Now, men are as easily tortured or raped as women are. Is it worse to see it happen to a woman?

quote:

---

Now as a result of biology, this would place far more women in non-combat roles. But there are big strong women out there who are more qualified to be soldiers than I am.

---

I don't mean combat, I mean the misogynist, ignorant, violent culture that is the military. Women are given the clear message that they are not welcome or respected, and their presence is merely tolerated.

quote:

---

Chicago -- Ninety percent of women under 50 who have served in the U.S. military and who responded to a survey report being victims of sexual harassment, and nearly one- third of the respondents of all ages say they have been raped.

The incidence of violent assaults among female veterans, the vast majority of whom reported at least one ``severe assault,'' is much higher than in the general population and raises questions about the treatment of women currently on active duty and the 1.2 million veterans, researchers said.

---

quote:

---

Sexual misconduct by military instructors has been an issue since a scandal erupted at an Army training school at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland in 1996. Eleven sergeants and one captain at Aberdeen were charged with offenses including rape, adultery and obstruction of justice. The scope of the misconduct rocked the Army and forced reform in its training schools.

---

When I was 20 something I wanted to be pilot in the Air Force, I have gained some maturity and new directions and being a combat pilot and killing people isnt something I could do now. Back then I could well imagine I could be capable, having a lot of unresolved issues and anger. At that time my thinking was why not have fun (flying) and utilize that anger - of course there wasnt any war to fight so maybe that made the fantasy more sustainable. I dont know.

However at that time women were not allowed to fly planes for the Armed Forces. We were deemed "not capable" and "emotionally unstable" (PMS)

A "good woman" was one who stayed home and raised babies or worked as a teacher (not a Principal), nurse (not a doctor), sales clerk (not management, or in a field such as Financial Sales or Management), Secretary (not Management, not Executive). Womens sports were "tolerated" and Employment ads in the paper read "Help Wanted Male" and "Help Wanted Female".

The only positions available to women in the Armed Forces were clerical. The fact that women had ferried air craft during the Second World War was not recognized. The only "flying career" a woman could have was Stewardess and the airlines hired strictly on the basis of weight and bust size. You didnt even need a brain and it was even better if you didnt have an operational one.

You would think we have progressed since then. However the military is one of the few remaining "boys clubs" these days and one way the boys can keep it for themselves is to harrass, rape and terrorize women who stray into "their territory".

Saying women are not suited for combat duty is the same as saying "all women are maternal and want babies" "all women want a husband to support them and take care of them". Its sexist and as all sexist crap its used as a tool to "keep women in their place." Enlisted men who subscribe to this theory will go to any length as we have seen to try and do that.

The prisons, as one example, are filled with women who I imagine would do quite well in combat. disclaimer: not saying ALL women in prison fit this profile. And "how about those girl gangs?"

If there are women who choose to go into combat then there is no biological or psychological reason to say they cant. As someone said, IF they can meet the physical requirements then they should have the choice. We have fought too long and too hard for choices to opt out on this one.
And it is not for me or anyone else to wonder if there is something "wrong" with women who make this choice.

quote:

---

Saying women are not suited for combat duty is the same as saying "all women are maternal and want babies" "all women want a husband to support them and take care of them".

---

quote:

---

One piece of cannon-fodder is as good as the next.

---

Ever so true.

It's kind of funny. The guys that I was talking to about this know that I am a feminist. They were in a way trying to placate me and flatter me at the same time. Like, "women are able to do a lot of things, but chivalry keeps me from accepting women in combat roles."

I was fortunate enough to serve under a wonderful Platoon Commander who happened to be female. She looked after us and we made sure we worked hard for her. She was young, relatively inexperienced (as were many of us), and I think she learned a lot about leadership while we were on tour. The senior sergeants and warrant officers passed on a lot of experience and knowledge, and she wisely applied that knowledge to the situations we faced (as any decent officer worth his/her salt should). She could run with the best of us and shoulder more than her fair share of the load. Serving under her leadership was probably one the best experiences in my career with the forces.

She later went on to learn about advanced techniques in demolitions/explosives and was transferred to the Pioneer Platoon which she led until it was disbanded (they phazed out that task and gave it all to the engineers).

The Pioneer lads used to tease her about their traditional beards and joked that she would have to grow one as well.

quote:

---

The prisons, as one example, are filled with women who I imagine would do quite well in combat. disclaimer: not saying ALL women in prison fit this profile. And "how about those girl gangs?"

---

Hmmm... I'm not really sure if the disclaimer ameliorates the statement that precedes it, which I think is factually incorrect and also displays ignorance about the women currently serving time in Canadian prisons (and US prisons, for that matter).

Please note the following:

• Most women in prisons are in for non-violent crimes.
• Most of the women who are in for violent crimes either perpetrated violence on their own children or against their spouses, who are often abusers whose violence the women endured previous to their incarceration. Many are in for assaulting police officers. Some women (think Karla Homolka) were accomplices in violent crimes with male perpetrators, while others were convicted along with the pimps or johns with (or against) whom they were fighting.
• Most members of 'grrl gangs' are teenagers, and seldom do prison time at all. If they do, it is usually in youth-oriented penal centres.
• The vast majority of prison inmates fall into at least one, and often many, of the following categories: FAS (Foetal Alcohol Syndrome), ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), dyslexia, alcoholism, drug addiction, illiteracy, mild retardation, brain damage. In addition, many women prison inmates have PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), from abuse by family, spouses (in the common-law sense, not necessarily husbands), pimps, johns, other inmates, the police and corrections officers.
  

In this thread, we are discussing, among other things, the sexism, abuse, sexual violence, misuse/abuse of power etc that is rampant in the military. When we are assessing female inmates or ex-cons for duty-fitness, please consider the following:

• Women in prison for harming or killing their children are usually one or more of the following: severely deficient in social skills and/or emotional maturity, deficient in intellectual functions either from birth or due to injury or drug abuse, desperate, mentally-ill, abuse survivors, sociopathic, drug-addicted.
• Women who injure or kill their abusive spouses are often emotionally, physically and psychologically damaged by both their abuse and their own violent act(s).
• Women who abet male accomplices in acts of violence are often survivors of abuse.
• People (women and men) who get off on victimising unsuspecting innocents with gang violence are typically easily-manipulated, have deep fears of violence and only feel safe with other undisciplined toughs and often despise people they perceive as weaker than they.
  

Do you really think that these women 'would do quite well in combat'?

I'm not trying to justify crimes perpetrated by females - the fact that most female inmates are abuse survivors does not diminish the seriousness of their crimes. But my point is that most female inmates, besides grappling with mental illness and trauma, intellectual or educational deficits, and substance abuse, are also often the products of years of less-than-ideal relationships with men and authority figures. They are often severely lacking in social and communication skills, and have been both the perpetrator and victim of the kind of behaviour that we're trying to weed out of the military.

In my work with female inmates, it is my observation that these women often have many challenges dealing with conflict or the threat of violence in a healthy and productive way. Which doesn't in any way mean they can't do so, but unlike in movies like Mad Max, Barb Wire, Thelma and Louise, Baise Moi or Tank Girl, violence, crime and/or prison definitely does not uniquely equip women to take on the difficult challenge of military combat. Rather, the opposite is true. Many women inmates and ex-cons display the behaviours and characteristics of the trauma-induced phenomenon known as 'shell shock'. If they're shell-shocked already, what's combat going to do to them? And to their fellow fighters, and the people they are fighting against?

Natalie

Edited to add:

Another element to consider is health. Firstly, female inmates have often been permanently injured as the result of violence. Some are missing eyes, limbs or hearing. They are often infected with HIV or Hepatitis, and have untreated diabetes, tuberculosis and STDs. They are often malnourished, or experience the long-term effects of foetal or childhood malnourishment. This is in addition to the ravages of substance abuse.

[ 01 April 2003: Message edited by: Natalie Anne Lanoville ]

[ 01 April 2003: Message edited by: Natalie Anne Lanoville ]

I keep finding typos.

[ 01 April 2003: Message edited by: Natalie Anne Lanoville ]

quote:

---

The 23-year-old Hopi is a source of pride for Tuba City as one of the very few American Indian women in the military.

---

quote:

---

Now, men are as easily tortured or raped as women are. Is it worse to see it happen to a woman?

---

Yes. Most men can defend themselves better. I shudder to think what the Iraqi soldiers are doing to the women POW's as we speak. Why rape a man (which most likely isn't your preference) when you can have a women (which is)?

quote:

---

Do women belong in combat?

---

No, not on the front lines.

quote:

---

Can they be as effective soldiers as men are?

---

There are many kinds of soldiers, and woman serve these roles just as well as men. If we are talking infantry however, no way. Woman are not as physically strong as men, don't have the stamina of men. I go the gym everyday, and I'll eat my shorts if I see a women bench 135.

Even if rape WAS something exclusively used against women, I can think of other physical forms of torture that I would consider just as painful, and possibly moreso. You can just as easily pull out a man's fingernails as you can a woman's. You can flog a man's feet as easily as you can a woman's.

quote:

---

Men cannot defend themselves better against torture. Once you are a prisoner, you cannot stop your captors from torturing you.

---

I don't to have to explain to how women are viewed in the Middle East. Men simply get more respect.

quote:

---

Even if rape WAS something exclusively used against women, I can think of other physical forms of torture that I would consider just as painful, and possibly moreso.

---

That's fine. You forget that these women are probably more 'sex slave' than 'rape victim'. Very ugly. Again, look how women are treated in the Middle East. Men would have it easier.

quote:

---

And I certainly hope that no one is going to say that it would be easier for a man to tolerate the pain than a woman.

---

quote:

---

Like, "women are able to do a lot of things, but chivalry keeps me from accepting women in combat roles."

---

It's not about chivalry. It's about sexist bias -- PMS and emotional stability my arse. What about the emotional stability of the high number of soldiers with substance or marital abuse problems?

It's also about fear -- fear that one might hesitate and die before killing a female adversary, fear that one might not be able to kill a female adversary at all, fear that a woman candidate could be better than them and advance through ranks ahead of them, and so on.

quote:

---

There are many kinds of soldiers, and woman serve these roles just as well as men. If we are talking infantry however, no way. Woman are not as physically strong as men, don't have the stamina of men. I go the gym everyday, and I'll eat my shorts if I see a women bench 135.

---

quote:

---

That's fine. You forget that these women are probably more 'sex slave' than 'rape victim'. Very ugly. Again, look how women are treated in the Middle East. Men would have it easier.

---

What does how women are viewed in the Middle East have to do with anything regarding women in combat. You are assuming that we will only be in combat in that region. Peace Keepers have engaged in combat in many place not in the Middle East, in the defence of peace.

The rape argument is crap. Women don't have to serve to get raped. We are aware of the risk on a day to day basis. I think it may be more traumatic and demoralizing for a man to be raped. Men are raped in prision to enforce power structures. Men don't wonder what will happen to them if they are raped before they serve, I think a lot of women have run through the thoughts of what it would be like and how they would survive and probably know a rape victim.

Sad thing is they probably are more likely to be assaulted sexual by fellow male soldiers than becoming a capture POW and raped and tortured. There is a big problem with that in the US Military.

quote:

---

Sad thing is they probably are more likely to be assaulted sexual by fellow male soldiers than becoming a capture POW and raped and tortured. There is a big problem with that in the US Military.

It doesn't take a penis to pull a trigger and kill people. It takes a willingness and training to do so. Gender isn't relevant.

---

For the same reasons listed previously, torture\rape, but not just because THEY will be effected -as was pointed out, men can be tortured and raped as POWs too- it's how it would effect the REST of her company. I know several people, men and women, in the Armed Forces and they say they would feel more compelled to "talk" if their fellow soldier having finger nails torn out, or being gang-raped happened to be a female rather than a male.

Aside from the answers I've heard from people I know, I've also heard that this problem was cited by the Israeli army when they attempted to mix the genders of ground forces.

From a feminist perspective, the level of rape and abuse in the American Armed Forces deeply troubles me. I read a letter from a former member in the New York Times the other day, she was attacked and abused by the very men who she would be entering battle with. An investigation has been started, and the story should stick around. It SOUNDS like it could be very widespread, the inquiry might dredge some of that up.

I can't imagine being a member of an attacking force. War, for the most part, has gotten us no where.

However, if my country/home/safety were being invaded, I'd fight to the last breath.

quote:

---

What does how women are viewed in the Middle East have to do with anything regarding women in combat. You are assuming that we will only be in combat in that region. Peace Keepers have engaged in combat in many place not in the Middle East, in the defence of peace.

---

We're talking about combat in a war, not peacekeeping. There is a huge difference.

And I'm speaking of the Middle East because a) there is a war going on in the area and b) some Middle East countries have horrible track records for women. Of course that may offend the politically correct.

quote:

---

Men don't wonder what will happen to them if they are raped before they serve, I think a lot of women have run through the thoughts of what it would be like and how they would survive and probably know a rape victim.

---

You can say for sure 'men don't wonder' but think 'a lot of women' think about being a victim. Holy generalization.

quote:

---

Sad thing is they probably are more likely to be assaulted sexual by fellow male soldiers than becoming a capture POW and raped and tortured. There is a big problem with that in the US Military.

---

What does that have to do with women serving in combat? Your point is not clear.

quote:

---

It doesn't take a penis to pull a trigger and kill people. It takes a willingness and training to do so. Gender isn't relevant.

---

I'd like to think that the training for the army requires not just the tools to kill people physically, but the mental tools required to deal with killing and with being in a situation where you may have to watch you siblings-in-arms being tortured or being tortured yourself.

I DO think stiffer punishments should be in place for soldiers who assault a fellow soldier (whether it be raping a female or assaulting a male in some way). As a society, we should be taking more care to ensure that these things do not happen and that when they do, the punishment is severe.

quote:

---

Most members of 'grrl gangs' are teenagers, and seldom do prison time at all. If they do, it is usually in youth-oriented penal centres

---

Paramedics and firemen all have to pass physical requirement tests in order to be accepted and to effective in their positions. There are women who can bench press more than 135 pounds, there are women who can handle the rigors of combat. Hand to hand combat is pretty much a thing of the past and given the fact that a specific woman is capable of carrying a full pack, weapons or a fallen comrade and has the mental and emotional resources to withstand the "horrors" of war then I dont see a problem.

quote:

---

If we are talking infantry however, no way. Woman are not as physically strong as men, don't have the stamina of men. I go the gym everyday, and I'll eat my shorts if I see a women bench 135.

---

Bench pressing is somewhat different from combat as well. You may be able to bench 135 -- I'll admit now that I can't, as that's about 10 lbs more than I weigh -- but I am willing to bet that I can outrun you. That includes speed, distance and time duration.

Women excel over men, in general, in terms of endurance. We function better without sleep, we can keep going with less food and water than a heavily-muscled man. And tough? You know squat about tough until you've managed to push an 8lb human through a 34 inch set of hips without so much as a tylenol. I've done it twice. So kiss my ass, Mr Muscle.

Which brings us to:

quote:

---

Childbirth is painful as hell (so I've heard from my mother, who has had 5). But the context of torture and childbirth are completely different. So is humping 30 km with 100 lbs on your back in the desert.

---

Hard work, mostly. But that's not the point. Or maybe it is... The pain is one thing, the endurance that women have built into them biologically is where they are stronger than men. I think a lot of gals would surprise you at how long they can go and how much they can carry over a distance. I don't generally carry 100 lbs of stuff (nor am I convinced that soldiers carry that much -- can you clarify this for us, xrcrguy?), but I can out-hike lots of guys with a kid strapped to my back... Or in my belly, which tends to cut back one's lung capacity.

In terms of torture? Men and women are equally vulnerable, and, as infidels and invaders, one cannot expect a higher level of respect for males. It's ridiculous and short-sighted to suggest so.

quote:

---

Factoid: Did you all know that the Norse women used to fight alongside men? Not sure what their actual role in the battles where, but interesting to know. They also owned land and were considered equals. Yeah for Vikings!

---

As were the ancient Celts. Women fought alongside men, and all fighting was hand to hand. A Roman historian, can't remember the exact name offhand, wrote of Julius Caesar's invading force of Romans fighting the Celts in what is now Britain. The women fought with the men, and were as fierce and hardy fighters as the men, although more terrifying to the Romans, who were culturally unused to screaming, naked, painted women rushing into battle.

The Celts and Vikings were both warrior-based societies and respected anybody who could fight, regardless of gender.

quote:

---

(nor am I convinced that soldiers carry that much -- can you clarify this for us, xrcrguy?)

---

quote:

---

On these alone, she would make a decent soldier, but because she shares her mother's large bustline and small waist, to a rifle platoon she is more distraction as a woman than she is worthwhile as a rifleman.

---

That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard... Just to make sure I have this clear: You figure that male soldiers are so benightedly moronic that, when they are being shot at, they will be distracted by your daughter's breasts?!

Of course, we could just chalk that up to Darwinism in action, couldn't we?

quote:

---

I would recommend against anybody's participation in the Canadian military. Canada's governments have a century-old tradition of sending servicemen into danger, and then defaulting on veterans' compensation, education, medical and rehabilitation costs. There are still emaciated, doddering old wrecks, uniformed victims of the Japanese whose claims are being deferred, and deferred, and deferred, by Veteran's Affairs.

---

As a female I am more suited to flying that a male, as we all know that planes are inherently (sp?) female and respond to a womans touch which is less ham handed Thye often object to being thrown around by men - and who can blame them?

quote:

---

alone with private Busty, whom Smith had his eye on.

---

I wouldnt want my daughter to be in the armed forces and she would never choose to be, she knows she isnt suited to it, having a penchant for fashion, makeup and sleeping late. As your daughter she can shoot because I had the kids out at the range from the age of six upwards so that guns would be no big thrill for them should they encounter them in life.

quote:

---

So can a woman be a pilot? Is it just the Infantry women shouldnt be allowed into?

---

Very little. But what does that have to do with the fact that there are some women who are bigger and stronger than me.

quote:

---

There are several other ancient cultures that had women warriors as an accepted matter of course. Women not being suitable for combat is a cultural construct, not a biological one.

---

quote:

---

So can a woman be a pilot? Is it just the Infantry women shouldnt be allowed into?

---

I know several woman who serve in the Canadian Forces and they are formidable and impressive individuals.

quote:

---

There has been more than a few incidents of girl gangs beating and killing full grown men. I assume it is useless to point out that I dont mean ALL girl gangs, just as I pointed out I dont mean ALL women in prison. Having worked with youths and families I am well aware of the statistics thank you for sharing though. The fact is there are some hard core female criminals and murderers and to suggest all women in prison are "victims" is incorrect and sexist. Women are as capable of violence as men are.

---

Kindred: with all due respect, I think you've misunderstood the jist of my post. First, I didn't say that grrl gangs don't kill people. What I said (which was in your quote of me) is that most grrl gang members don't do time in federal prison. Even when they do kill, which does happen occasionally, because of their age they seldom do federal time.

And since when is killing someone in a swarm with 10 of your 15-year-old buddies a highlight on a military job application? If you read my post, you'd see that I pointed out the character defects that are strong counterindications to recommending such women as fit for duty, irrespective of their apparent 'toughness'.

Second, I didn't say that 'all women in prison are victims'. What I said is that most women who are incarcerated for violent crimes have been on the receiving end of violence. If you have the statistics to refute that statement, I would like to see them.

Third, I never said that women are not as capable of violence as men are. What I was trying to convey (which I failed at, my apologies), is that for most women inmates who are in for violent crimes, because of their experiences on the receiving end of abuse and violence (some from birth), when they do strike out, they are not empowered by their actions (unlike their media avatars).

Sure, they act tough. But they do so because they are afraid. They are not nascent GI Janes, empowered and inspired by their own 'grrl power' and chomping at the bit to practice their new-found skills.

There may be a few women in prison who would make better soldiers than the average woman, but very, very few. The best soldiers, the ones who would be reliable to work with and trustworthy in dealing with the enemy, are those who have a healthy relationship to violence and power. Acting tough or killing someone in civilian life does not automatically make someone a good candidate for the military.

quote:

---

What I said is that most women who are incarcerated for violent crimes have been on the receiving end of violence.

---

But this also applies to men who are violent offenders. They have experienced violence directly and have witnessed a great deal of it around them.

quote:

---

But this also applies to men who are violent offenders. They have experienced violence directly and have witnessed a great deal of it around them.

---

That's true, Aviator. I didn't mention it for two reasons:

1. The original post (which I replied to) was speaking to the notion of women prisoners being good candidates for combat roles, and

2. I have firsthand experience with women offenders; I do not have firsthand experience with their male counterparts.

I do however think that women are in general better candidates for combat roles than many assume; my issue is with the notion that either committing a violent crime or doing time make a person a better candidate for the military. I do not think that is true and I object to the suggestion.

Natalie

[ 01 April 2003: Message edited by: Natalie Anne Lanoville ]

quote:

---

If a woman can meet the physical requirements to serve and she chooses to do so, then so be it.

---

Absolutely. But lets not lower standards to please the politically correct.

quote:

---

-- but I am willing to bet that I can outrun you. That includes speed, distance and time duration.

---

With a heavy pack and full BDU? Perhaps, but I doubt it.

quote:

---

Women excel over men, in general, in terms of endurance.

---

Nonsense. If that were the case, then women would have better times in the marathon and Ironman.

quote:

---

So kiss my ass, Mr Muscle.

---

Kiss your own ass Breeder; you certainly have a big enough mouth. You want to be sucker for punishment be my guest.

quote:

---

Lynch, 19, of Palestine, W.Va., had been missing since nine days ago with 11 other U.S. soldiers from the 507th Maintenance Company. The unit was ambushed near Nasiriyah after making a wrong turn during early fighting in the invasion of Iraq. Five other members of her unit were later shown on Iraqi television answering questions from their Iraqi captors.

---

[ 01 April 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

quote:

---

I recently took "Women's Studies" as a required part of my nursing training. The Received Word is that women should be allowed in combat trades because a)women are kinder, gentler, etc., and would contribute to conflict resolution by mediation and compromise. and b) women are every bit as capable/aggressive as men. I forbear comment.

---

quote:

---

who were culturally unused to screaming, naked, painted women rushing into battle.

---

I think this is nonsense. I will concede that Marius reformed the Roman Army to fight the Celts, but this kind of attack would have played right into Roman battle strategy. An undisciplined horde is very rarely a match for massed infantry in depth supported by cavalry on its flanks.

Such a charge would have first been met with a hail of pilums which would have broken up the attacking horde. Legionaries fought in ranks or relays with shields locked. If a legionary was killed or wounded he was immediately replaced by a fresh man. Men were also replaced when exhausted. The Celts fought as individuals. Heroic perhaps. Stupid definitely. Hand to hand combat was unlike anything we saw in the old movies about Greece and Rome. When the Celts realized they could not break Roman lines, they would flee, only to be hacked down by Numidian and Iberian horsemen using the famous Spanish sword.

To show the effectiveness of such a battle array, when the Romans fought the Greeks in Macedonia, they lost only 200 men and yet killed 20,000 of the enemy.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Aviator ]

quote:

---

I have an idea. How about Funk Soul Brother not telling the WOMEN in this thread to stop posting in the feminism forum? How about that?

---

HeRe's an even better idea. Make the feminism forum open only to women (no men). That way, you don't have to worry about us pesky Y chromo's giving our opinions.

Or shoW a disclaimer that says posts that only agree with the status quo will be allowed. Now there's a recipe (ooh can I use that word in the feminism forum?) for meaningful discourse.

I showed my gf this thread. She thinks you are all daft.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Funk Soul Brother ]

(Edited to add) 56.

Who are Jack, Alexa and whatsit?

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

quote:

---

breeder

---

quote:

---

I an trying to remember the last time I heard someone describe a woman with that term. I am fairly certain it was a skinhead.

---

Think harder. It's a term used commonly by homosexuals when describing a person who has babies (breeds). Ususally used in an uncomplimentary way.

Nice try though.

PS: Breeder, as commonly used in the gay community is a derogatory term.

1.('80s - n.) A heterosexual man or woman.
2.Derogatory term for a bisexual, or a gay or lesbian who wishes to have children.

From here: Gay Slang.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

I guess I wasn't to clear with my first post, perhaps this one will shed some light.

Physical Fitness Rant:

Rarely, if ever, had I ever had to shoulder a load greater than 90lbs unless it was for physical training purposes. If I did have to carry that much (during field exercises), it was only for relatively short distances. People do not go into combat with 90lb loads, if they do they become liabilities, grrls and guys. In combat, your looking at maybe 30lbs max (rifle, web gear).

Our Battle Fitness Test sets the standard at a 55lb load (ruck sack) over 16km aiming for a 2 1/2 hour finish time. Many people have difficulties with that.

I weighed 155lbs, certainly smaller than most people in the infantry. Many of the so-called muscle men were dropping like flies but most of the grrls completed it under the time limit.

Stamina, endurance and intestinal fortitude are what counts, not gender.

(BTW: My FEMALE platoon commander once organized a company level adventure race along the Bruce Trail from Wiarton to Tobermory (I think it was around 130 clicks, someone can check on that), 7 teams competed, since I was the platoon signaller I had the priviledge of being on Eli's team. We did it in 4 days, 60-70lbs, we came in first and only one other team completed it.)

Teamwork Rant:

Unlike the American "Army of One" propaganda I keep on seeing, in Canada we teach each other to work as a team.

That includes:

Giving 110%
Knowing each others strengths
Knowing each others weaknesses
Taking the initiative and using that knowledge to function as a well oiled machine.

Lets use a little common dog here:

ex. I'm not going to give the General Purpose Machine Gun to the 155lb stealthy/fast soldier. I'm going to give it to the bigger person because the sudden weight won't slow him down as much.

ex.2 The 300lb muscle head isn't going to be tasked with moving ahead of the group to take a sneak and peek to look for enemy troops, that person is going to sound like a bull in a china shop crashing through the bush. The small troop is probably going to get that task.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but generally, this is the way things work.

Only a fool would fail to recognize the working dynamics of his/her team.

Distraction Rant:
I can't believe that I have to even bring this up but here goes:

After 6 weeks in the bush, mud, sweat, carbon, cordite, swamps, sewars, bits of breakfast/supper mashed into your skin and clothes and NO SHOWERS! Chances are, you don't want to touch yourself, let alone someone else.

Get a grip.

Have a little professionalism, troop.

Pro Patria!
My army includes the grrls.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: xrcrguy ]

If POWs are in the custody of a responsible, Geneva-abiding commander, then rape is rather rare. You might see the statistical similiarity to the civilian world.

However, in situations where POWs are not respected, such as in Vietnam, then rape is frequent. And it has nothing to do with sex, but with 'shaming' the enemy. This particularly includes men.

quote:

---

I'm emailing this thread to Jack, Naomi and Alexa. Should be interesting.

---

Let me start with this: I have an apology to make.

FSB, I should not have told you to kiss my ass. I shouldn't have allowed my temper to get the best of me. It is one of my greatest flaws, and it gets away on me sometimes. I apologize.

I do, however, expect an apology in return for being called a derogatory term. I won't ever apologize to anybody for being a mother. It's an integral part of who I am, and has been a proving ground for me in just how physically strong and resilient a woman's body naturally is. I am not insisting that you agree with me, but you do not have the right to denigrate my experience. Especially not in this forum.

quote:

---

Zoot, stop posting in this thread. You are out of your league.

---

What league would that be, exactly? The one where everybody agrees with you? Last I checked, audra was the arbiter of who posts or not in this or any other thread on this forum. If she asks me to bow out, I'll do so. But you? Well, who do you think you are, anyway?

I still stand by my statement that women physiologically have certain advantages over men in terms of endurance and function better when sleep-deprived. Men and women are strong in different ways, but it evens out. You haven't actually posted anything to refute this, nor have you responded to the information posted by paximillion and xrcrguy that show that your assumptions about the necessary lifting capacity in an infantry role are inflated.

quote:

---

I do, however, expect an apology in return for being called a derogatory term.

---

I used to expect that of people, too.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: paxamillion ]

quote:

---

So instead of insults, let's see some substance in your arguments. Or is that out of your league?

---

"Breeder?!"

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

quote:

---

Ransbury says, "Women do better at air combat than men. I don't know if it's because their stomach muscles are stronger and can better withstand G forces, if they are less prone to nausea, or just more comfortable functioning in a three dimensional environment. The men who convince their wives to fly generally get their butts kicked."

---

This isn't the point of the website, but I thought it was useful for argument's sake

And yes, Ransbury is a man (I don't know too many women whose first name is Paul)

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

SIZE AND STAMINA DO MATTER
More Than You Can Possibly Imagine!!
She is just trying to spare your feelings by telling you otherwise.

DON'T WAIT UNTIL SHE IS GONE
TO FIND OUT THAT YOU COULDN'T SATISFY HER!!!

INTRODUCING, THE FIRST ALL-IN-ONE
Male Performance Enhancer AND Penis Enlargement
WITH THE TRADEMARKED SWEDISH INGREDIENT CERNITIN.

Standard Results Include:

MALE PERFORMANCE ENHANCER
=============================

STAMINA: Up to 74% harder erections, this will help contribute to
longer sexual experiences.
CLIMAX: From 7 to 26 physical penile contractions
during orgasm. The average male experiences between 4 and 7.
LIBIDO: Enhanced feelings and stimulated sexual arousal combine to
increase desire.
RECOVERY: Faster recovery time means more sex more often.

PENIS ENLARGEMENT
===================
GIRTH: ?" up to 2"
LENGTH: 1" up to 3 ?"

THE FIRST AND ONLY PRODUCT OF IT'S KIND.
SPECIAL $33 PRICING AVAILABLE FOR A LIMITED TIME!

MILLIONS OF BOTTLES SOLD WORLDWIDE.

100% SAFE - NO SIDE EFFECTS

100% ALL NATURAL - RECOMMENDED BY DOCTORS
WORLDWIDE
100% UNCONDITIONAL GUARANTEE

But I have interceded in what was really a very interesting discussion, and this is an unprofitable digression.

The only thing that I would add to that discussion is that if I were a woman in Iraq today, I would most definitely want to be armed, and I would accept training from any person willing to give it.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

Hey, it's nice to know they care! And to have a protective attitude as opposed to some of the attitudes expressed on this thread may be the lesser of several evils.

quote:

---

People do not go into combat with 90lb loads... In combat, you're looking at maybe 30lbs max (rifle, web gear).

---

Precisely. Look at all the support that comes with modern warfare! (I now have CNN!) I also have heard that the British even drop their webbing when in active combat.

FSB has an outdated and romanticized view of battle. There aren't many men who could carry their comrade for 20 miles. Too many movies perhaps?

quote:

---

I have been an infantry soldier and officer.

---

That just scares me. I'm serious.

When officers have the opinions and outlook that you have DavidB, it's no wonder so many women have a foul life in the military.

There's so much more to say! So little time. If I could borrow xrcguy's comment:

quote:

---

Pro Patria!
My army includes the grrls.

---

David:

quote:

---

"...but you know, I don't know if I could ever bring myself to actually shoot at somebody.."

---

A poor point, this sentiment is carried by men, infanteers too.

The spatial skills you refer to, as well, probably have to do more with systemic factors within society, and less to do with physiology. Obviously, people in the positions must be able to do the job, but your inference is that "statistically men are better pilots, so women shouldn't be pilots." It is poor logic.

Ultimately, arguments based on this logic would have us create an army full of lower-class, musclemen, with violent tendancies.

quote:

---

d)By way of analogy, my experience with sled dogs is modest, but I am confident that hitching to the team's(however strong and disciplined) traces a breeding-phase female (however, strong, athletic, confident, self-assured, etc,) would not help your sled's efficiency.

---

So what you're saying here is: Men are dogs.

Like we didn't already know that!

quote:

---

"...but you know, I don't know if I could ever bring myself to actually shoot at somebody.."

---

quote:

---

"...but you know, I don't know if I could ever bring myself to actually shoot at somebody.."

---

Seriously though, to fall back on the old adage that women are too "gentle" and "soft" to kill is old, and tired, and not valid IMO. I am a female, I could and would kill under the right circumstances. One of them being personal survival.

I am pretty calm and level headed in emergency situations and can stick to the first priority of getting my ass outta there alive - My first solo X country .....which turned into my first solo night flight and landing

Ahem FSB I have tried so hard to bite my tongue and be polite and now all I have is a pool of blood on my keyboard and a raging headache ..

quote:

---

I showed my gf this thread. She thinks you are all daft.

---

quote:

---

It's a term used commonly by homosexuals when describing a person who has babies (breeds). Ususally used in an uncomplimentary way

---

Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against differing gender preferences or gender confusion I am merely a tad curious thats all ....

Also curious do you profess to protect the weaker sex or just keep them in their place?

quote:

---

In the officers' mess one evening, I overheard two women at the next table discussing their applications to flight training. They were optimistic, but the gist was, "...but you know, I don't know if I could ever bring myself to actually shoot at somebody.."

---

quote:

---

the majority of men in recent wars either do not fire at all, fire into the air, or fire to miss. Laudable humanism, doubtless, but the result (until recent training modifications) was that some 15% of the riflemen did 80 % of the killing

---

During Operation Desert Storm, an American Special Forces Unit was dropped well into Iraqi territory. There job was to gather intelligence on troop movements. They were instructed to avoid combat unless forced to do so. After several days of covert observation they were discovered by a sheperd who ran to report their position to a nearby Iraqi army unit. Needless to say this US unit was forced to engage the enemy. In the ensuing battle, several Iraqi soldiers were killed. As the battle continued, several civilians, a women and a pre-teenaged boy, attempted to retrieve the weapons of the dead soldiers and return them to the Iraqi unit. They were immediately shot.

I believe the rules of engagement are clear. Any person who assists the enemy automatically becomes a combatant. In war, you cannot choose your enemy. In this light, killing now takes on a whole new dimension.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Aviator ]

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Aviator ]

I'm trying to understand your point. You say a very small percentage of people, regardless of gender, are suited, either physically, emotionally or intellectually, for front line infantry duty? I'm not sure how small that percentage is but let's grant that your assertion is more or less correct.

This being the case I don't see where we differ. The training process should be designed to weed out those who do not measure up, and what is left, regardless of gender is your infantry. Anything else brought to the table like "women are a sexual distraction" or "men feel the need to protect women" is the problem of the male soldiers who harbour these feelings. If even one woman, and we know there are many, can pass the training, then all woman should be given the right to try.

None of the women I know in the forces wants standards to be lowered, or wants special treatment based on gender. They are driven, exceptional women who would be insulted if they were offerred exemptions or special treatment. Your daughter seems to fit this mold.

All they want is to be given a chance to succeed or fail on their own merit. Treat them all as individuals and try and see past their gender.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]

I wish to point out that not so many years ago people were horrified at the idea of a man being a nurse. A man in nursing was gay, or would take advantage of their female patients - hence perverts. They lacked the gentleness and caring that were clearly female traits. Their motives were beyond questionable - they were outrageous. They would hurt people, the big oafs dropping patients and crushing little bones in their ungainly masculine paws --

Needless to say neathderthal thinking evolved to the point of where we can understand and accept men as nurses without feeling threatened or horrified, and in fact my favourite ER nurse is a man. He's damn good at what he does.

quote:

---

I believe the rules of engagement are clear. Any person who assists the enemy automatically becomes a combatant

---

Wrong, you have to display weapons in order to become a combatant under Geneva Convention.

quote:

---

Webbing is dropped (save water and ammunition) for close engagement. Otherwise the fighting load must be carried. Thanks to Federal policy, most Canadian soldiers do not have carriers or helicopters to carry it. They carry it on their backs.

---

When the hell did you drop your webbing? Why? That IS where your water and ammo are carried.

We have battle groups of LAV 3 Armoured vehicles now, and before that we had the Grizzly and M113 APC's. There are "light" Battalions but they are in the minority and are being phased out.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: xrcrguy ]

Just talking to a friend, a former infantry officer. He was very clear: assist the enemy by carrying arms, ammo, etc. or acting as a spotter, you are now a target. In fact, there is clear precedent for this. I am in the process of looking up the info on this. Further, I know that if such people are captured - bang! or hanged, if you wish to be formal about it.

They'll always apply to who ever signs on, no matter how often they break them, and we'll never let them forget that.

But this has been a bit of a thread drift soooo:

The Old Guard has made it clear that they are out of touch with the current realities of modern warfare and attitudes of the fighting troops.

quote:

---

Skadie:
1) "Fatherly", in the sense of caring, supportive, demanding, stern; yes and absolutely... You use the adjective in derision. RSVP then, how is this view not sexist bigotry?

---

I'm sorry if you interpreted my comment as sexist bigotry. I was merely trying to best express the attitude of the men I was discussing this with. I don't agree with their attitudes, but I don't disrespect them.

quote:

---

2)Webbing is dropped (save water and ammunition) for close engagement. Otherwise the fighting load must be carried. Thanks to Federal policy, most Canadian soldiers do not have carriers or helicopters to carry it. They carry it on their backs.

---

For Christs sake! When was the last time the Canadian infantry was engaged, anyway? Thanks to federal policy our infantry and the bulk of our military is useless to begin with. If you think our infantry in any way reflects modern warfare then I question your background and experience.

quote:

---

3) You find it "scary" that I have been a soldier and officer. I am supposing that you are a child of the seventies, else you would know that at the end of WW2 Canada had the third largest navy, and the fifth-largest army on the planet. Virtually every man you have ever met who is over 75 now was either a soldier, sailor or officer. It is a construct of surrender activists that defence of one's homeland is cause for fear. If you think otherwise, do expound on how the Iraqi army is scary.

---

Er, what I found scarey is that you were leading young people and providing them with training and expertise. Your obvious misconception of the capabilities of women, and your obvious difficulty in keeping your libido under control (did you want to tell us about your daughters bust again?) are what scares me.

quote:

---

4)For some reason, when I incorporate paragraph structure into my correspondence, the indents to not appear on the website.

---

I am assuming that FSB is gone for his use of the term "Breeder"? Or, as MoreDreads has said before me:

quote:

---

I had been thinking that at some point that number would cease to increase due to the intervention of forces beyond my control. It was just an observation, I care not, really.

"Breeder?!"

---

I mean. Tonstant weadah fwowed up.

If I were a woman in Iraq -- and a few other places -- right now, I also would be grateful to anyone who would give me a gun and train me to use it. I am an utter wimp -- but at some point, self-preservation kicks in, eh? And even more powerfully, the Mother Bear instincts kick in.

Love the ones you're with, and save 'em for as long as you can remain vertical.

[ 03 April 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]

Dear Wei-Chi:

quote:

---

...It is the case that trained infantry also have reservations the first time they lay their sights on a chest...etc

---

No, I agree, generally with your point that people in whatever position, particularly in a life-and-death one, should be qualified. That means people in the military should be prepared to kill. But, as you point out, many men in combat don't. And it has little to do with the combat effeciency of women.

I see no evidence that precludes women from performing effectively on the battlefield.

Arguments about 'distraction' et al have been applied in some form to black people and other minorities as well. They are not valid.

quote:

---

I find your preference for an armed force (equal, educated, egalitarian, heterosexism-free, vegetarian, environmentally sensitive...just kidding) curious.

---

I'm glad. Let me explain further.
I believe that if us citizens truely believe in our state, and its democratic actions, then we should be prepared to fight for it. This shouldn't mean dragging out all the unemployed, hicks, criminals, and inbreeders from society and plunking a university-educated officer ontop of a platoon of them and sending them into battle. No, we should be prepared to send our best into battle.

I don't think education or ethics negates subscribing to a rigid command structure or efficient killing.

With a highly informed public, the mistakes of the military become quickly known. This reduces favour of the military, and will prevent them from acting effectively in the future (budget cuts, political interfence in operational tactics). So it behooves the military to employ smart, ethical soldiers who will make fewer tactical and MORAL mistakes on the battlefield.

If a democracy's army cannot conduct ethical and LEGAL warfare, this will undermine its legitimacy. (See Vietnam)

quote:

---

If I were a woman in Iraq -- and a few other places -- right now, I also would be grateful to anyone who would give me a gun and train me to use it. I am an utter wimp -- but at some point, self-preservation kicks in, eh? And even more powerfully, the Mother Bear instincts kick in.

Love the ones you're with, and save 'em for as long as you can remain vertical.

---

quote:

---

You suggest infantry is irrelevant in modern war?

---

No I do not. I suggest the Canadian infantry is irrelevant in modern war.

quote:

---

b)Recent history provides examples of national peril where women as individuals and in formed units were used in line combat. No country that has actually experienced the result does it anymore. The wise learn from the mistakes of others: Fools learn from their own.

---

I'd be eager to see what links and information you can provide to back that assertion up. I don't believe that.

[ 03 April 2003: Message edited by: skadie ]

I still don't buy your arguments that it is not efficient to enrol women as infanteers. Your previous posts suggests that too many women don't cut it, so we shouldn't bother enrolling any. What extra costs are associated with enrolling women? Looking at the numbers, far more men fail off Basic than women.

Using an argument strictly based on tradition, is a fallacy. Just because women haven't been present on the battlefield in great numbers throughout history CANNOT be used a justification to keep them off in the future.

What prevented women from fighting in the past was a social and ideological structure prevalent in Western Civilization. Those social and ideological barriers continue to be removed.

quote:

---

Looking at the numbers, far more men fail off Basic than women.

---

quote:

---

Despite the restrictions, many U.S. military women are becoming leaders. Lory Manning, head of the military project at the Women's Research and Education Institute, says, "They are involved strategically in a way that we have not seen."

---

quote:

---

Well, of course! There are far more men in the infantry, so statistically speaking, this would be obvious.

---

Exactly! It seemed to me that David was trying to suggest that because of the high numbers of women failures, it wasn't cost effective to bother training them. That mightn't have been his point, but I thought it was.

quote:

---

The worrisome trained-strength projection reinforces the argument that recruiting from a diverse population base is not just a ‘nice to have’ in terms of being able to better reflect Canada’s demographic composition, but an absolute necessity if the CF is to have any hope of meeting its longer-term intake requirements. During his tenure as Chief of the Defence Staff, General Baril repeatedly made the point that one of the fundamental drivers of his expressed policy on gender and visible minority inclusiveness was his desire to be able to select from the full range of high quality people within the recruitable cohort, instead of simply the traditional white male group. It is now clear that even this eminently reasonable proposition does not go far enough. Simply put, if the CF cannot solve its recruiting difficulties in non-traditional demographic groups, its ability to remain a militarily effective entity will likely be threatened long before any significant political or societal backlash arises over poor visible-minority inclusiveness.

---

From the Canadian Military Journal

quote:

---

So, my point is that in terms of actual dollars, more money is wasted on men than women.

---

It is no more "wasted" on men who fail the rigors of training than it is on women. In fact, the per recruit cost would be the same. There would be some variation based on the time when a recruit "washed out." The reason that I put the word wasted in quotation marks is that the money is not really wasted. No screening system is perfect and training is the final step in weeding out people, be they men or women. In short, you have to spend money to eliminate people.

quote:

---

I have therefore a credible professional and personal view of the issue.

---

Anyways, she ended up doing a tour in the Balkans (Yugo or Bosnia, I can never remember anymore) and apparantly acquitted herself quite well in a firefight with the locals. I never got all the details (I had left reserves at that point) but when the sh*t hit the fan she kept her cool and let her training kick in.

quote:

---

The military is likely the ultimate example of a patriarchal institution.

---

quote:

---

Which is why we must infiltrate!!!!!

---

And how do you tell the difference between infiltrationa and collaberation with the enemy. And are any of the women who join the forces going to be there to infiltrate and presumably be court marshalled as soon as they impliment their hidden agenda of overthrowing the patriarchy from within.

quote:

---

However what I can't figure out is how women fighting in combat roles has anything to do with pro-feminism. I thought that a large part of the reason for changing society was to reduce the violent nature of our cultures. Is feminism really about getting women doing what men do now or is it about changing the power structure so that women can effect positive change without having to accept the status quo. The military is likely the ultimate example of a patriarchal institution.

---

So, in your opinion to be feminist one must try to dismantle the military from the outside? (Just clarifying, not putting words in your mouth.)

It's hard to adapt the status quo when you aren't part of it.

I see it this way, the military is a "bad" institution but it is necessary. A high-ranking officers position may be considered a "bad" position, but there is still a need for officers. So, the way to really change the military is to have more women involved in these position rather than railing at it as a civilian. The most effective way to become a high-ranking officer is to work your way up.

quote:

---

So, in your opinion to be feminist one must try to dismantle the military from the outside? (Just clarifying, not putting words in your mouth.)

---

No I didn't say that I was asking for others opinions. My opinion is framed as much from an anti-authoritarian and anti-class perspective as it is anti-patriarchy viewpoint. I guess I am just trying to get a handle on how women on this feminist forum view the military and for that matter the Board rooms of places like Walmart.

Is getting more women into organizations that traditionally opprese people progress or will it end up merely proving that it is the nature of the institutions themselves that causes systemic discrimination not the gender of the people making the decisions in those institutions.

Can you be a feminist and a CEO of a company that utilizes sweatshops or a military commander that orders strikes against cities knowing full well therre will be civilian casualties. I know it is possible although not currently probable that a woman could do either of those things but is that a pro-feminist agenda.