can't get into mensa. The men and woman take part in the same training, it's simply to help members of the public join the armed forces, all the tests I'm talking about our civy tests that are pre-armed forces.



Maybe in your opinion, but you don't even understand how much shit we get talked for having to do less than the men. That's on top of the already sexist views that a hot majority of military men have against women.

[Vlerchan]

A women isn't weak for having two more minutes to pass a test [...]I'm still unsure why we can't have common entry requirements. Is a man weak for having two more minutes to pass a test?

[sqishy]

I'm all for putting women in every military role but the rules can not be weakened, they should be of the same size and same work expected of them. What do you guys think?

Where they are different they should be treated differently. But yes, they should have roles with very little difference than that of men. I think it's already being done anyways.

[britishboy]

Maybe in your opinion, but you don't even understand how much shit we get talked for having to do less than the men. That's on top of the already sexist views that a hot majority of military men have against women.

I agree, well put your experience does help the debate:) Keep up the good work, I'm sure your doing a great job for the US:)

[Harry Smith]

Maybe in your opinion, but you don't even understand how much shit we get talked for having to do less than the men. That's on top of the already sexist views that a hot majority of military men have against women.

That's why I support changing the attitudes towards women across the workplace, the experience that I've had with both people in active service and former soldiers is that the current entry standards work

I'm still unsure why we can't have common entry requirements. Is a man weak for having two more minutes to pass a test?

No, look we have different requirements for age because you can't expect every 40+ airman to have the fitness levels of a 20 year old.

I support women and men going under the exact same physical training, but I support this pseudo affirmative action in regards to entry because it works for different age groups, if you were going to make it one size fits all for women and men why not for all age groups? Heck why not for all jobs in the armed forces

[Vlerchan]

I support women and men going under the exact same physical training, but I support this pseudo affirmative action in regards to entry because it works for different age groups, if you were going to make it one size fits all for women and men why not for all age groups?
I honestly don't see why not. Again:

Though I still believe we should be expecting the same standard of training for everyone considering active duty. I'd like to think that if we're forced to send our men and woman off to some foreign country to engage in another pointless war we'd be sending what is our very best and not simply under-trained cannon-fodder because it was felt one group of soldiers wouldn't be up for full training.

I understand the argument that we would be effectively blocking certain individuals from partaking in certain sectors of the armed forces but there's a number of other roles that failed candidates would still be eligible for. I find it especially wrong that we'd be given allowances to candidates based entirely on gender - that's sexism - and, as shotgungirl said, it leads to resentment amongst males due to perceived female privileges.

Heck why not for all jobs in the armed forces.
Because different roles in the armed forces require different levels of different characteristic. As you said: a mechanic isn't going to need to be overly-fit; a pilot isn't going to need to be overly-quick.

[Harry Smith]

I honestly don't see why not. Again:



I understand the argument that we would be effectively blocking certain individuals from partaking in certain sectors of the armed forces but there's a number of other roles that failed candidates would still be eligible for. I find it especially wrong that we'd be given allowances to candidates based entirely on gender - that's sexism - and, as shotgungirl said, it leads to resentment amongst males due to perceived female privileges.


Because different roles in the armed forces require different levels of different characteristic. As you said: a mechanic isn't going to need to be overly-fit; a pilot isn't going to need to be overly-quick.

I think the most important thing is that the candidate we have at the end of the process is up to the task of serving in our armed forces, and I can certainly see why split gender rules can have a negative effect in the same way that an All female shortlist for MP can and affirmative action.

In Britain we've yet to have women in a combat role, and I think if we do go down that process then the selection process should be adjusted to ensure that everyone has a fair chance of serving their country, I'm sure if we do allow women that it would be changed and that can be a good thing. The current system has helped address short comings from the 90's when it was virtually impossible for women to get into the armed forces but it should be reviewed.

Along with this we need to make sure we got value for money from our military, rather than mass overspending on aircraft carriers which serve no use to a country with bases across the globe

[Sir Suomi]

I'm surprised that America didn't scrap the draft after Vietnam, it took a big chunk out of the war effort when everyone moved north to Canada.

Out of interest do you support women having full legal,social and economic equality?

Yes, I do support woman equality. But it should be both ways, which is why I believe women should have to register for the draft, the same as men.

The Draft - although it was discontinued after Vietnam - would apply to both woman and men (aged between 18 - 26) equally in America if it was ever reinacted.

(I'll add now my belief that it's effectively military slavery and it's awful that it would affect anyone - male or female - in the first place.)

I've never supported drafting, I'm just stating that as long as males are required to register for the draft at 18, females should be required to do the same.

[Kameraden]

As you said: a mechanic isn't going to need to be overly-fit; a pilot isn't going to need to be overly-quick.

What.

Do you realize how fast-paced aerial combat is? Lockheed-Martin is currently developing a hypersonic plane with top speeds in excess of Mach 6. That's 4,567 mph.

You might slam the Air Force for being the "least fit" branch (which it really isn't), but you cannot say that they don't have to be fast in everything they do. They need to be able to judge friend from foe and fire their AAMs -- not to mention evading lightning fast enemy heat seeking missiles or God forbid radar missiles.

Even Air Force "pencil pusher" jobs need to be lightning fast -- Air Battle Managers who fly on the AWACS need to command individual jets and make tactical decisions based on the terrain and enemy manoeuvrings.

Don't you dare suggest anyone in the Air Force does not need to be as fast, if not faster and more fit than the rest.