PDA

View Full Version : Women in Combat



Pages : [1] 2

Blutwölfin
Saturday, July 23rd, 2005, 11:38 AM
Once there were the Valkyries, battle maidens, beautiful young women, mounted upon winged horses and armed with helmets and spears. The Valkyries scouted the battlefields to choose the bravest of those who have been slain to bring them to Valhalla. They escorted these heroes, called the Einherjar to Odin's hall. The Valkyries are also Odin's messengers and when they ride forth on their errands, their armor causes the strange flickering light that is called "Aurora Borealis" (Northern Lights).

Now there are women in modern armies of many countries.

Do you think women are as good as men in war?
Have they special advantages/disadvantages?

Discuss this maybe provocative question without insults and with good arguments, please. :)

Erlingr Hárbarðarson
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 01:17 PM
Maybe he means this picture which I posted once (obviously not an axe though :P)

http://nordicphotos.com/photographs/jpv/s/jpv000051.jpg

A woman who holds a warriors sceptre deserves to be disembowled with it for she does not know the role of man and woman . . . of man and wife. Nature and history has taught us of rightfull path and wrongfull one. Those who wish to act on roles of the other gender are traitors to what was our beginning: family.

Death and the Sun
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 02:25 PM
A woman who holds a warriors sceptre deserves to be disembowled with it for she does not know the role of man and woman . . . of man and wife. Nature and history has taught us of rightfull path and wrongfull one. Those who wish to act on roles of the other gender are traitors to what was our beginning: family.


Would you say so to this woman's face?

http://www.newliving.com/issues/may_2004/images/freydis.jpg


:viking1:

Erlingr Hárbarðarson
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 02:31 PM
Would you say so to this woman's face?

http://www.newliving.com/issues/may_2004/images/freydis.jpg


:viking1:

Yes.

Arcturus
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 02:32 PM
Would you say so to this woman's face?

http://www.newliving.com/issues/may_2004/images/freydis.jpg


:viking1:

more like
http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/joukot/lapsle/naissotilas.jpg
http://www.leuku.fi/_LEUKUKUVAT/screenimages/leuku_vv_0247.jpg
and I have said as much to their faces, and will do so in the future.

Blood_Axis
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 03:02 PM
A woman who holds a warriors sceptre deserves to be disembowled with it for she does not know the role of man and woman . . . of man and wife. Nature and history has taught us of rightfull path and wrongfull one. Those who wish to act on roles of the other gender are traitors to what was our beginning: family.

Everything in woman is a riddle, and everything in woman hath one solution- it is called pregnancy.

Man is for woman a means: the purpose is always the child. But what is woman for man?

Two different things wanteth the true man: danger and diversion. Therefore wanteth he woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.

Thus Spake Zarathustra ;)

However, might I add, that given the current state of manhood in modern societies -soft mommy's boys who spend all day talking about football, cars and stock market, wear cosmetics and compete about who has the fancier clothes, and who couldn't return a single punch if they received one- if our Fatherlands needed to be defended, I would grab sword, spear, axe or whatever else I would rather fight and die a honorable death, than hide and watch behind the curtains all that we love and stand for be destroyed, while the majority of our men would be crying for their mommies. ;)

Blutwölfin
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 03:24 PM
Well said, Blood Axis. I'm absolutely with you.

Arcturus
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 03:28 PM
All nice and well; in a world where warfare is more about courage of the single man than tactics and well-trained units. I have served with women, and I must say that a unit with women is a weaker unit than one without.

Axes, swords end shields make for great metaphors, but they won't win a modern-day battle.

EDIT: I don't object to women doing their part, but I have no desire to to be part of a unit that is weakened solely because politicians say everyone is equal.

Blood_Axis
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 03:36 PM
All nice and well; in a world where warfare is more about courage of the single man than tactics and well-trained units. I have served with women, and I must say that a unit with women is a weaker unit than one without.

Axes, swords end shields make for great metaphors, but they won't win a modern-day battle.

EDIT: I don't object to women doing their part, but I have no desire to to be part of a unit that is weakened solely because politicians say everyone is equal.
Of course they won't, and that is the problem with modern war tactics. War used to be noble. Battle was taking place man to man, and you had to be brave and fierce to participate in battle.

Nowadays the soldier is alienated from the warrior ethic, as the battle is depersonalized and all you have to do is pull triggers and press buttons and kill people from a distance.

Hence women go to the army as well, as there is not much that a woman can't do, rather than the old days where a sword was too heavy for a woman even to pick up.

It is just another manifestation of the general decay and alienation of Man from his essence in the modern world, where Natural Laws are violated on a constant basis, be it about war tactics, gender roles, or anything else.

Zyklop
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 03:38 PM
Of course they won't, and that is the problem with modern war tactics. War used to be noble. Battle was taking place man to man, and you had to be brave and fierce to participate in battle.
That´s quite a romanticized view. The bow is older than the sword.

Arcturus
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 03:42 PM
Nowadays the soldier is alienated from the warrior ethic, as the battle is depersonalized and all you have to do is pull triggers and press buttons and kill people from a distance.

Hence women go to the army as well, as there is not much that a woman can't do, rather than the old days where a sword was too heavy for a woman even to pick up.

That is all? :D So all that walking, carrying equipment through dense woods, skiing, swimming and digging was all four naught? I must complain to my superiors next time I get called in for repetition excersises.

EDIT:

Here's an old thread on SF where the issue was discussed.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=167216

Death and the Sun
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 05:53 PM
I'll do what I always do in cases like this: quote the War Nerd:


The problem is, I'm not sure morale alone will do it. Not anymore. Back when you fought with axes and spears, the crazier side usually won, like the berserkers. But craziness won't keep you alive when you're up against fuel-air weapons, cluster-bombs, bunker-busters and all the other hi-tech killing toys

As for whether there is/ever was anything noble about war, I'd rather not venture a guess, never having experienced it myself.

Frostwood
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 06:22 PM
Of course they won't, and that is the problem with modern war tactics. War used to be noble. Battle was taking place man to man, and you had to be brave and fierce to participate in battle.

Nowadays the soldier is alienated from the warrior ethic, as the battle is depersonalized and all you have to do is pull triggers and press buttons and kill people from a distance.

Hence women go to the army as well, as there is not much that a woman can't do, rather than the old days where a sword was too heavy for a woman even to pick up.

Well, I must disagree with your statement that modern battle does not require bravery. You must be brave, strong and disciplined in order to survive. People who are accustomed to running away from danger won't last on the modern battlefield either. How does it not require bravery to go to a situation where you might die at any moment by airstrike, sniper, mine? And recklessness isn't rewarded today either.

Shooting in actual combat situation isn't as easy as it's in the comfy shelter of a shooting range. Every move could be your last as one of them might give you away, not to mention shooting itself. Of course, I haven't experienced such a situation myself but with weapons and equipment only simulating the hits, that being enough for me to imagine real battle even in the slightest sense.

As for women going to the army, I can only speculate on this as I didn't have any women serving in the same company with me. However, I do know that women have lower requirements physically than men do. For example, men have to run 2600 meters in the Cooper test to attain the 'good'-ranking, but women have to run a mere 2400 meters to reach the same rank.

What's unclear in practice to me is that how the presence of women in battlefield affects men, but I'd speculate that men tend to be protective of women, even to the point of disobeying, thus reducing the effectiveness of the group and possibly risking their lives. I find this thought to be very sensible. But as I said, it is simply speculation on my part.

Women, you are needed in rebuilding the nation and tending the wounds of the injured, not at battlefield. That is perfectly honorable for a woman. You don't have to prove you are as able as men are in the duties of men (not saying though that you'd have given such impression, Blood Axis).

Lissu
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 06:37 PM
Those who wish to act on roles of the other gender are traitors to what was our beginning: family.This is very interesting comment...

Is a parent, for example, who has to act as an other parent because the other one is not around for some reason (divorce, sickness, death) a traitor? Is a mother who has to work outside home to get needed incomes a traitor? Is a father who feeds a baby and change nappies, or cleans and cooks a traitor?

Erlingr Hárbarðarson
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 06:47 PM
[thread split]

Sexism and tradition are not the same. If you wish to argue otherwise, then you should re-evaluate your worth to and place at tNP, where culture, heritage and tradition are not forsaken, but praised on grain-sewn knees.

Misogyny will not be tolerated in a day and age where the physically and spiritually interwoven knotwork of man and woman are all but the last of ancient truths to remain to day. Enemies come and go, but kindred and family flow evermore.

NSFreja
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 06:51 PM
However, might I add, that given the current state of manhood in modern societies -soft mommy's boys who spend all day talking about football, cars and stock market, wear cosmetics and compete about who has the fancier clothes, and who couldn't return a single punch if they received one- It hurts to be wounded you know ;)


if our Fatherlands needed to be defended, I would grab sword, spear, axe or whatever else I would rather fight and die a honorable death, than hide and watch behind the curtains all that we love and stand for be destroyed, while the majority of our men would be crying for their mommies. ;) I would do whatever i can to defend my self, my family and country against enemies.
I'm not afraid to die, we will all die one day, but if i can serve my country and help my children to survive, i will do whatever i can to make it possible.

To run and hide are for cowards, our ancestors were warriors (at least my ancestors were warriors), and their blood still runs trough my veins and if i had to, i would join the battlefield and fight side by side with my countrymen, no matter what.

Blood_Axis
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 06:57 PM
It hurts to be wounded you know ;)

I would do whatever i can to defend my self, my family and country against enemies.
I'm not afraid to die, we will all die one day, but if i can serve my country and help my children to survive, i will do whatever i can to make it possible.

To run and hide are for cowards, our ancestors were warriors (at least my ancestors were warriors), and their blood still runs trough my veins and if i had to, i would join the battlefield and fight side by side with my countrymen, no matter what.
Exactly! That is exactly the spirit I was trying to convey ;)

As women, we know our place within the family. We are destined to be mothers, as you are, and to continue the bloodline and transmit our heritage.

However, if it comes to defending our kin, our children and our tradition, we will all fight fiercely without exception, and we would gladly die in doing so than run away to safety while our people and our values are in danger.

I was just pinpointing the generalized decay of modern societies, where roles have been inverted, as women are struggling to become men and as a consequence, men are becoming feminine.

Blood_Axis
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:05 PM
Women, you are needed in rebuilding the nation and tending the wounds of the injured, not at battlefield. That is perfectly honorable for a woman. You don't have to prove you are as able as men are in the duties of men (not saying though that you'd have given such impression, Blood Axis).

Of course it is honorable for a woman to stay behind and attend for the wounded as well as to guard her home and children. I did not say otherwise -this is the ideal situation in a world where real men exist that will defend their country until the end.

I just stressed out that in the times that we are living, a large proportion of men is not equipped for battle or any other activity that requires bravery and physical/spiritual strength, as they are degenerate beings who cannot even tie their shoe laces on their own and ask their mommies to do it for them.

Thank goodness, from what I see in this forum, there are still quite a few men of the other kind left around. ;)

DreamWalker
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:12 PM
Of course it is honorable for a woman to stay behind and attend for the wounded as well as to guard her home and children. I did not say otherwise -this is the ideal situation in a world where real men exist that will defend their country until the end.

I just stressed out that in the times that we are living, a large proportion of men is not equipped for battle or any other activity that requires bravery and physical/spiritual strength, as they are degenerate beings who cannot even tie their shoe laces on their own and ask their mommies to do it for them.

Thank goodness, from what I see in this forum, there are still quite a few men of the other kind left around. ;)
You have so many good posts in this thread!:beer-smil

Blutwölfin
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:12 PM
It has nothing to do with feminism, it has nothing to do with "becoming equal to men", but I totally agree with Blood Axis and Guest.

If you still want to stick to the rules of old, so please do it everywhere and not just on some points you prefer. It's ok that men feed their babies, that women go to work - they are no traitors here. But isn't it a "change of roles", too?

Nowadays, most men and most wars are not compatible with the warriors of former times, with the battlefields of former times. While some othe so called modern men caring more about their next manicure, they lost their power, strenght and of course will to fight and protect their own land, culture and blood.

I also would rather raise my weapons if it comes to war than looking out of my window and see how some "boy soldiers" fail, put my faith in some guys who are paid for fight the war against "my" enemies or wait till death will take me and do nothing against it.

Anyway, again: this doesn't make me a feminist or something, I still adore the role of women in society, but as a lot of women lost their love to own a family, to have kids by themselves, a lot of men have lost the attributs of manhood...

I don't want to attack anybody here in this discussion, for I think the men at tNP are not part of this so called "modern men society", but that they're keeping up the spirit of old and still have the pride of our ancestors in their hearts. They weren't here, if they wouldn't.

But still the world has changed over the last hundreds and thousands of years. We cannot stick to all old rules, but have to adjust our views to the world we live in today. This does not mean that we have to give up the values of our ancestors, far from it! But while we accept the exploration of the universe, working women and men caring for their children and staying at home, we also have to accept that women want to protect their country - not only by vetting wounded soldiers and bring up children.

Even when some women (and there are stil very very few) want to join the army, want to fight, this won't be the end of our civilisation, of our folk. So don't be afraid, dear men, that a woman who is fighting, is forgetting her role as a future mother. She is just broading her possibilities.

Constantinus
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:18 PM
I know the following statement won't make me any friends here, but I believe one can't argue with results and success. The Israeli airforce is considered to be the best in the world (nevermind it is being funded by gullible gentiles, that's irrelevant to this discussion), and it has lots of female pilots. When it comes to pushing buttons, as it does today, women can do the job too. The only people who still fight with spears today are certain indian- and negrotribes. You won't find any women among the warriors there obviously.

Any fool can push a button, but if pushing buttons turns out to be the more efficient way of killing enemies compared to throwing spears, you'll find lots of buttons and very little spears in most armies. Romantisizing about the nobility of warfare won't help you all that much when you're holding your spear at the moment a cruise missile hits the building you're in. Your spear AND your bodyparts will just get splattered all over the place.

Náttfari
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:21 PM
I have to go to a warehouse twice a day because of my job. I see women - beautiful, young girls - working on forklifters. That I do not like. Call me old-fashioned, call me a chauvinist; I think they should find a summer-job at an office, at a home for the elderly or in a flower shoppe.

NSFreja
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:31 PM
It has nothing to do with feminism, it has nothing to do with "becoming equal to men", but I totally agree with Blood Axis and Guest. Right Blutwölfin, it has nothing to do with feminism and equality to men.
It's about defending what is ours...


Any fool can push a button, but if pushing buttons turns out to be the more efficient way of killing enemies compared to throwing spears, you'll find lots of buttons and very little spears in most armies. It's not all about buttons you know, many things yes, but not all...
And women can handle guns, knifes, explosives whatever just as good as men if it's needed, belive me...

Constantinus
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:33 PM
Right Blutwölfin, it has nothing to do with feminism and equality to men.
It's about defending what is ours...

It's not all about buttons you know, many things yes, but not all...
And women can handle guns, knifes, explosives whatever just as good as men if it's needed, belive me...


Oh yes, when people are cornered they usually discover they have talents and survival instincts they never assumed they had, so you're right there.

I'm not in favour of women involved in warfare, but I have little doubts that should they do it anyway, they'd prove to be far from useless.

DreamWalker
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:45 PM
I'm not in favour of women involved in warfare, but I have little doubts that should they do it anyway, they'd prove to be far from useless.
The German Wehrmacht found this out in WWII, when the Soviets began to literally run out of manpower and use women, the ferocity of the Russian women soldiers was chilling and their treatment of captured Germans was unkind in the extreme. And in fact I have heard it said after the war by allied military advisors assigned to Soviet units that this was a good reason not to use women in warfare, warfare would become too vicious and gruesome.

More gentlemanly to blow the enemy into dozens of pieces by high-explosives, I suppose:cool:

Nightmare_Gbg
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:45 PM
I would gladly have Guest,Blood axis or Blötwulfin beside me when the shit hits the fan.And for women and weapons,the best snipers are usually women.
I have seen them at the range and they concistantly beat the men.But the dont belong in units that usually have to carry heavy loads.There they cant compeat.(Although i have seen an exeption).
And dont ever underestamate a woman in a fight,some of them are quite resorsful.
But i'm still oldfashioned at heart and see it as my duty to protect them.One of the biggest reasons i chose the way i live my life.

Erlingr Hárbarðarson
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:46 PM
This is very interesting comment...

Is a parent, for example, who has to act as an other parent because the other one is not around for some reason (divorce, sickness, death) a traitor? Is a mother who has to work outside home to get needed incomes a traitor? Is a father who feeds a baby and change nappies, or cleans and cooks a traitor?
No. These actions you list above are contained by, and done with intention to sustain, the family unit. I besoke actions which threaten and are counter-productive to the family unit e.g. woman and spear, woman taking out rubbish, woman building wood shack for winter, woman killing animal, woman opening door for man, woman protecting man, man breastfeeding baby [it sounds odd I know, but this is how some of you sound. Ancient is for ever, now is dead.], man not being as elk, man who smell like flowers et cetera. Hnikuðr has counselled our people much on this aspect of life. I do not question His wisdom nor that of Æsir. Old as snow are the truths by which we should guide our lives I feel.

Erlingr Hárbarðarson
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:48 PM
I have to go to a warehouse twice a day because of my job. I see women - beautiful, young girls - working on forklifters. That I do not like. Call me old-fashioned, call me a chauvinist; I think they should find a summer-job at an office, at a home for the elderly or in a flower shoppe.

:beer-smil

NSFreja
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:50 PM
And in fact I have heard it said after the war by allied military advisors assigned to Soviet units that this was a good reason not to use women in warfare, warfare would become too vicious and gruesome.
Right, i wouldn't hesitate to be a "devil" if i had too...

And for women and weapons,the best snipers are usually women.
I know, i always beat my male friends when we compete ;)

Lissu
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:52 PM
When something is threatening a womans children, she will become a cold blooded killing machine. This is something very deep in instincts. Animals have the same thing. If some poor creature happens walk between a mother bear and her offspring, after a moment there will be nothing left but pieces left of the intruder.

So, women warriors should not be underestimated. They may be even more effective than men in a situation where cold blood is needed.

Nightmare_Gbg
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 07:58 PM
When something is threatening a womans children, she will become a cold blooded killing machine. This is something very deep in instincts. Animals have the same thing. If some poor creature happens walk between a mother bear and her offspring, after a moment there will be nothing left but pieces left of the intruder.

So, women warriors should not be underestimated. They may be even more effective than men in a situation where cold blood is needed.

Very good point.

Ulex
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 09:23 PM
When the male members of any tribe nolonger are able to fullfil their duties as protectors, the female members will act, knowing that an alien intrusion will threaten the life of their children. Nothing is more disgusting than to see this situation occur, as the men, chosen by nature as tribal defenders, give up their natural task and let down their own tribe.

And yet... Nothing is more beautiful to see than a lioness furiously defending her offspring from another beast of prey; she will show the utmost sacrifice in order to protect.

Look around you, brothers! Our females are being raped everyday on the streets, our children are being molested in the schools, and still most of us talk about tolerance and understanding! We are pitifully begging our enemies to show us a little mercy, while we are hoping for a quick and painless death on the Altar of Multiculturalism.

This is sickening, and I salute any woman who joins our struggle!

Arcturus
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 09:25 PM
Well, I stick to my guns (pardon the pun), as I have seen what I have seen. However, I am deathly tired of this issue that I feel should not be an issue, and will not pursue it in debate.

When all is said and done, I still won't want the soldier next to me to be a woman.

Nightmare_Gbg
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 10:10 PM
If we are to survive we need to get the women involved.Something most wn guys havnt figured out yet and in many cases never will.There are several organisations that dont allow women to be members and i think it's idiotic.
They got just as much reasons as the men to fight for our race and should not be excluded.I do feel very strongly that the women should be responsible for the home but that is no reason to not allow them to take an active part.
If we dont let them in we will lose alot of talanted people.

Death and the Sun
Friday, July 29th, 2005, 01:46 PM
Interesting thread on Skadi about this topic:

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=35970


Yes, more or less, from what I have read, it seems that the tradition of European women baring arms openly and with acceptance within society became fairly uncommon with the spread of Roman Christianity in Europe.

Arcturus
Friday, July 29th, 2005, 01:58 PM
Reading through this I wish people would make a difference between our "War on MultiCulturalism" and real modern-day military armed conflict between nations.

I don't know how it is for the rest of you, but for us with Russia at out backdoor war is a very real possibility that we grow up more or less expecting. Grand speeches, romantic notions and swords won't win such a war.

Erlingr Hárbarðarson
Friday, July 29th, 2005, 02:36 PM
I don't know how it is for the rest of you, but for us with Russia at out backdoor war is a very real possibility that we grow up more or less expecting. Grand speeches, romantic notions and swords won't win such a war.

Mannerheim taught you well.

Nightmare_Gbg
Friday, July 29th, 2005, 07:58 PM
Reading through this I wish people would make a difference between our "War on MultiCulturalism" and real modern-day military armed conflict between nations.

I don't know how it is for the rest of you, but for us with Russia at out backdoor war is a very real possibility that we grow up more or less expecting. Grand speeches, romantic notions and swords won't win such a war.
I do make the distinction.And women can make very valuble contributions in modern warfare.But the dont belong in frontline infantry units.Dont think they would be able to function for long with 70kg of kit.But i have seen women that are very skilled at their duty's.a couple of examples are aa and artillery units.

Náttfari
Friday, July 29th, 2005, 08:31 PM
Women in war are most usefull caring for the injured, making clothes and other equipment at home and taking care of the homes while the men are away.

DreamWalker
Friday, July 29th, 2005, 08:32 PM
Reading through this I wish people would make a difference between our "War on MultiCulturalism" and real modern-day military armed conflict between nations.

The war against the multi-cultists is much more difficult really, what with our "leaders" and legal systems on the side of the enemy:costumed-

Arcturus
Friday, July 29th, 2005, 09:11 PM
The war against the multi-cultists is much more difficult really, what with our "leaders" and legal systems on the side of the enemy:costumed-
Agreed 100%, a gun in one's hands and orders to follow IS much simpler.

Erlingr Hárbarðarson
Saturday, July 30th, 2005, 11:03 AM
Women in war are most usefull caring for the injured, making clothes and other equipment at home and taking care of the homes while the men are away.

Greatly agreed. Furthermore, Urðrs gift is one to be cherished, not exchanged. Gender can be only mocked in flesh for afterwards, one must be judged as to gold or to ice, fire and ash. Múspellsheimrs guests await those who are eagre to deceive before the Fylgia. Why discard what should be so? This is never a clever choosing of paths.

If woman, live as woman. If man, live as man. Make family and baby, braid your hairs in knotwork to praise what came before you. Times change, but truth and wisdom do not. Word of Óðni are therefor ageless. He has spoken much over this. There is honour in heeding counsell of wiser men.

Constantinus
Saturday, July 30th, 2005, 12:26 PM
Gender can be only mocked in flesh for afterwards, one must be judged as to gold or to ice, fire and ash. Múspellsheimrs guests await those who are eagre to deceive before the Fylgia. Why discard what should be so? This is never a clever choosing of paths.

Huh??? Could you please elaborate, I honest to God don't know what it means.

Vanir
Saturday, July 30th, 2005, 09:35 PM
Huh??? Could you please elaborate, I honest to God don't know what it means.

figure it out mate. Lateral thought doesn't require the brain to use that many kJ's, and Beer should be providing you with plenty enough to give it a whirl.

Anyway, if females would like to serve in combat units, perhaps they should demonstrate their ability to compete against Males in professional sports first?

Males and Females are different. The twain have evolved differently not arbitrarily, but as a mechanism to facilitate success in raising children (ie, Family). I didn't make things this way, I can't be but honest in observing the Nature of things. Females seem to take this as implying that they have not Heart and Courage or something. Nothing could be further from the Truth. Many Females have courage, and would stand their ground against danger, but it is simply a logical case of Horses for Courses.

Aggression and Fighting and things that a male has simply evolved to engage in, full stop. The "fog of war" is not a clinical, scripted, pretty thing. It is brutal, and primal application of Force.

Another point also is that males in a group function in a pack mentality alot more easily and smoothly, able to tap into aggression quickly. The presence of a female does change that, and redirects the hormonal focus of the Male, something no General is going to want.

War is not everything, the gifts endowed upon Females of thought and heart are beyond price and at the Heart of our Folk. Using a War analogy, the battle for the soul of the Family is among the most urgent and dire facing us. It is Females who have the power and strength to turn that tide in our favour. Though on a different level, how is this any less an important Battle than a Battle for a Hill or similar?

Nightmare_Gbg
Saturday, July 30th, 2005, 11:30 PM
As Surt pointed out, a female in a frontline unit do change the way we men think.We cant help trying to protect her.But that isnt that big an issue in units furter back in the line.

tuddorsped
Saturday, July 30th, 2005, 11:56 PM
I like a controversial thread. Even if it is a load of old tosh.

Well, 800,000 Soviet women fought in WW2, over 70% in frontline combat units. And this happened in one of the most patriarchal societies on Earth during arguably the most brutal campaign in military history. Russian men are probably the most macho guys you could ever encounter, yet snipers like Ludmilla Pavlichenko became heroines and notched up hundreds of kills, as did countless other female aviators, tank gunners etc etc

If women want to fight, that is their business. If a tiny minority of women don't want to have babies but spend their time killing people then that is their business too.

As if anything said on this forum will ever change the reality of that fact.

The harsh reality of the matter is that very few people, of either sex, have the inborn killer instinct. Most have to be trained and even then tend to suffer from feelings of guilt, trauma, profound cultural disorientation when confronted by the horrors of combat. Someone who actually enjoys inflicting physical pain and suffering on another person probably isn't going to be much of a homemaker anyway, regardless of gender.

And as for the nobility and dignity of combat, I don't believe it ever existed. That was why it had to be invented. It's just a rationalisation to make people feel better about themselves because they've vomited all over their uniform after spilling some poor bloke's guts out. Violence is always a pretty disgusting, dirty, disreputable business. I've witnessed more than my fair share and I can't, for the life of me, see any moral justification for it at all. It serves no purpose. It's just a potentially very addictive cocktail of neurotransmitters to help stimulate and caress that reptilian brain stem. Thought doesn't come into it at all. It is essentially about the total negation of thought. It's a drug and a difficult one to escape from. If I had a tenner for every single old Warhorse I knew who ended up an incurable alcoholic or a heroin addict, I would be living quite comfortably right now.

And, in that regard, I think most women are probably too sensible and responsible to want to go down that avenue. Women will always be Mothers. That is simply an inescapable biological fact. And with that fact, comes a whole range of lifegiving qualities that are ultimately in conflict with the joys of mechanised death and advanced throat-slitting. That much is obvious.

However, if that isn't wholly the case, and history, ancient and modern, can furnish us with thousands of contrary examples, then so be it.

I personally wouldn't want any person next to me, in a combat role, who is either unable to fight or who is incapable of acting ruthlessly and without conscience when dealing with an opponent. Gender isn't really an issue. I've stood with women in dangerous situations and they've more than rose to the occasion. That's good enough for me.

NSFreja
Sunday, July 31st, 2005, 12:20 AM
If women want to fight, that is their business. If a tiny minority of women don't want to have babies but spend their time killing people then that is their business too.
As i wrote before in this thread, i will do whatever i can to protect my family, friends and country.

And about having babies, i have done my part of that, now it's my duty to protect them and see them grow up.
If that means i have to kill people in a war, i will do that without a problem.

Rehnskiöld
Sunday, July 31st, 2005, 12:48 AM
Well, although I haven't experienced any women in actual combat (or men) I do say that the women I've encountered in the swedish opposit to the national guards youth platoon got along just fine. One of them was some kind of a group leader,and a good one at that.My sister also participated in this and the entire soldierthing fitted her well, too bad she didn't enlist for the service, it might have done her character well.

Women hasn't in the past ages,to any larger extent, had the opportunity to be soldiers, so I shouldn't perhaps say anything about them being more or less fit for warfare. But still, they ought to have been less fit than men.Nowadays It would seem a larger percentage of women is adapt for warfare,as the percentage of men decreases from a high level as some have pointed out. It's a reasonable assumption anyways.

One of the things that might have helped Germany to win the war was more use of women, both in warfare and industry,I don't say that it was their restraint from using women more in warfare and industry that cost them the victory, but what if it did?

Erlingr Hárbarðarson
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 06:17 PM
Huh??? Could you please elaborate, I honest to God don't know what it means.
Are you familiar with the word of Veratýr? I was speaking about fate and that each person has been given theirs. And to live without regard to what has been planned is not a faithfull way of life. I said this because woman is woman, and man is man just as wolf is wolf and bird is bird. A wolf would be a mad creature if it was to try and fly over valleys because this is not its path. Ironically, some northmen have spirit of wolf as their fate force, or Fylgia, whilst others have otherwise. When woman picks up a spear, she is trying to fly over the valleys.

Völuspá is a good step off which to spring if you are not familiar with the word of Óðni; this is additionally the tekst I thought of when confronted with this issues in this thread. Hávamál of course bringing light to all of this, and His thoughts are very direct therein. He is the only truth when we are attacked with lies, and the only solution to when a problem consumes the day and swallows the night. He is father of northmen, father of all that is good in this world.

Most have confused this thread to encompass more than what was entended. I read many arguing for woman having right to participate in the "movement" of preservation et cetera, and this has never been argued against as woman play the most critical role: life makers. Man shapes lives and takes them away, woman makes lives and brings them back. Seiðr is a well example to this. Are any of you familiar with an incantatory galdr? I know only a few for battle, but none to return the death to life. I believe only woman have the power to perform this spell. Though Óðinn was mocked as He too would learn and perform such with the women. Even the Allfather is not free of mockings; so is life. Never the less, women have no place on the battlefield but to tend to enjured. This cannot be argued as it is written in deeper than stone, but in the heart. It is innstinct. In the aforementioned posting of mine, this is to what I referred when I spoke about guests of Múspellsheimr as nor were such persons wise enough to accept this truth I am relaying within these Halls now.

I see some kommunist solutions where some of you speak about women having full right to participate in war as ´tis to day nothing but a push of a button. I think this is a shortcut to thought as the symbolism and realistic aftermath behind what that button does, is a mans path. If tradition is no longer present before our eyes, than it is our job as preservationists to restore it back before our eyes. A patriot sees what is no longer there; magickal eyes and hearts we all have. Offering the solution of modern this and modern that to justify woman being more like man in to days world is wrong because it turns its back on tradition, which is ageless and not subject to present or future conditions. Tradition is symbolism, acceptance and loyalty. If you want to say to me that there is no symbolism to taking thousands of enemies lives, whether by button or by ripping their heads off with your bare hand and a howl for blood, than I say to you that you are the last person aside whom I would swing an axe for the freedom of our folk. A puppett and traitor is he who can not see the meaning in what he does.

Erlingr Hárbarðarson
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 06:17 PM
Huh??? Could you please elaborate, I honest to God don't know what it means.
Are you familiar with the word of Veratýr? I was speaking about fate and that each person has been given theirs. And to live without regard to what has been planned is not a faithfull way of life. I said this because woman is woman, and man is man just as wolf is wolf and bird is bird. A wolf would be a mad creature if it was to try and fly over valleys because this is not its path. Ironically, some northmen have spirit of wolf as their fate force, or Fylgia, whilst others have otherwise. When woman picks up a spear, she is trying to fly over the valleys.

Völuspá is a good step off which to spring if you are not familiar with the word of Óðni; this is additionally the tekst I thought of when confronted with this issues in this thread. Hávamál of course bringing light to all of this, and His thoughts are very direct therein. He is the only truth when we are attacked with lies, and the only solution to when a problem consumes the day and swallows the night. He is father of northmen, father of all that is good in this world.

Most have confused this thread to encompass more than what was entended. I read many arguing for woman having right to participate in the "movement" of preservation et cetera, and this has never been argued against as woman play the most critical role: life makers. Man shapes lives and takes them away, woman makes lives and brings them back. Seiðr is a well example to this. Are any of you familiar with an incantatory galdr? I know only a few for battle, but none to return the death to life. I believe only woman have the power to perform this spell. Though Óðinn was mocked as He too would learn and perform such with the women. Even the Allfather is not free of mockings; so is life. Never the less, women have no place on the battlefield but to tend to enjured. This cannot be argued as it is written in deeper than stone, but in the heart. It is innstinct. In the aforementioned posting of mine, this is to what I referred when I spoke about guests of Múspellsheimr as nor were such persons wise enough to accept this truth I am relaying within these Halls now.

I see some kommunist solutions where some of you speak about women having full right to participate in war as ´tis to day nothing but a push of a button. I think this is a shortcut to thought as the symbolism and realistic aftermath behind what that button does, is a mans path. If tradition is no longer present before our eyes, than it is our job as preservationists to restore it back before our eyes. A patriot sees what is no longer there; magickal eyes and hearts we all have. Offering the solution of modern this and modern that to justify woman being more like man in to days world is wrong because it turns its back on tradition, which is ageless and not subject to present or future conditions. Tradition is symbolism, acceptance and loyalty. If you want to say to me that there is no symbolism to taking thousands of enemies lives, whether by button or by ripping their heads off with your bare hand and a howl for blood, than I say to you that you are the last person aside whom I would swing an axe for the freedom of our folk. A puppett and traitor is he who can not see the meaning in what he does.

Constantinus
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 06:28 PM
Thank you for the further explanation Erlingr.

Now, to whoever deleted my reply to this unprovoked attack I got: I am a respectful young man and will take up my problems in private with the most appropriate party.

Constantinus
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 06:28 PM
Thank you for the further explanation Erlingr.

Now, to whoever deleted my reply to this unprovoked attack I got: I am a respectful young man and will take up my problems in private with the most appropriate party.

Ulex
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 08:44 PM
Most modern men are worthless on a front-line. I have met women with much, much more courage and fighting spirit than them. If I was to choose between a modern sissy, who spends half an hour everyday to do his hair, and a fighting woman, I would not hesitate one second.

Ulex
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 08:44 PM
Most modern men are worthless on a front-line. I have met women with much, much more courage and fighting spirit than them. If I was to choose between a modern sissy, who spends half an hour everyday to do his hair, and a fighting woman, I would not hesitate one second.

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 08:47 PM
Most modern men are worthless on a front-line. I have met women with much, much more courage and fighting spirit than them. If I was to choose between a modern sissy, who spends half an hour everyday to do his hair, and a fighting woman, I would not hesitate one second.
Me neither.

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 08:47 PM
Most modern men are worthless on a front-line. I have met women with much, much more courage and fighting spirit than them. If I was to choose between a modern sissy, who spends half an hour everyday to do his hair, and a fighting woman, I would not hesitate one second.
Me neither.

Arcturus
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 08:48 PM
Most modern men are worthless on a front-line. I have met women with much, much more courage and fighting spirit than them. If I was to choose between a modern sissy, who spends half an hour everyday to do his hair, and a fighting woman, I would not hesitate one second.
have you worn the uniform, Ulex?

Arcturus
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 08:48 PM
Most modern men are worthless on a front-line. I have met women with much, much more courage and fighting spirit than them. If I was to choose between a modern sissy, who spends half an hour everyday to do his hair, and a fighting woman, I would not hesitate one second.
have you worn the uniform, Ulex?

NSFreja
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:00 PM
In the world we live in today, a woman MUST be able to defend her self and her family.

We can't just sit down and wait for some men to defend us and during the waiting we get raped and killed.
Not me anyway, i will take as many as possible with me in death incase of war.

Many men are just like Ulex wrote, worthless.

I would be honored to die for my family and country, knowing i have done my best to protect them and im almost sure, that there are many more women here, thinking the same as i do.

NSFreja
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:00 PM
In the world we live in today, a woman MUST be able to defend her self and her family.

We can't just sit down and wait for some men to defend us and during the waiting we get raped and killed.
Not me anyway, i will take as many as possible with me in death incase of war.

Many men are just like Ulex wrote, worthless.

I would be honored to die for my family and country, knowing i have done my best to protect them and im almost sure, that there are many more women here, thinking the same as i do.

Ulex
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:04 PM
have you worn the uniform, Ulex?
Yes. And I still do. Although my "uniform" and my war has changed over time.

Ulex
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:04 PM
have you worn the uniform, Ulex?
Yes. And I still do. Although my "uniform" and my war has changed over time.

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:06 PM
As i see it we are sow few that we need every ablebodied person fighting.
Regardless of gender.

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:06 PM
As i see it we are sow few that we need every ablebodied person fighting.
Regardless of gender.

Arcturus
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:19 PM
Yes. And I still do. Although my "uniform" and my war has changed over time.
There we go again, mixing the two.:coffee:

Let me rephrase; Ulex, have you worn your nations uniform, been conscripted, served your military obligation?

Arcturus
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:19 PM
Yes. And I still do. Although my "uniform" and my war has changed over time.
There we go again, mixing the two.:coffee:

Let me rephrase; Ulex, have you worn your nations uniform, been conscripted, served your military obligation?

Ulex
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:31 PM
There we go again, mixing the two.:coffee:

Let me rephrase; Ulex, have you worn your nations uniform, been conscripted, served your military obligation?
Quite obviously I do not mix the two. On the contrary I state a clear difference.

But yes, I did serve in the military. Are we going to discuss the colour of my underwear now?

Ulex
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:31 PM
There we go again, mixing the two.:coffee:

Let me rephrase; Ulex, have you worn your nations uniform, been conscripted, served your military obligation?
Quite obviously I do not mix the two. On the contrary I state a clear difference.

But yes, I did serve in the military. Are we going to discuss the colour of my underwear now?

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:34 PM
Quite obviously I do not mix the two. On the contrary I state a clear difference.

But yes, I did serve in the military. Are we going to discuss the colour of my underwear now?
Actally i was wondering about that.What colour are they?

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:34 PM
Quite obviously I do not mix the two. On the contrary I state a clear difference.

But yes, I did serve in the military. Are we going to discuss the colour of my underwear now?
Actally i was wondering about that.What colour are they?

Ulex
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:36 PM
Actally i was wondering about that.What colour are they?
Who says I wear any? LOL

Ulex
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:36 PM
Actally i was wondering about that.What colour are they?
Who says I wear any? LOL

Arcturus
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:38 PM
Quite obviously I do not mix the two. On the contrary I state a clear difference.
Really? In that case, did Denmark go to war at some point when I wasn't looking?

But yes, I did serve in the military.
That's all I was asking about.

Are we going to discuss the colour of my underwear now?
Your choice of underwear matters little to me.

Arcturus
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:38 PM
Quite obviously I do not mix the two. On the contrary I state a clear difference.
Really? In that case, did Denmark go to war at some point when I wasn't looking?

But yes, I did serve in the military.
That's all I was asking about.

Are we going to discuss the colour of my underwear now?
Your choice of underwear matters little to me.

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:39 PM
Who says I wear any? LOL
Ok to much info for me :laugh:

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:39 PM
Who says I wear any? LOL
Ok to much info for me :laugh:

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:45 PM
Really? In that case, did Denmark go to war at some point when I wasn't looking?

when did Finland go to war?Seeing that you seem to think it's an issue.

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:45 PM
Really? In that case, did Denmark go to war at some point when I wasn't looking?

when did Finland go to war?Seeing that you seem to think it's an issue.

Arcturus
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:50 PM
Really? In that case, did Denmark go to war at some point when I wasn't looking?

when did Finland go to war?Seeing that you seem to think it's an issue.

Read the posts if you're going to butt in. if it makes it any easier for you to grasp the context:



Yes. And I still do. Although my "uniform" and my war has changed over time.
There. And I asked as by putting the word uniform in quotes it makes one beleive it is not a genuine uniform, but perhaps combat boots and rolled up jeans, bomber jacket etc.

Arcturus
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:50 PM
Really? In that case, did Denmark go to war at some point when I wasn't looking?

when did Finland go to war?Seeing that you seem to think it's an issue.

Read the posts if you're going to butt in. if it makes it any easier for you to grasp the context:



Yes. And I still do. Although my "uniform" and my war has changed over time.
There. And I asked as by putting the word uniform in quotes it makes one beleive it is not a genuine uniform, but perhaps combat boots and rolled up jeans, bomber jacket etc.

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:54 PM
Read the posts if you're going to butt in. if it makes it any easier for you to grasp the context:


There. And I asked as by putting the word uniform in quotes it makes one beleive it is not a genuine uniform, but perhaps combat boots and rolled up jeans, bomber jacket etc.
I butted in becouse i thought you brought up an irrelevat issue since Finland havnt been to war in 50 years same as Denmark.And lose the attitude against me,you will get nowhere with that.

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 09:54 PM
Read the posts if you're going to butt in. if it makes it any easier for you to grasp the context:


There. And I asked as by putting the word uniform in quotes it makes one beleive it is not a genuine uniform, but perhaps combat boots and rolled up jeans, bomber jacket etc.
I butted in becouse i thought you brought up an irrelevat issue since Finland havnt been to war in 50 years same as Denmark.And lose the attitude against me,you will get nowhere with that.

Arcturus
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 10:02 PM
I butted in becouse i thought you brought up an irrelevat issue since Finland havnt been to war in 50 years same as Denmark.And lose the attitude against me,you will get nowhere with that.
I answered attitude with attitude. If I am supposed to grovel, please let me know.

Arcturus
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 10:02 PM
I butted in becouse i thought you brought up an irrelevat issue since Finland havnt been to war in 50 years same as Denmark.And lose the attitude against me,you will get nowhere with that.
I answered attitude with attitude. If I am supposed to grovel, please let me know.

Loki
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 10:06 PM
Easy boyz ;)

Loki
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 10:06 PM
Easy boyz ;)

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 10:07 PM
No,but a little more respect to other members would be in order.
(And spare me the sarcasm)

Nightmare_Gbg
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 10:07 PM
No,but a little more respect to other members would be in order.
(And spare me the sarcasm)

newenstad
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 11:47 PM
My experiences with women in the army are rather bad ones. I only know one girl/woman who was albe to do the things like the boys (please don´t answer things like "their are also males who are as weak as some females" and so on, I often discussed this in the army before...).

Evertime when there had been courses no one wanted to have a girl in their group because this group was the weakest and if you´re a bunch of boys it isn´t the best for the camaraderie when a girl joins the club...

newenstad
Monday, August 1st, 2005, 11:47 PM
My experiences with women in the army are rather bad ones. I only know one girl/woman who was albe to do the things like the boys (please don´t answer things like "their are also males who are as weak as some females" and so on, I often discussed this in the army before...).

Evertime when there had been courses no one wanted to have a girl in their group because this group was the weakest and if you´re a bunch of boys it isn´t the best for the camaraderie when a girl joins the club...

Nightmare_Gbg
Tuesday, August 2nd, 2005, 12:02 AM
My experiences with women in the army are rather bad ones. I only know one girl/woman who was albe to do the things like the boys (please don´t answer things like "their are also males who are as weak as some females" and so on, I often discussed this in the army before...).

Evertime when there had been courses no one wanted to have a girl in their group because this group was the weakest and if you´re a bunch of boys it isn´t the best for the camaraderie when a girl joins the club...
It's a problem yes.Most women do demand that the men ajust to them instaed of the other way around.But there are some that do accept the situation.

Nightmare_Gbg
Tuesday, August 2nd, 2005, 12:02 AM
My experiences with women in the army are rather bad ones. I only know one girl/woman who was albe to do the things like the boys (please don´t answer things like "their are also males who are as weak as some females" and so on, I often discussed this in the army before...).

Evertime when there had been courses no one wanted to have a girl in their group because this group was the weakest and if you´re a bunch of boys it isn´t the best for the camaraderie when a girl joins the club...
It's a problem yes.Most women do demand that the men ajust to them instaed of the other way around.But there are some that do accept the situation.

Blutwölfin
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 04:02 PM
I don't want to start discussing again, but I just found this and thought by myself maybe some of you would like to see what our ancestors thought about women (not all, of course) and weapons:

http://tinypic.com/b6sdpi.jpg

http://tinypic.com/b6se35.jpg

http://tinypic.com/b6sebm.jpg

When I'm not completely blind, I see women with spears and swords. Pictures of Valkyries. For those who don't know: The Valkyries were warrior maidens who attended Odin. The Valkyries rode through the air in brilliant armor, directed battles, distributed death lots among the warriors, and conducted the souls of slain heroes to Valhalla.

But file this just under "by the way"...

Erlingr Hárbarðarson
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 04:29 PM
Valkyrjur are exclusive to the concept of womanhood. The northwoman and the valkyrja have different roles and a distinct purpose from one another e.g. wives are not virgins, valkyrjur are; valkyrjur have no direct familyunit, wives do et cetera. This distinction in responsibility and character warrants the traditional belief that woman act as woman, and man act as man. Wife to man has no right to bear arms, whilst valkyrja to Óðni bear this right. Woman and warfare? No. Nature gave us bigger stature and vengefull hearts for reason, and so is the case why you young women have breasts, soft hands, caring hearts and hairs that smell like flowers. Do not fight tradition, welcome it into your home and into your heart. Praise be to the Old.

Blutwölfin
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 04:34 PM
OK, then there's a difference between wives and warrior maidens. OK, I understand and accept. But as long as I am not married, don't have to care for my children and husband, I should be allowed to defend whatever I want with whatever I want - also weapons. That's my point of view, no one will change it. I don't think of breaking any "rules" with this view or harm anyone's feelings or believes. Thank you for your attention.

Erlingr Hárbarðarson
Friday, August 26th, 2005, 04:45 PM
But as long as I am not married, don't have to care for my children and husband, I should be allowed to defend whatever I want with whatever I want - also weapons.
I agree, but when an event comes which calls for measures of defence, I do assume that you will need not do that as a nearby man should rise to his feet and attack to kill. This is northerly protection. We did not carry axes because it brought out the colour in our eyes. :gay:


I don't think of breaking any "rules" with this view or harm anyone's feelings or believes.
No rules will be broken or beliefs betrayed as long as you do marry man and bear children before your death. We are counting on you.

Erzherzog_Bernd
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 12:16 AM
I know that this thread is a bit old, but still...

I've read the first 40 posts in here, so I apologize if what I type in here was already mentioned before.

It might sound so noble to most to state "I would defend my children and country with everything I have" Especially coming from a woman, who would have her husband do the same thing by her side. Who really protects the children then? Who feeds the children, and care for them while the parents are out shooting enemies to pieces?

Surely you won't be able to find a day care center in the middle of a war that is so willing to take your children in for a while, while you're out killing off people.

This is especially true for single mothers, who will take care of the children while you're out "defending" your children(away from the children)? Men always went out and fought the enemy off, the mothers/wifes(As worried as they might be, assuming they were) they still stayed home taking care of the children, and that's how you protect the children. Else you might as well sign them off the second you go to fight with the following on their future tomb "I protected my children by letting them starve since I wasn't there to feed them".

Women should thus take care of the children(REALLY TAKE CARE ie Being with the Child(ren) at all times) and the men should fight to defend the country and their families. The woman being natural healers/nurturers should care for the wounded like they've always done.

NSFreja
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 12:27 AM
I know that this thread is a bit old, but still...

I've read the first 40 posts in here, so I apologize if what I type in here was already mentioned before.

It might sound so noble to most to state "I would defend my children and country with everything I have" Especially coming from a woman, who would have her husband do the same thing by her side. Who really protects the children then? Who feeds the children, and care for them while the parents are out shooting enemies to pieces?

Surely you won't be able to find a day care center in the middle of a war that is so willing to take your children in for a while, while you're out killing off people.

This is especially true for single mothers, who will take care of the children while you're out "defending" your children(away from the children)? Men always went out and fought the enemy off, the mothers/wifes(As worried as they might be, assuming they were) they still stayed home taking care of the children, and that's how you protect the children. Else you might as well sign them off the second you go to fight with the following on their future tomb "I protected my children by letting them starve since I wasn't there to feed them".

Women should thus take care of the children(REALLY TAKE CARE ie Being with the Child(ren) at all times) and the men should fight to defend the country and their families. The woman being natural healers/nurturers should care for the wounded like they've always done.
Here he goes again....*sighs* :coffee:

Blutwölfin
Monday, November 7th, 2005, 12:30 AM
Due to enormous exhausting and unneccessary discussions we had on this topic this thread is closed. Everything is said, ladies and gentlemen, this needs no refreshment.

Eisenmann
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 12:33 PM
They definately add to the total war effort and cannot be missed. And at times I think, in certain situations, they are better than men. :)

http://www.hot.ee/vaikal/lennu_1.jpg

Weg
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 02:45 PM
Disadvantage? Obviously, they're, naturally, physically weaker than men and can't make a long forced march for instance or are simply unable to wear a very heavy bag on their shoulders as well as walking fast, oppose a man in a hand to hand fight, etc. Some basic stuffs that make you a decent soldier.

And I think that, besides physical differences, there exist proven deep psychological differences between men and women. I'd say women, as a whole, are too moody to take proper decisions in war for instance. Honestly, I'd not rely on them in a battlefield during a conflict.

They're bad at colocating a place on a map, or even reading maps among other things...


Walkyries, Amazones are in my eyes, romantic myths -exceptions did exist but as minor exemples in war history, not as a rule.- Joan of Arc never fought, neither did Boudica. They may have been leaders at best or figure heads.


Now there are women in modern armies of many countries.

Yes... and instead of being soldiers, firemen -oops "firewomen"- (usually viragos) or whatelse, to emulate males and to prove to themselves or to the world what the hell knows, they'd better be mothers in the first place. I'm not opposed to the fact that some women, who've the real capacities *, join the army, on the other hand, when they're too much of them... that's a problem.

Likewise it's a problem when women decide to have a "career" to be like men, it's a problem when men emulate female behaviour (effeminatized males are simply ri-di-cu-lous). It's just a question of choice. Either you're a woman (dedicated to motherhood by nature), either you decide to break natural order. Either you're a man and behave like we expect you to do, either you're not a man.

However, women can well give men a hand in war time effort, that's for sure (cf WWI and WWII). As nurses, secretaries, ... but on the battlefield as soldiers, I'm not sure.


Some will say I'm a "macho" or a "mysoginist", that I despise them :rolleyes:, well, no, I'm just a man who thinks manly and see women as they'd be : women, and not like men. Women are not men, that's what most of people tend to forget nowadays. Anyways, better be a man like I'm, than a male feminist/woman feminist who support the genocide of his own people!

(I just hope I'll have this thread subscribed iny folder, so I'll come back to this discussion. ;) )

* Often, the tests are differents for women and men in the Army and the scales are too... :thumbsdow Equality my foot! If they were our "equals", they'd have the same tests, scales, etc. and would not need preferential treatment to pass them... unless they're indeed not equals to men (I'd even dare to say "inferiors" -nothing to do with xianism, unless you believe your ancestors were fags who did the cooking while women were on battlefields... or unless your heathenism is feminism-leaning... -, that's in some domains, as men can be inferiors where females dominate).

:hveðrungur:
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 05:01 PM
Disadvantage? Obviously, they're, naturally, physically weaker than men and can't make a long forced march for instance or are simply unable to wear a very heavy bag on their shoulders as well as walking fast, oppose a man in a hand to hand fight, etc. Some basic stuffs that make you a decent soldier.

And I think that, besides physical differences, there exist proven deep psychological differences between men and women. I'd say women, as a whole, are too moody to take proper decisions in war for instance. Honestly, I'd not rely on them in a battlefield during a conflict.

They're bad at colocating a place on a map, or even reading maps among other things...


Walkyries, Amazones are in my eyes, romantic myths -exceptions did exist but as minor exemples in war history, not as a rule.- Joan of Arc never fought, neither did Boudica. They may have been leaders at best or figure heads.



Yes... and instead of being soldiers, firemen -oops "firewomen"- (usually viragos) or whatelse, to emulate males and to prove to themselves or to the world what the hell knows, they'd better be mothers in the first place. I'm not opposed to the fact that some women, who've the real capacities *, join the army, on the other hand, when they're too much of them... that's a problem.

Likewise it's a problem when women decide to have a "career" to be like men, it's a problem when men emulate female behaviour (effeminatized males are simply ri-di-cu-lous). It's just a question of choice. Either you're a woman (dedicated to motherhood by nature), either you decide to break natural order. Either you're a man and behave like we expect you to do, either you're not a man.

However, women can well give men a hand in war time effort, that's for sure (cf WWI and WWII). As nurses, secretaries, ... but on the battlefield as soldiers, I'm not sure.


Some will say I'm a "macho" or a "mysoginist", that I despise them :rolleyes:, well, no, I'm just a man who thinks manly and see women as they'd be : women, and not like men. Women are not men, that's what most of people tend to forget nowadays. Anyways, better be a man like I'm, than a male feminist/woman feminist who support the genocide of his own people!

(I just hope I'll have this thread subscribed iny folder, so I'll come back to this discussion. ;) )

* Often, the tests are differents for women and men in the Army and the scales are too... :thumbsdow Equality my foot! If they were our "equals", they'd have the same tests, scales, etc. and would not need preferential treatment to pass them... unless they're indeed not equals to men (I'd even dare to say "inferiors" -nothing to do with xianism, unless you believe your ancestors were fags who did the cooking while women were on battlefields... or unless your heathenism is feminism-leaning... -, that's in some domains, as men can be inferiors where females dominate).


What about ancient germanic culture where women were warriors just as men were? It wasnt common but it wasnt unheard of either. Freydis Eriksdottir in the Vinland Saga is a great and very "recent" example, scaring off a group of native americans herself....while all the man ran away from the "Skraelings"......and all the while she was pregnant no less. If a woman wants to fight in a war and defend her folk and soil, I have nothing against it nor would I say anything against it. Id dishonour the beliefs and morals my ancient ancestors held.


And as for this statement:


(I'd even dare to say "inferiors" -nothing to do with xianism, unless you believe your ancestors were fags who did the cooking while women were on battlefields... or unless your heathenism is feminism-leaning... -, that's in some domains, as men can be inferiors where females dominate)

That is just uncalled for. Our ancestors WERE "feminists" in a way because they did not view women as inferiors...actually many germanic tribes viewed women as semi-devine because they gave birth, they kept the clan and tribe alive and looked after. Men also asked their women for advice quite often and this is recorded information.

Just read this quote from "Germania" by Tacitus:

"It stands on record that armies already wavering and on the point of collapse have been rallied by the women, pleading heroically with their men, thrusting foreward their bared bosoms, and making them realize the imminant prospect of enslavement - a fate the Germans fear more desperately for their women than for themselves. Indeed, you can secure a hold on these nations if you compel them to include among a consignment of hostages some girls of noble family. More than this, they believe that there resides in women an element of holiness and a gift of prophecy; and so they do not scorn to ask for their advice, or lightly disregard their replies."

And of course if you bothered to read anything on Germanic culture PRE the 1930's you'd find out a lot more interesting information on their view of women :rolleyes: Our ancestors wern't a bunch of morons who believed women were for nothing but cooking, cleaning, raising kids and thats it, unlike some others from what ive read.

Just look at the Germanic spiritual path....look at the Goddesses..... mythology and archetypes are manifest from a collective group of folk.... something that sprung from our very own folksoul.... if we had no REAL LIFE female warriors...where did the valkyries come from? where did freyja getting half the dead slain in battle come from... where did it all come from? Myth reflects truths, not literal truth that the storys happened but symbolic truth.

"Myths are not fanciful stories made up by savages to explain a world they do not understand. On the contrary, mythology expresses truths of great spiritual importance; it is the language through which the collective unconscious, the Folk Soul, speaks to us. Myths are those things which never happened, but are always true. They are the collective dream of the race." - Stephen McNallen

Sooner or later men are going to have to wake up and grow up, get that moronic idea that women are only here to please us and nothing more.

Gagnraad
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 08:35 PM
Women is free to do what they want, just as men is.
And I don't think they got an disadvantage... Menstruation, may be an disadvantage, perhaps?
And they may even raise the morale between the soldiers?

anaktas
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 09:01 PM
I believe that female presence in the front would catch the soldiers' attention and they would not fight well. Also, women do not have the endurance and muscular strength of men, making them improper for war. It is better to assist the soldiers in other ways, such as sending gifts, letters, clothes and so on.

Blutwölfin
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 09:23 PM
Just something "by the way" (and really without showing of, just to give another opinion): I actually can't count how many men I left far behind me when it comes to endurance in biking. I take about 250km a week (mountainbiking and street biking) during my training period between end of March and about October/November and believe me, some women have a lot more power and strength than some men. So a well trained women is not necessarily weaker than e.g. a 19 year old 60kg boy who's in the army.

anaktas
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 10:32 PM
You may be strong. But on average?

Blutwölfin
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 10:44 PM
If a woman is trained, she can be as fit as a man.
And the average man isn't well trained, too, I suppose. Probably I am more fit then most of the male members here at the forum.

Anyway:

But if you're in the army, no matter if man or woman, you ARE trained. So I would say the argument that women are weaker shouldn't be the only one to say that "they're not made for war". And the one with reading maps and so on.. well.. :doh

Women have a special way of thinking, especially when it comes to revenge and fighting. I think this could be quite helpful in a lot of situations.

PS: I am neither tall not extremely muscular, probably people would call me even thin and fragile. A woman mustn't look like a bodybuilder to be strong.

Sigurd
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 10:56 PM
And again Hveðrungur leaves me bereft of any good words without being heavily plagiarizing... I hoped I could at least give the example of Freydis, but no... :rolleyes:

Gagnraad
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 11:22 PM
Probably I am more fit then most of the male members here at the forum.
That may be ;)

:D


Anaktas: Exactly why is men more fit in the army than women? What make us any better than women?

anaktas
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 11:59 PM
Anaktas: Exactly why is men more fit in the army than women? What make us any better than women?
Muscular mass, maybe. Didn't mention anything like superiority. Why do members of BuB keep attacking me? :(

Gagnraad
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 12:34 AM
Why do members of BuB keep attacking me? :(I do not attack you. I just disagree with some of your views, nothing more.

And if I wanted to attack you, I assure you, you would have seen the difference.

Gagnraad
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 12:58 AM
And do not women deserve the right to fight for what they love and believe?

anaktas
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 08:16 AM
And do not women deserve the right to fight for what they love and believe?
Of course. But a fight can be carried out with many ways. Each gender is better at certain fields.

Alkman
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 10:55 AM
Muscular mass has nothing to do with war today. Using a fighter or a tank is more like playing a video game than really fighting. Take that from an ex-member of tank crew (shooter)-note that i'm talking about the outdated M-60 and Leopard-1,you do even less in the last ones.

I don't see why a woman that would train with the shooter's joystick and organs wouldn't be equally good in operations.

Sigrid
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 11:26 AM
This is a battle ground on its own, nicht wahr? :D

As I am a woman I will vouch only for the kind of woman I am. You do get the Amazons (they were not a myth, incidentally, they were Scythians and their burial ground has just been excavated. They were fighting for the Romans.) You have the Aztec women whose equality in Aztec society has been verified by archaeological evidence recently discovered. You have the Celtic women some of whom were said to have ridden into battle alongside their men and as people have said the valkyries, etc. The Greek goddess Athena is associated with war and so is the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. But often women fought because there was a lack of numbers to make up a powerful force and I'm sure women who were capable filled those gaps as many men died in battle in those days.

However - men are physically stronger and evolved to be single minded so as to make better hunters and fighters. Women are evolved as smaller and physically less powerful because obviously their roles were defined by their societies as other than warrior or builder or farmer. Women are highly intuitive, empathic and can think laterally. They can do multi-tasking by virtue of the broader corpus callosum between the brain hemispheres that gives them greater bandwidth to process more than one task at a time. They are good at negotiation and settlement and they are powerfully sexually evocative and can send men into battle or keep them out of it by using their totem as mothers and lovers and nature goddesses. They can bargain by virtue of their very different sexuality. And this sexual difference is hormonally driven and means that the responses to situations between men and women are radically altered when emotions enter the scene, and they often do with woman because we do not manufacture the power hormone testosterone and so function by virtue of oestrogen and this makes us unlike men in a few important respects, one of which is strength and the other anger.

Men are capable of killing and of killing through rage by means of the effect heightened testosterone has on certain emotional situations. Women become enraged and are also capable of killing but are not the same as men in this regard. They do so defensively. Men can do so offensively. This doesn't mean that women won't and haven't crossed over these borders and behaved more like men in certain circumstances but as a rule women will kill only if provoked in a situation where they defend children or home. Men seem capable of acting offensively when they perceive a threat at a distance and they seem also capable of maintaining their aggression until the threat is not diminished but utterly vanquished. They manage to do this through the mental capability of rage that is afforded them by the hormone testosterone. If women take this hormone they become unnaturally strong and aggressive. This has been proven. In fact there are women today who use "testosterone patches" and do so by their own admission to maintain a level of aggressiveness in corporate situations that men have naturally.

This doesn't mean that all women must be only wives and mothers and domesticated and all men must stay away from interior design and cooking. Having children is not only a female thing. It cannot happen without 50% male co-operation in making the child so child bearing may be a female priority but the rearing of children is a dual responsibility and it is because this duality is now often missing in modern families that young people are becoming unable to find their roles and identities.

Humans in general are smart and resilient and aggressive. If they were not they would not have survived thus far. If they continue to confuse their gender identities and abilities they will run the risk of destroying the civilizations and societies that have sustained them as a species for as long as they have walked the earth.

Personally, I have no wish to be a soldier. I would have no wish to be one if I were a man. Being kicked around and treated like a number and told what to do and who to kill and when and why would not appeal to me if I were a man. The army, for me, represents soul slavery. It is not the old warrior band, it is something entirely different. And the old warriors are no more. We now have societies that elect to fight battles that are not legal, are not ethical and revolve around keeping certain wealthy elites in power more than defending folk and fold.

As an individual I am fully capable of killing if the need arises. I am highly defensive of people who are being bullied. I prefer to do things classically in the preserve of women. If angry I am very dangerous and can become very aggressive. But when I match this to a man in a similar situation I find no parallel but rather something complimentary. I have no wish to be him and I can sense the power of male aggression as different. It is what has literally built our world. Added to it has been female power which has largely inspired it and sustained it. These have made us what we are, not the interchangeability of the two genders. I like to think of us as equal in status but unique in kind, working together in bonds and to a code that asks us to be respectful of one another's space and capabilities.

If a society has equality under the law then no one needs to have gender battles or race wars. And if people can accept their biological destiny without condemning or belittling anyone then humanity will have a chance to evolve to the next stage of its journey. If not it will degrade and suffer in-fighting and finally its social and civic structures will disintegrate and there will be the perfect opportunity for invaders to take advantage of weak spots.

We can learn a lot from our elders and ancestors and from the history of the human race. And we can discover everything we need to know about survival from a clear and unprejudiced understanding of nature.

But some disagree ...

freya3
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 01:00 PM
I agree w/Sigrid in the fact that men do make better soldiers than women due to genetic make up and hormonal differences. I feel men are "designed" for battle more so than women. I too have absolutley no desire to join the military...

However, I do feel there are certain areas of the military where women would be of great, even better service than men. For one, the military medical facilities. I know many female nurses who have served our country proudly here and overseas.

And, if a woman feels strongly enough to fight on the front lines, though I wouldn't do it, she does have that right. I think she should get no special treatment, however, just because she is a woman.

Weg
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 03:36 PM
We've no right but Duties.

Is there something men do and women are actually enable to do? :rolleyes: Because it seems whatever men do, modern women strongly wish to do the same to prove something.

freya3
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 04:57 PM
We've no right but Duties.

Is there something men do and women are actually enable to do? :rolleyes: Because it seems whatever men do, modern women strongly wish to do the same to prove something.

Not me...I know and LOVE my role as a woman :thumbsup

Sigrid
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 07:03 PM
Not me...I know and LOVE my role as a woman :thumbsup

Me too. :curtsy So bite us, all ye feminist thing people.

I have another side, of course, which I reserve for combative occasions. This girl takes no prisoners and fights for kith and kin. She bites. She wears spiked gloves. She hates lefties. She only comes out on moonless forums. She kills trolls.

I'm sure Freya3 has a warrior persona too, that will arm herself when needed on special occasions and bring a sword to the siutuation at hand. But we mostly leave these in the closet under the metaphorical stairs where we keep our tall hats and brooms and where no men ever go because these closets are visible only to cats and other women. ;)

leonidas
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 07:18 PM
I say that women maybe excellent in auxillary services but what about real combat conditions?
Women ofcaurse they have the right to serve in Armed Forces but why don't even the most ''democratic'' countries use female personel in elite or special operation forces?French foreign legion,U.S Special Forces and Navy Seals,SAS they don't have women in their ranks.
Female personel maybe can be useful in some combat units like Tanks,artillery ,or even as Helicopter pilot but i'm not convinced if they are fit enough for light infantry or elite units!

The Horned God
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 08:18 PM
It seems to me that if a true misogynist was asked this question, he (or she;)) would surely reply, "Definitely, as many Women and girls as possible should be given a taste of front line action, starting now!".
But that would not be my opinion.

It has recently come to light that American soldiers in Iraq have been raping their female colleagues, and that it was covered up until now.
Quite apart from the question of physical capabilities, mixing the sexes in the ultra high pressure environment of front line combat can only ever be a recipe for disaster.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013006J.shtml


Whatever it is about war, time and again it draws out and exposes the very darkest, foulest recesses of the human Psyche. I for one, wouldn't want to be anywhere near it if at all possible.

The reason for the rapes I believe, is that the combination of anarchy, killing and death found in war has a powerful aphrodisiac effect.
F.e, Females from Kiev to Berlin discovered to their horror during the later stages of WWII, that there was a price to pay for being "liberated" by the Soviets! Any female between 9 and 99 was fair game, seriously.

Human nature doesn't change much in 50 years, it is easy to imagine, under the pressure and excitement war, and with the possibility of death coming unseen at any moment, that it matters little to the the soldiers whose side a woman might be on or whether she is in civilian clothes or army fatigues.

There is something about the clear and present danger of losing ones life and with it the chance to reproduce ones genes that sends the reptilian part of mens brains firing all out of control.
When that happens it is not a good time to be a woman.In the interests of equality ;) I will admit under such circumstances it is probably not wise to be a man with long hair, either ;)

To sum up can some women get through boot camp? Sure, but front-line combat is a whole other ball game, and if training could prepare you for it then soldiers would come back with fewer nightmares.
Mentally, women would find it even more damaging, imo not begin designed for it, and if they held themselves together at all would likely come out of it resembling Charlize Theron's character in "Monster".

freya3
Friday, March 24th, 2006, 09:38 PM
Me too. :curtsy So bite us, all ye feminist thing people.

I have another side, of course, which I reserve for combative occasions. This girl takes no prisoners and fights for kith and kin. She bites. She wears spiked gloves. She hates lefties. She only comes out on moonless forums. She kills trolls.

I'm sure Freya3 has a warrior persona too, that will arm herself when needed on special occasions and bring a sword to the siutuation at hand. But we mostly leave these in the closet under the metaphorical stairs where we keep our tall hats and brooms and where no men ever go because these closets are visible only to cats and other women. ;)


Definitely:thumbsup

newenstad
Saturday, March 25th, 2006, 01:00 PM
My personal experiences with girls/women in the army arn´t the best. There are a few strong and clever women but the other ones are just in the army because they think it´s so "cool" for being in a men world...

A woman in a group of soldiers always causes trouble because army men are "loaded" with testosterone (most time)... and to much flirting not the best for the comradeship...

Women shouldn´t be in the first row IMO...

Mathieu
Sunday, April 2nd, 2006, 11:16 PM
Sadly I have lost my source, I will try to find it again. Its from a history magazine named "Nouvelle Revue d'Histoire", I’m sure the Frenchmen here know it. The article was about the Russian women who were involved in the 2nd world war. They were enrolled by the Soviets due to the egalitarian ideology of this system (men & women being the same, then both could fight).

They were fighting as good as the men, but after the war, they found out that many of those women could not bear any child. For some reason, this war had destroyed something in them... Maybe its due to the nature of this specific war, as the 2nd world war, especially for the Russians/Germans, was very harsh and much unlike anything that had happened before, but this fact shows that men and women are not equal about this, or, at least, that women might have to pay a much higher cost than men.

Sifsvina
Thursday, April 6th, 2006, 03:21 AM
There is the simple fact that when a woman is called up for duty they don't care what she does with her kids. I have an acquaintance who would have had to put her newborn up for adoption if she hadn't found a friend to take the kid! A mother shouldn't be away from her young children for extended periods of time, she is essential to their healthy development. End of story.
All the rest of the "women are just as capable" whining is just victim crap. Next there will be uproar that gender separate public bathrooms are an insult to women (unisex one's are concidered progressive:doh ). I am physically capable of...um...participating in bestiality...but that doesn't make it right or natural.
I'm a woman, proud and strong! I'm not some insecure wench trying to be a man. Gender roles do not scare me, they uplift me. One of the most powerful things I can do as a woman is make a meal an serve it to my family (in a frickin frilly apron!). Anyone who thinks that is demeaning better not be trying to invade my homestead or they will find out just how capable I am;-)
:valkyrie

Odin's Pie
Thursday, April 6th, 2006, 04:14 AM
Tradition says that armies already wavering and giving way have been rallied by women who, with earnest entreaties and bosoms laid bare, have vividly represented the horrors of captivity, which the Germans fear with such extreme dread on behalf of their women, that the strongest tie by which a state can be bound is the being required to give, among the number of hostages, maidens of noble birth.

I believe that there can be women warriors, however, their husbands must always be able to best them in battle. Women warriors with weak men are disgusting.

Weg
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 04:11 PM
About women in war, an article I found interesting to post :



Israeli women won't see combat
Study finds females can't lift as much, march as far as males

A military study conducted by the Israeli army has concluded women are a weaker sex, which means they will continue to be barred from most combat duties.

According to the study's findings reported in the Washington Times, women safely can carry 40 percent of their body weight compared with 55 percent for men. Because military-age women weigh 33 pounds less than men on average, the total weight-lifting disparity between the sexes amounts to 44 pounds on average.

In terms of endurance, the study found while men could handle 55-mile marches, any trek longer than 32 miles was found to be too arduous for women. Researchers attributed this to the fact that the amount of oxygen-carrying hemoglobin in women's blood was more than 10 percent lower than in men's blood.

The Times reports Israeli army doctors assessing these limitations recommend women not serve in front-line infantry positions, artillery units or tank crews.

[...]


more (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35170)

Eisenmann
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 06:21 PM
and I thought the Israelis said they are such a strong super-race capable of anything?:rolleyes:

Wiglaf
Sunday, April 16th, 2006, 08:48 PM
In general, as others have argued, it isn't a good idea for women to fight on the front lines. But there are still women out there who are unusually strong; why can't they fight? One reason, I think, would be that you couldn't trust the enemy to be on his best behavior when your lady soldiers get captured -- especially if they are attractive. Rape is very common during war. There are even men in your own ranks who you can't trust on this matter.

It would be a problem if soldiers became more interested in each other than in beating back the enemy, especially if some of your comrades get pregnant. Their sense of duty may prevent them from behaving this way, but the temptation is still there, and it's likely greater during war. I remember from my social psychology class that physiological arousal increases males' attraction to females -- and men are rarely more aroused physiologically than when they are at war. I'm not sure what psychologists have to say about how women would behave under these circumstances. I don't think they'd be very comfortable, though, knowing that all of the men -- most likely very lonely and sex-starved -- want to get in their pants, and some of them won't take "no" for an answer.

It would also undermine the traditional sense of fraternity among soldiers. When old soldiers tell war stories, they tend to remember this aspect of it fondly; I would bet that it's an important part of forming a cohesive fighting force.

nordicdusk
Sunday, April 16th, 2006, 11:52 PM
A women has every right to fight for the land she loves as it is hers as much as it belongs to any man.BTW any chance of an introduction Wiglaf please.

forever united
Thursday, June 1st, 2006, 01:48 PM
In general, as others have argued, it isn't a good idea for women to fight on the front lines. But there are still women out there who are unusually strong; why can't they fight? One reason, I think, would be that you couldn't trust the enemy to be on his best behavior when your lady soldiers get captured -- especially if they are attractive. Rape is very common during war. There are even men in your own ranks who you can't trust on this matter.

that is a very good point but one of the biggest reason women arnt allowed on the front lines is because nobody wants the first women in combat killed while in there platoon.

Weg
Sunday, June 4th, 2006, 01:13 AM
Blood Axis, what do you think about women in war? :D

Ethelwulf
Monday, June 5th, 2006, 11:07 PM
It doesn't bother me.

Boche
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 06:52 PM
Do you believe that women should serve in combat roles?

Why/Why not? Discuss.


Personally, i think it depends on the women - if the woman can meet the same physical and mental standards the males are held to - then it's alright.

Here you can look at the AFTP Standards: http://www.ncsu.edu/army_rotc/APFT_scorecard.pdf

I hope this thread doesn't turn out into a Pro-Feminism-Discussion nor into an Anti-Women-Discussion.




Gruß,
Boche

Galloglaich
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 07:10 PM
I think that as long as any person is capable of fufilling the standard requirements of operation, they are entitled to serve. Here in the U.S. there has been some problem w/ artificially lowering the standards and allowing a few sub-par personnel through the cracks for the reason of making a good PC show in the statistics. I have talked to veterans of the 1st Gulf War that complained of female LMG operators that couldn't even pull the bolt to charge their weapon. That's idiotic.

Barring the above conditions, I'm fine w/ it. I sure as hell wouldn't want Bridie gunning for my hide :).

Having women in the ranks could add an increased advantage in allowing for viewpoints that a traditional male strategist might not think of. I know there has been some negative speculation regarding the socialization of male & female soldiers together, but that is the kind of thing we need to get over as a society anyway.

Huzar
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 07:24 PM
I'm substantially favourable to women in the armed forces. A female in military forces isn't less efficient than a man, at least in the logistic role.


But here we're speaking specifically of Women in combat............so i'm not so sure. Sure we can speak of any kind of exceptions but, the truth is, women on average have a physic inferiority and a lesser attitude in the "first line" situations. Too many risks. Besides men risk too, to defend them , in the case they have difficulties. If they're captured in war, the rape is sure at 99.99% with all the psychological consequences.


I'm sorry to say this, (and i don't want to turn the thread in the Way Boche fears), but i think actual political positive attitude is the results of continue pressures from the feminist movment, who thinks : "more rights i conquest for women (rights of any kind), better is the situation....".

They tend to see anything the man does (any activity : from NASA space programs to gardening ), as a privilege. So they want to have the same privilege (not important if it has a sense or not). Imo, the rquest to Women in the "first line" combat can be catalogued in the long list of phenomenons whom are derivative of a distorted vision of democracy.

Æmeric
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 07:47 PM
No, I don't believe women should be in combat positions in the military. I think putting women in such roles de-feminizes them. And they are not the equals of men in combat. Let's say you have two battilions go into to battle against one another - they have the same training, same equiment but one is made up entirely of men & the other one entirely of women. Which one do you think would win?

Persons who advocate this sort of sexual equality are just like multiracialists who like to claim there is no such thing as race - they claim that gender doesn't matter but it does. Even though a large percentage of women, maybe a majority, may support the right of women to serve in combat nearly all females would be opposed to women having the legal obligation to serve in combat. In the US, all 18-year-old men have to register with selective service - the government agency that would handle a draft if it was ever reinstated. Women do not, and no females have been clamoring for young women to have this same legal obligation as men.

In spite of all the affirmative action programs to make the military attractive to women, women only account for 11% of the Army, 10% of the Navy, 5% of the Marines & 14% of the Air Force. 100 % of all jobs in the Air Force are open to women, yet they've only managed 14% female participation. About 38% of all women in the military are from racial minorities. This is another issue but non-Whites in the US military behave as if they simply had a cushy civil service job. Many of the White women in the military, especailly officers, are lesbians.

There have been other attempts to achieve gender equality in male dominated occupations. For example firefighting. Several liberal communities across the US have made a special effort to recruit female firefighters to their fire departments. For example; Minneaoplis, Minnesota 17%; Madison, Wisconsin 15%; San Francisco, 15%; Boulder, Colorado, 14%. Some people would point to these figures as a success, I say they are failures. In spite of having lower standards ( as opposed to White males) to recruit women & aggressively trying to recruit women firefighters, they all come in well below 50%. One reason is probably because most women are not interested in such a career & those that are, are probably lesbians such as Tracy Jarman, chief of the San Diego Fire Department;http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=356. another thing to remember about the military is you are suppose to conform. You should not expect to be treated like an individual. To make women conform in a military enviroment is to musculate them or you try to change the men to make them more sensitive - feminize them - or you try to make both into some androgynous type of creature.

As for reports glorifying the current role of women in the US military, they are mostly bullsh*t. Like the Jessica Lynch episode, were a young female soldier was wounded while driving a truck in Iraq. The Pentagon fabricated a story about how Pvt Lynch picked up a gun & fired at the iRaqis in combat. It was a lie, to promote the idea of women in combat & to applease feminists who needed a female war hero. It was a lie - Pvt Lynch herself said it didn't happen - but she was still awarded the Bronz Star..

Ederico
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 07:55 PM
Women in combat? Absolutely, just don't get them pissed off while in the kitchen and they have a meat knife in their hands or your meat could be cut in deadly manners! :D

Frankly, in this age of individualism nothing can really stand against women in combat roles apart from characteristics that would also find a man lacking in combat and their own personal choice. That is the way it goes, doesn't mean I consider it ideal.

OneEnglishNorman
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 08:00 PM
To my mind, whether a woman is capable or not is besides the point; the cost of hassle of duplicating facilities for men-women together with the problems which crop up (relationships, harassment, resentment) do not make it sensible when judged rationally for peace time military forces. (Large scale mobilisations are of course a different matter - life and death for the nation).

No doubt governments are willing to foot that cost because it "seems nice" and satisfies modern P.C. agendas. Western fighting forces (conventional) are so far ahead of their foreign counterparts that they can play bureaucratic games with integrating women & gays into the military.

Interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_and_Soviet_military

Boche
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 08:11 PM
Yeah, let's have the hot babes of the Althing with their bazookas squeezed into a tight'n'light combat uniform. I'm all for it. And we mustn't miss the oppurtunity to stress how important it is that they are up to the standards. :rolleyes:

Thinking without your genitals, you must.


Seriously - if your post was not sarcastic you should never join the military - while soldiers are dying you would probably have fun with some magazine on the toilet. ;)




Gruß,
Boche

Æmeric
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 08:23 PM
@ Boche; Doesn't Germany have mandatory conscription for men? When do you have to go off and do your duty for the Vaterland? And get your hair cut?:D Is that why your asking for opinions on women in combat?

Boche
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 08:33 PM
@ Boche; Doesn't Germany have mandatory conscription for men? When do you have to go off and do your duty for the Vaterland? And get your hair cut?:D Is that why your asking for opinions on women in combat?

I attented to it - because as probably every Guy i wanted to learn something there That was 2 years ago when they asked me to come to the "Test". But they didn't accept me because of my several Colon Diseases..


Besides that - Being in the german military doesn't make you serve for your fatherland, we are still under american occupation sherlock.




Gruß,
Boche

Leofric
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 08:40 PM
if the woman can meet the same physical and mental standards the males are held to - then it's alright.


I think that as long as any person is capable of fufilling the standard requirements of operation, they are entitled to serve.

Agreed.

Including the reproductive standard. When women are capable of reproducing 100 times in as many days, they should be allowed into combat.

One of the reasons we can afford to send men into combat is the worst should happen and our male population were decimated, the remaining 10% could, without significant difficulty, reproduce a sufficient replacement generation.

But if our female population were decimated, it would be far too much of a strain on the surviving 10% to take up the reproductive slack of the other 90%.

Asking women to up their reproductive output tenfold is asking far too much of them. Asking the same of men is not. As a result, men are not a very valuable reproductive commodity and can be sacrificed safely in combat. Women are very valuable as a reproductive commodity and so cannot.

WWI was devastating to the male population of Europe. What would Europe be like today if women had fought and died alongside the men?

When considering sending women into combat, we should consider not just the costs of such a proposition, but the opportunity costs as well. What are we giving up by sending them off to fight?

I think women are far too valuable on the homefront to put them on the battlefield (and not just for their reproductive value, though that is the most convincing argument for me).

Huzar
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 09:10 PM
One of the reasons we can afford to send men into combat is the worst should happen and our male population were decimated, the remaining 10% could, without significant difficulty, reproduce a sufficient replacement generation.
But if our female population were decimated, it would be far too much of a strain on the surviving 10% to take up the reproductive slack of the other 90%.



If we think that western world has lowest natality rate........a loss of women would worse the problem.

In a TOTAL war between ethicities, the capability of an ethnic entity to replace the demographic loss as fast as possible (20-30 years) is as important as fight on abattlground.

It's very brutal to say, but that's reality of TOTAL conflicts in any age i suppose.

Galloglaich
Monday, August 13th, 2007, 09:11 PM
...In spite of all the affirmative action programs to make the military attractive to women, women only account for 11% of the Army, 10% of the Navy, 5% of the Marines & 14% of the Air Force. 100 % of all jobs in the Air Force are open to women, yet they've only managed 14% female participation...

Leofric makes an excellent point. Numbers like those provived by Americ are why I don't particularly see women in the military as being too potentially damaging to our reproductive capacity. I just can't foresee enough women signing up that it would really be an issue. If it was, steps would have to be taken. A large percentage of those that would join probably wouldn't be of the reproducing type anyway;).

That said, I am certainly not in favor of mandated service or the draft including women (or anyone, male or female, actually).

Thusnelda
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007, 01:15 AM
This topic is some kind of "funny" for me, because the German Bundeswehr opened all military careers for women back in January 2001. So there was a time after school when I was making plans into that direction under the premise I don´t get a "normal" job. Well, this "Should I enter the army?"-time was very short, because, honestly, I had a quite romantic and naive view on the daily course there. But after I got some informations, it came very fast very clear to the conclusion that the army is definately nothing for me - I´m too lazy, too "unsportive" and, yes, maybe a little bit to sensitive for these things. ;) 3 month basic training at the end of nothing, far away from my precious ones and my family - no. And then other 6 month with mostly men who are looking for girls...:rolleyes: Not very bright prospects.

But generally I think women who fit to the requirements are really an enrichment for every army. Not only men have capabilities. Okay, we may be physically not so strong, but that doesn´t matter if a women is driving a tank, shooting with an artillery - or piloting a cockpit of a jet.
And medical units are very important, too.

So it´s okay. That has nothing to do with feminism.

SineNomine
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007, 02:25 AM
Personally I am all in favour of women who meet the high standard of military training to be allowed to join and rise to any rank they are worthy of. Many more women are engaging in sports, martial arts etc. nowadays which may help toward that end. Professional armies though always tend to be rather small in size, so I doubt such institutions would absorb women (or even men for that matter) in good enough amounts to cause much of an issue. And in the end, militaries should always seek to remain as cost-efficient as possible; that is to say, the cost of admitting women must be lower than the benefits derived from it.

Bridie
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007, 05:49 AM
I don't think that women should be permitted to engage in armed combat in modern times.

The only situations that I can think of where women should have been encouraged to take up arms, was in old times (think the middle ages :D ) where women and domestic staff were the last line of defence for the children and their homes after their men were defeated. In this case it would have been a matter of kill or be killed (or taken as sex slaves). But obviously this is not what we are talking about here... so it is rather irrelevant. :p

In this day and age, there is no need for women to assume combat roles in the defence forces. It goes against female nature and de-feminises them, as Americ said. Plus, as others have also said, women are needed on the homefront, and to ensure that the population continues to increase and thrive.

I'm not in favour of women attempting to prove to everyone (for the sake of ego or power struggle) that they can better men in traditionally male roles and occupations. Same goes for men who try to take on female roles.... like these modern day "house husbands". :rolleyes: Talk about trying to shove a square peg in a round hole. :p

Oski
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007, 06:53 AM
Imagine your daughter or mother on the battlefield getting shot in the face.

Women can work the factories to help build the weapons of war, guns tanks etc etc.

Even the battlefield doctors can be weak men not fit for fighting but you know what they say: All is fair in love and war.

SineNomine
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007, 11:55 AM
Imagine your daughter or mother on the battlefield getting shot in the face.
You seem to be implying that women are somehow more valuable than men. I certainly disagree. I'd be just as upset if my father or brother or son were shot, whatever rationalizations were given for it. And if I had a daughter, I'd definitely not object to her joining combat roles, if she were able to do it and the army would have her (but I'd object strongly to conscription for any of my children, male or female.) I'd insist that she learnt to fight and defend herself regardless of it.

Ederico
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007, 12:17 PM
Bridie made me consider something distinct from the ethical/idealistic considerations of the question but congruent to my values.

Given the nature of war and combat in what is termed the "Western World", ergo mercantilistic, liberally dogmatic and materialistic to its core I would definitely be opposed to women in combat in practice. Even men in combat are wasted given the motivation for modern war, we shouldn't let women face the same fate for some misguided notions of egalitarianism and leftist-femministic political correctness. Upholding male-based military tradition in this case would be countering our enemy's dogmatic credo.

Achtland
Sunday, August 19th, 2007, 12:47 PM
Some women, but not all of womankind, are capable of fighting. Some of these women are born that way and I'm not talking about those lesbians or feminists trying to prove they're better than men. There were a few warrior women in ancient times. Regarding combat is something else, where the army is strict, the regime and training is hard, grubby and stressful in order to break the civilian chaotic childlike qualities of the recruit. However though, from the many women who sign up to join the army voluntarily, most of them fail or quit. The lifestyle of the army is still, in this climate, rather masculine and tough. The reality of the army itself throws female recruits who have gone in for different reasons. Some women join the army because it looks like a glamorous career move, they've seen it in films, and so many men are available to them. You have to realise that the army is now regarded as a job as if anyone can do it. The women are going in there excited, used to being party girls or doing girly things. Then when they begin training they're suddenly faced with physical assault courses, rifle inspections, drills, most technical details of weapons and equipment, the uniforms and even meeing the most frightening NCO trainers, and yes they can't handle it. Women simply don't want it and they leave. The point I'm making is that the majority of women cannot do something that men can. A small number of women succeed in the army but these are usually tough, determined girls but overall I think the army has softened areas to catre for the fairer sex.

AlbionMP
Sunday, August 19th, 2007, 12:57 PM
I think our Women should be trained to fight - as a safety precaution, in case the home gets attacked. But I don't agree with placing them in the front line. It is the Duty of men to fight on the front line.

SineNomine
Sunday, August 19th, 2007, 02:28 PM
Some women, but not all of womankind, are capable of fighting. Some of these women are born that way and I'm not talking about those lesbians or feminists trying to prove they're better than men.
I agree with what you said, and also I think it's ironic that most successful women - in business, combat, whatever,- are rarely feminists themselves, of an extreme variety anyway.

nätdeutsch
Sunday, August 19th, 2007, 02:56 PM
only 5% of women can meet physical requirements required of the average male, so I don't see any reason that they should be able to fight. that in addition to the menstrual cycle is a huge detriment to any fighting force.

Jäger
Sunday, August 19th, 2007, 03:46 PM
You seem to be implying that women are somehow more valuable than men.
As Leofric already pointed out (we had this discussion already on Skadi :D) they are more valuable. After every war there was almost no decrease in population, as long as the females were protected, otherwise whole parts of a country were depopulated, e.g. compare 30 years war.

That said, they must not serve, and need protection, however they can fight, and there might be instances where they have to.

On the requirement part, while females can match the requirements, they are still holding them back to be raised :D

As an example Regina Halmich
http://img.stern.de/_content/56/06/560661/regina500_500.jpg
world champion in Flyweight for 12 years, fought against this German TV host, Stefan Raab
http://www.netzausfall.de/wp-content/raab.jpg
And even though she won, considering he only had some weeks training, and never boxed before, it is clear that it is not even, nor that woman can reach the level of a man.

http://img.stern.de/_content/58/60/586050/raab_500_500.jpg :D

Regards.

Rowan
Sunday, August 19th, 2007, 10:01 PM
Imagine your daughter or mother on the battlefield getting shot in the face.

Women can work the factories to help build the weapons of war, guns tanks etc etc.

Even the battlefield doctors can be weak men not fit for fighting but you know what they say: All is fair in love and war.

Yeah I'm okay with them being shot. If thats the choice they choose to make and they meet the requiments it would be wrong to not allow to enter combat if they wish.

Æmeric
Sunday, August 19th, 2007, 10:32 PM
Yeah I'm okay with them being shot. If thats the choice they choose to make and they meet the requiments it would be wrong to not allow to enter combat if they wish.
The requirements for women are not as strenuous as for men. This is to help woman attain the same results as men. Allowing women into combat not only endangers the lives of women soldiers, but also the lives of men who have to rely on them. The choice as to whether women should be allowed in combat should not be seen as an individual choice.

SineNomine
Monday, August 20th, 2007, 12:16 AM
As Leofric already pointed out (we had this discussion already on Skadi :D) they are more valuable. After every war there was almost no decrease in population, as long as the females were protected, otherwise whole parts of a country were depopulated, e.g. compare 30 years war.
If only say 5% of women could join, and only a few would choose to do so, I do not see any reason for alarm. Moreover, you were answering a different question to the one I asked - why should I consider a female relative more important than a male one?


And even though she won, considering he only had some weeks training, and never boxed before, it is clear that it is not even, nor that woman can reach the level of a man.
And some men will never reach the standard of some other men. What of it? Those who can actually do well enough to serve should be able to do so, provided there are no other considerations in operation. This is not even an egalitarian proposal - it is meritocratic.

I am not sure why examples of women in boxing etc. are always brought up. A female trained in Krav Maga, Aikido etc. would in all likelihood vastly outdo her female boxer counterpart, and not because of raw force.

Bridie
Monday, August 20th, 2007, 03:44 PM
that in addition to the menstrual cycle is a huge detriment to any fighting force.

:confused:

Care to explain this little doozy?? :D

Huzar
Monday, August 20th, 2007, 03:47 PM
:confused:

Care to explain this little doozy?? :D



Quite obvious not ?:p

Bridie
Monday, August 20th, 2007, 04:20 PM
Quite obvious not ?
Not. :rolleyes:

nätdeutsch
Monday, August 20th, 2007, 05:36 PM
:confused:

Care to explain this little doozy?? :D
don't you think fighting during your period would be difficult?

Æmeric
Monday, August 20th, 2007, 06:14 PM
don't you think fighting during your period would be difficult?
I served on 2 combat ships before women were allowed to serve on them, so I have no firsthand experince of serving with women. But several of my fellow sailors did, & none of them were impress by the work ethic or stamina of female sailors. One of the biggest complaints was that most female enlisted sailors would feign illness or discomfort when having their period, to the point of being unable to work 5 days a month. They could never be called on it, because that would sexist.

About the only argument I heard in favor of women onboard ships was the sex angle. But even ships that had female sailors there was a ratio of 8 or 9 men for every woman so most male sailors had the disadvantage of female sailors who didn't carry their own weight, without the advantage of sex while at sea.

Actually, sexual relations were/are forbidden onboard ship but it still goes on & it was not unusual for many female sailors to return from long cruises pregnant - I think 25% was average in the 80s. But these were the enlisted female sailors. The female officers & NCOs generally did'nt care for sex - with men that is.:rolleyes:

nätdeutsch
Monday, August 20th, 2007, 06:35 PM
I served on 2 combat ships before women were allowed to serve on them, so I have no firsthand experince of serving with women. But several of my fellow sailors did, & none of them were impress by the work ethic or stamina of female sailors. One of the biggest complaints was that most female enlisted sailors would feign illness or discomfort when having their period, to the point of being unable to work 5 days a month. They could never be called on it, because that would sexist.


that's exactly what I was getting at. if I were in a combat zone, I wouldn't want to trust my life with a woman who just happened to be getting a bad case of the cramps that day.

AlbionMP
Monday, August 20th, 2007, 06:40 PM
that's exactly what I was getting at. if I were in a combat zone, I wouldn't want to trust my life with a woman who just happened to be getting a bad case of the cramps that day.
Same here!

The same could be said for women judges as well.

Jäger
Monday, August 20th, 2007, 08:00 PM
Moreover, you were answering a different question to the one I asked - why should I consider a female relative more important than a male one?
Nah, not more important, at least not objectively, but emotionally, it is about what we expect in life, and in war men are supposed to die, and women are supposed to cry.

In war, when shit hits the fan, soldiers tend to scream for their mother, not father. At least German soldiers did so, at least the ones who screamed anyway :P. Maybe it is a mentality thing?


Die Mutter
( Hermann von Gilm )

Leise atmend, halb entschlummert
Liegt das Kind im Bettchen klein,
Plötzlich durch das offne Fenster
Schaut der Abendstern herein.

Und nach ihm mit beiden Händen
Laut aufweinend langt das Kind:
"Mutter, Mutter, hol' mir diesen
Schönen Stern herab geschwind!"

"Dummheit!" ruft der Vater zornig
Hinter einem Zeitungsblatt,
"Was der Fratz von dritthalb Jahren
Für verrückte Launen hat!

Denk' man: dreißig Millionen
Meilen weg und ein Planet,
Der zweihundertvierundzwanzig
Tage um die Sonne geht!"

Doch die Mutter tröstet leise:
"Schlaf', mein Engel! Diese Nacht
Hol' ich dir den Stern vom Himmel,
Der dir so viel Freude macht;

Morgen früh, hier auf dem Bette
Findest du den Edelstein" -
Und das Kind, in Tränen lächelnd,
Schläft am Mutterherzen ein.

1812 - 1864
(This is also a great example of rationality differences of men and women, I should have posted that on the discussion we had in Skadi :D)


And some men will never reach the standard of some other men. What of it?
I don't get your point, you don't get to serve in the army just because you are a man (the draft as an exception), it was about the requirements, which could be raised so that women won't reach them, but some men still would.
However, this is not really important anyway, it is certainly not enough to deny a woman o enter service, I see that, it was more of an anecdote ;)


Those who can actually do well enough to serve should be able to do so, provided there are no other considerations in operation. This is not even an egalitarian proposal - it is meritocratic.
It's like when Niggers try to become Firemen.


I am not sure why examples of women in boxing etc. are always brought up.
Bah, it is an example of a women and a man boxing, the point wouldn't be any different if both were to fight Aikido style.

SineNomine
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 01:34 AM
Actually, sexual relations were/are forbidden onboard ship
I sure hope the pay was good enough to make up for it. :D



In war, when shit hits the fan, soldiers tend to scream for their mother, not father. At least German soldiers did so, at least the ones who screamed anyway :P. Maybe it is a mentality thing?
Probably because boys tend to value the mother more than the father (and girls vice-versa, though this is Freudian theory, so I am not sure how valid it is.)


I don't get your point, you don't get to serve in the army just because you are a man (the draft as an exception), it was about the requirements, which could be raised so that women won't reach them
No average women any way. The army has to keep the requirements low enough to get enough recruits to join and high enough to actually be lethal. If women can meet those requirements, and the institution considers it wise to admit them in combat roles, so be it.


It's like when Niggers try to become Firemen.
Isn't that by way of affirmative action?


Bah, it is an example of a women and a man boxing, the point wouldn't be any different if both were to fight Aikido style.
Apples and oranges. Aikido relies on very different physical factors to boxing - its very idea is to use the aggressor's force against them.

Achtland
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 02:17 AM
don't you think fighting during your period would be difficult?

No :) the discomfort can be helped. During a period some woman are more than capable of having such ferocity that it would be considered an ideal madness needed on a battlefield.

nätdeutsch
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 04:18 AM
No :) the discomfort can be helped. During a period some woman are more than capable of having such ferocity that it would be considered an ideal madness needed on a battlefield.

brains and composure > blind rage

Bridie
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 05:59 AM
don't you think fighting during your period would be difficult?:D LOL


Ummm.... no. ;)




I served on 2 combat ships before women were allowed to serve on them, so I have no firsthand experince of serving with women. But several of my fellow sailors did, & none of them were impress by the work ethic or stamina of female sailors. One of the biggest complaints was that most female enlisted sailors would feign illness or discomfort when having their period, to the point of being unable to work 5 days a month. They could never be called on it, because that would sexist.Strange how "most women" manage to hold down jobs in the workforce at all considering just how excruciatingly debilitating menstruation apparently is! :D



that's exactly what I was getting at. if I were in a combat zone, I wouldn't want to trust my life with a woman who just happened to be getting a bad case of the cramps that day.



Same here!

The same could be said for women judges as well.

Now boys... you can't be serious. :rolleyes: I thought the days of far-fetched superstitions regards menstruation were long gone, but apparently not... So let me de-bunk some myths for the blokes here who are still caught in the dark ages :D ...

1) Not all women suffer from period pain... and for those that do, there are always non-sedating painkillers available.

If a woman suffers from such bad pain every month as to render her debilitated, this could be an indication of PCOS or endometriosis, (and possibly other conditions) - thus these women need medical treatment and could possibly be refused admission to the armed forces due to illness or incapacitating conditions.

2) Menstruation does not cause cerebral damage, nor dysfunction. Women who are menstruating are still capable of intellectualisation, rationality, emotional stability, problem solving, emotional and behavioural restraint etc etc.

3) Women who are menstruating are just as physically able as they are when not menstruating.


Don't get me wrong... if you read my first post in this thread you'll see that I don't approve of women in first line combat roles in the armed forces... but this whole "menstruation" rubbish is just laughable.

nätdeutsch
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 06:38 AM
Now boys... you can't be serious. :rolleyes: I thought the days of far-fetched superstitions regards menstruation were long gone, but apparently not... So let me de-bunk some myths for the blokes here who are still caught in the dark ages :D ...

1) Not all women suffer from period pain... and for those that do, there are always non-sedating painkillers available.

If a woman suffers from such bad pain every month as to render her debilitated, this could be an indication of POCS or endometriosis, (and possibly other conditions) - thus these women need medical treatment and could possibly be refused admission to the armed forces due to illness or incapacitating conditions.

2) Menstruation does not cause cerebral damage, nor dysfunction. Women who are menstruating are still capable of intellectualisation, rationality, emotional stability, problem solving, emotional and behavioural restraint etc etc.

3) Women who are menstruating are just as physically able as they are when not menstruating.


Don't get me wrong... if you read my first post in this thread you'll see that I don't approve of women in first line combat roles in the armed forces... but this whole "menstruation" rubbish is just laughable.


this is contrary to what EVERY girl I've ever spoken to has told me.

Bridie
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 07:33 AM
this is contrary to what EVERY girl I've ever spoken to has told me.
Well either they're talking crap, or you really need to get out more. :p

Jäger
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 07:34 AM
Probably because boys tend to value the mother more than the father (and girls vice-versa, though this is Freudian theory, so I am not sure how valid it is.)
I gave you an example why that might be so, before Freud even started studying, and I was serious when I said it could be a mentality thing, where mentality is of course part of the race soul.


No average women any way. The army has to keep the requirements low enough to get enough recruits to join and high enough to actually be lethal. If women can meet those requirements, and the institution considers it wise to admit them in combat roles, so be it.
If a woman gets injured on a battlefield, you have all dicks running for her help, no matter if a man lies next to her dying.
The whole power of a "Männerbund" is decimated with a woman penetrating the fields where she has no place, people would have to treat a woman different, because she is different, and that is destructive to the uniform of an army.


Isn't that by way of affirmative action?
By lowering the requirement tests.


Apples and oranges. Aikido relies on very different physical factors to boxing - its very idea is to use the aggressor's force against them.
No, the point is that if both know the style of fighting, force will always play a role, even if it just means to over do the technical mistakes, and no one is perfect. :)

Bridie
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 07:38 AM
If a woman gets injured on a battlefield, you have all dicks running for her help, no matter if a man lies next to her dying.LOL

Do you really think men would be more likely to help the injured woman than the dying man??

Jäger
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 07:44 AM
LOL

Do you really think men would be more likely to help the injured woman than the dying man??
I have never been in such a situation, but I don't have a hard time believing it, of course if it is obvious that the man needs more attention maybe not so, but that is certainly not always clear.

I base this on what my sergeant said, who served some time with American forces, and he said that that was actually their experiences, at least as a tendency.

nätdeutsch
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 07:48 AM
Well either they're talking crap, or you really need to get out more. :p

or I shouldn't trust what one woman says :)

SineNomine
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 01:27 PM
I gave you an example why that might be so, before Freud even started studying, and I was serious when I said it could be a mentality thing, where mentality is of course part of the race soul.
Yes, I know - I am just saying I question whether there is really a stronger bond between parents and children of opposite sexes in the sense that Freud would have it.


If a woman gets injured on a battlefield, you have all dicks running for her help, no matter if a man lies next to her dying.
If this is so it is a cost for the army to weigh against the benefits of admitting women - like I said, only if the benefits exceed the costs should it do so. I have heard the example brought up a lot, but like Bridie I am skeptical of it, and I wonder if it's not something military discipline can do away with.


By lowering the requirement tests.
Not very meritocratic then, is it? I would consider such deliberate lowering of standards to be a form of affirmative action anyway. :)


No, the point is that if both know the style of fighting, force will always play a role, even if it just means to over do the technical mistakes, and no one is perfect. :)
In the case of deflective arts, the more force you use, the more will be used against you. I don't disagree that certain physical factors still play a role, but aikido and its kindred arts (e.g. Wing Chun, and to an extent Krav Maga) serve to minimize their importance. Unlike boxing, where it is much easier to throw in a ceteris paribus condition.

Æmeric
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 05:08 PM
:D LOL


Ummm.... no. ;)



Strange how "most women" manage to hold down jobs in the workforce at all considering just how excruciatingly debilitating menstruation apparently is! :D







Now boys... you can't be serious. :rolleyes: I thought the days of far-fetched superstitions regards menstruation were long gone, but apparently not... So let me de-bunk some myths for the blokes here who are still caught in the dark ages :D ...

1) Not all women suffer from period pain... and for those that do, there are always non-sedating painkillers available.

If a woman suffers from such bad pain every month as to render her debilitated, this could be an indication of PCOS or endometriosis, (and possibly other conditions) - thus these women need medical treatment and could possibly be refused admission to the armed forces due to illness or incapacitating conditions.

2) Menstruation does not cause cerebral damage, nor dysfunction. Women who are menstruating are still capable of intellectualisation, rationality, emotional stability, problem solving, emotional and behavioural restraint etc etc.

3) Women who are menstruating are just as physically able as they are when not menstruating.


Don't get me wrong... if you read my first post in this thread you'll see that I don't approve of women in first line combat roles in the armed forces... but this whole "menstruation" rubbish is just laughable.

What you don't seem to understand is that women in the US military will use it as an excuse. To get out of work. For doing a job poorly. Because they can.;)

Kadu
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 05:25 PM
Same here!

The same could be said for women judges as well.

Nonsense, my mother is a judge, and being a Woman never conditioned her work, everybody has problems both Men and Women.
The only thing i see(in the future) as a problem, is for Women who are doctors or will be, BTW, 90%(perhaps even more) of Medicine students(here in Portugal) are Women, taking at the same time a time-off because of pregnancy. Imagine the shortage...

Boche
Tuesday, August 21st, 2007, 06:17 PM
LOL

Do you really think men would be more likely to help the injured woman than the dying man??


To be honest - i wouldn't be much surprised concerning the average stereotypical man who thinks with his penis instead of thinking with his brain.

You see such issues everywhere, and i wonder that you're surprised - as if you havn't noticed yet that guys prefer a normal meeting with a woman than a meeting with a male friend.

It reminds me of a Friend of me who often called and said that he won't show up in the bar or club later because he helps Girl No #2 to get home from the airport - altough she could use the train alone like every mature woman.

Most men simply turn into brainless toys because of their filled up testicles.
Very annoying.




Gruß,
Boche

Bridie
Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007, 05:39 AM
What you don't seem to understand is that women in the US military will use it as an excuse. To get out of work. For doing a job poorly. Because they can.;)
Well, I never said that I believe women should be able to use menstruation as an excuse for poor workmanship, or to get out of doing the menial tasks they can't be bothered with. You'll have noticed that I don't think it can be a valid excuse. Menstruation is not akin to illness... its a normal function of the body that should not affect normal behaviour, nor physical ability... and if is does happen to, then the woman has some kind of hormonal/physiological dysfunction and needs to seek treatment - but this is not the normal way of things, and not all women should be judged, in regards to capability during menstrual periods, based on the experiences of women with bodily dysfunctions.

Like I already said, I don't approve of women being in the armed forces... but if they are going to be in there, the same standards that are expected of men, should be expected of women also... and if the women can't meet them (most women probably couldn't), then they need to be dismissed from service (or refused entry into the armed forces) because they are obviously a liability.



To be honest - i wouldn't be much surprised concerning the average stereotypical man who thinks with his penis instead of thinking with his brain.

You see such issues everywhere, and i wonder that you're surprised - as if you havn't noticed yet that guys prefer a normal meeting with a woman than a meeting with a male friend.

It reminds me of a Friend of me who often called and said that he won't show up in the bar or club later because he helps Girl No #2 to get home from the airport - altough she could use the train alone like every mature woman.

Most men simply turn into brainless toys because of their filled up testicles.
Very annoying.
That has been contrary to my experiences... but then maybe there is more of a "boy's club" in Australia than in Germany? Who knows.

In my experience though, men are more likely to help out their "mates" (that is, their male friends, of course ;) ) than they are a woman whom they don't love - regardless of whether or not she is their friend too. If they love the woman though, and are in a committed relationship with her, this is a different story of course.

Maybe its the Aussie concept of "mateship", which is ever present in my country, that makes the difference between your experiences in Europe and my experiences in Australia? :confused:

Graopo
Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007, 06:36 AM
No, women should not be on the front lines with males. This is because of the basic sheer physical demand that almost all woman cannot meet, and because as other posters have mentioned above; men, both the enemy and fellow officers will and do treat women different. Soliders have a deep sense of trust or "brotherhood, kinsmanship", ect. Such an intimate relationship between non-related men and women where they trust eachother with their lives is usually accompained by sex.

Also, the menstrual-emotional lack of control is a little silly. Black and Arab men make fine soldiers yet I doubt their mental capacity for rationale, self-restraint, and strategic planning exceeds that of white or Orietnal women, no matter what time of month it is.

Æmeric
Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007, 02:28 PM
Another reason women shouldn't be in combat is rape. Whether or not the enmey would do it, the fear of being raped or gang-raped would undermine the performance of female soldiers, possible causing them to desert in the heat of battle.

Boche
Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007, 03:22 PM
Maybe its the Aussie concept of "mateship", which is ever present in my country, that makes the difference between your experiences in Europe and my experiences in Australia? :confused:


Maybe yes. But i don't think that you don't have any of those hopeless romeos who run after every women for nonsense and forget about friends.
Most of my friends aren't like that either - but i met a few who are like this.
Anyway - i think it's a part of multicultural influence that many dull man start to crawl up every women's arse.


Another reason women shouldn't be in combat is rape. Whether or not the enmey would do it, the fear of being raped or gang-raped would undermine the performance of female soldiers, possible causing them to desert in the heat of battle.

Well - that's not a "reality" issue. Because if some subhuman soldiers rape, they most likely take citizens of the occupied country. Just like in every War until today.




Gruß,
Boche

Kadu
Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007, 03:24 PM
Another reason women shouldn't be in combat is rape. Whether or not the enmey would do it, the fear of being raped or gang-raped would undermine the performance of female soldiers, possible causing them to desert in the heat of battle.

Men can be raped too, LOL!

Matamoros
Thursday, August 23rd, 2007, 11:57 AM
Men can be raped too, LOL!

Only if they get captured by the Turks or Arabs! :p

Oski
Thursday, August 23rd, 2007, 06:49 PM
You seem to be implying that women are somehow more valuable than men. I certainly disagree. I'd be just as upset if my father or brother or son were shot, whatever rationalizations were given for it. And if I had a daughter, I'd definitely not object to her joining combat roles, if she were able to do it and the army would have her (but I'd object strongly to conscription for any of my children, male or female.) I'd insist that she learnt to fight and defend herself regardless of it.

I dont know it just seems like men are becoming more metrosexual, weak and afraid these days. My dad and older brother served and I couldnt because of tattoos, but they will let women and gays run around on a battlefield and they wonder why we (the usa) are loosing our wars. It wont matter for long anyways since nations are developing un-maned tanks, bombers, subs, etc etc.

Wars will be waged mostly behind laptops like this one.

Deary
Friday, August 24th, 2007, 08:04 PM
There's no place for an idea of equality between the sexes on a battlefield where men are obviously superior to women physically and psychologically for such a position. The idea of any gender-neutral military is a lie. The opportunity to fight exists for women purely for the sake of political fairness and to not violate any "rights", not because women are actually needed in combative roles.

Women have fought, not with guns, but by being the backbone of a country. Women assembled the weapons of soldiers and stopped them from bleeding. When factories were at a loss for workers, women took the jobs of the men who went to war. Who do you think produced the airplanes, tanks, ammunition, and clothing? Women took plenty of action by remaining within the borders of the country in support of troops. Just because a woman is not on the front line, doesn't mean she cannot do her part.


Well either they're talking crap, or you really need to get out more. :p

There are women who suffer from very severe dysmenorrhea. Around 8% of women experience an abnormal, extreme amount of pain usually accompanied with excessive blood loss. I've been afflicted with this ever since I began menstruating and it has not gone away since. I usually feel intense, sharp pain in my lower back very similar to the feeling you get with a kidney infection, cramps, nausea, diarrhea, vommitting, shaking, headaches, cold sweats and fever and they hit all at once. These days (the pain lasts up to two to three days usually) I spend curled around the toilet crying on the bathroom floor and losing sleep. The only solution to this is either surgery or numbing medicine which tends to make one's body go limp. I've missed many hours of school because of it. Soda and half a bottle of asprin just dosen't cut it. The upsetting thing is, most people aren't aware of how serious "cramps" can be. It's the most embarrassing situation because I know people will perceive me as somehow weak because to them, "It's just PMS".

Bridie
Monday, August 27th, 2007, 06:29 AM
There are women who suffer from very severe dysmenorrhea. Around 8% of women experience an abnormal, extreme amount of pain usually accompanied with excessive blood loss.Yes, and as I explained in an earlier post...

If a woman suffers from such bad pain every month as to render her debilitated, this could be an indication of PCOS or endometriosis, (and possibly other conditions) - thus these women need medical treatment and could possibly be refused admission to the armed forces due to illness or incapacitating conditions.

... I'm not denying that some women are afflicted with dysmenorrhea, but these are not in the majority, and nor is it a "normal" state for a woman. Thus using dysmenorrhea symptoms as an excuse for keeping women out of the armed forces cannot be justified. It would just as silly as preventing all men from entering the armed forces because a minority of them suffer from debilitating back pain.

There are many reasons that women shouldn't be permitted to fight in the armed forces, but menstruation isn't one of them.



The upsetting thing is, most people aren't aware of how serious "cramps" can be. It's the most embarrassing situation because I know people will perceive me as somehow weak because to them, "It's just PMS".
Well, you don't just get "cramps" from what it sounds like... you have a medical condition, in that your monthly symptoms aren't "normal". So if you're worried about someone judging you as being "somehow weak", just inform them that you suffer from dysmenorrhea.

AlbionMP
Friday, August 31st, 2007, 11:56 AM
Nonsense, my mother is a judge, and being a Woman never conditioned her work, everybody has problems both Men and Women.
The only thing i see(in the future) as a problem, is for Women who are doctors or will be, BTW, 90%(perhaps even more) of Medicine students(here in Portugal) are Women, taking at the same time a time-off because of pregnancy. Imagine the shortage...

Ridiculous.

If a woman judge has a period or PMS on the day of the verdict, justice will not executed correctly.

SineNomine
Friday, August 31st, 2007, 01:21 PM
Ridiculous.

If a woman judge has a period or PMS on the day of the verdict, justice will not executed correctly.
Do you have any scientific evidence to back that up? :confused:

AlbionMP
Friday, August 31st, 2007, 02:55 PM
Do you have any scientific evidence to back that up?

I don't need scientific evidence to back it up!

I use my common sense and my experience with Women.

Kadu
Saturday, September 1st, 2007, 01:54 AM
Ridiculous.

If a woman judge has a period or PMS on the day of the verdict, justice will not executed correctly.

The decision is already taken she'll only read it in that day, at least in the Romano-Germanic system, i don't know how the Anglo-Saxon one works.

Renwein
Saturday, September 1st, 2007, 08:01 PM
Ridiculous.

If a woman judge has a period or PMS on the day of the verdict, justice will not executed correctly.

Likewise if a male judge has a crush on the defendant, justice will not be executed correctly. ;) (besides as mentioned, a female judge would form her view over many days)

and of that there is some proof... the power of attractive women over 'rational' men is well known and exploited by advertising... even Nietzsche couldn't overcome it =P

Drakkar
Saturday, September 1st, 2007, 08:28 PM
After observing this issue, I've concluded that they shouldn't be able to. They are just too confusing and wrapped up in other personal matters most of the time that they would be a liability. Males on the battlefront are brothers and find a bond that can not be found with females. This is coming from personal experience too. Every time I try to form a friendship with a girl, either she or I tries to make it more than that, adding in romantic feelings. This has no place in the field of combat. Everything would just be more simple IMO.

AlbionMP
Sunday, September 2nd, 2007, 01:14 AM
Likewise if a male judge has a crush on the defendant, justice will not be executed correctly. ;) (besides as mentioned, a female judge would form her view over many days)

and of that there is some proof... the power of attractive women over 'rational' men is well known and exploited by advertising... even Nietzsche couldn't overcome it =P
....but none of this a guaranteed monthly episode, is it ?

Knowing what women are like from personal experience, I would not like to be put in front of a female judge at any time of the month. Especially in this day and age when feminism and man hating is all in 'vogue'.

HarkenScyld
Tuesday, September 4th, 2007, 05:22 AM
I agree, women should be allowed to fight, but only if they can meet the same standards as men, emotionally and physically.

Jäger
Tuesday, September 4th, 2007, 08:41 AM
...but only if they can meet the same standards as men, emotionally and physically.
You mean if a woman is actually a man :D

Bridie
Tuesday, September 4th, 2007, 02:04 PM
....but none of this a guaranteed monthly episode, is it ?

No, with men its guaranteed every day of every month of every year... :p (Unless they're gay.)

AlbionMP
Tuesday, September 4th, 2007, 02:12 PM
No, with men its guaranteed every day of every month of every year... :p

:D

... is that a general guarantee, or just with the with men you meet ?

theTasmanian
Tuesday, September 4th, 2007, 02:53 PM
I agree, women should be allowed to fight, but only if they can meet the same standards as men, emotionally and physically.

i agree totally with that.

the Australian army will not let women in the front lines but as all soldiers must fight " rifle man first any other job second" so the women are treated the same....any time of the month

as Bridie has pointed out the "boys club" is very much a part of Australian culture....look up the BBQ rules on you tube might give you some idea:cool:

United Faith
Friday, September 21st, 2007, 02:18 AM
I don't think they should be in the General Infantry. I think either medics, support, or some assassination unit.

EQ Fighter
Wednesday, September 26th, 2007, 01:45 AM
Well Personally I don’t really care if they are in the armed Forces, as long as they are not on MY side, Manly because I like to be on the Winning Side.

But United Faith, is right they make great spies and the sort, because Lying is what women do best. The truth on the other hand that would be a challenge.

So I guess if you are going to have them, then any place where you want someone who has to be ought right deceptive and believe their own deceptions, then that is where you want a woman.

One place I don’t want her is in any location were I, or other men have to depend on her.
IE she doesn’t belong in a platoon of men.

Freydis
Friday, September 28th, 2007, 02:59 AM
I think it is stupid to say lying is what women do best.

I always tell the truth ^^

a.squiggles
Friday, September 28th, 2007, 04:24 AM
Well Personally I don’t really care if they are in the armed Forces, as long as they are not on MY side, Manly because I like to be on the Winning Side.

with an attitude like yours, while some women might be unfortunate enough to have to fight by your side, i'm sure none will ever be on your side...


But United Faith, is right they make great spies and the sort, because Lying is what women do best. The truth on the other hand that would be a challenge.

"the truth" is a challenge for everyone who has the slightest ability for reflection...only those who don't know the meaning of the word claim to know what it is


So I guess if you are going to have them, well don't do us any favours :rolleyes:...

then any place where you want someone who has to be ought right deceptive and believe their own deceptions, then that is where you want a woman.

no good liar ever believes their own lies, just makes sure others believe that they do...
and look - women got you there :D...thinking we actually believe the lies we tell...gosh, you definitely belong in a "platoon of men"...doing something physical, y'know, use what god gave you...because it's really looking like he didn't give you much else....

it always amazes me how so many women (of all ages) can bitch so much about men (pardon the expression). "men are pigs", "men are dogs", "we hate men" blah blah blah...i always find myself at a loss in such "conversations", or worse yet, the only one defending the opposite sex...then i come across *some people* and all of a sudden things start making sense...it's ironic that so far, the most convincing arguments for why "men are bad" came from men...i'm just glad i know enough good guys to make it possible for me to maintain my positive outlook :D

Evolved
Friday, September 28th, 2007, 11:34 AM
There are a small percentage of women who are physically as strong as men. Psychologically and mentally, I don't think there is an issue, either. The problem seems to arise when it comes to catering to the special needs of women: having extra bathing, sleeping, locker and bathroom facilities, the sexual harassment issues, what would happen if during the middle of a war the female combat troops couldn't get certain supplies unique to their bodily issues, etc. As for women in combat with men, the reason why it isn't done in most of the world is that male soldiers are thinking of their girlfriends, wives and mothers back home, they are tired, stressed out- they don't need to be confronted with young women dead or with limbs blown off on the battlefield at that point. Women aren't supposed to be in combat because it is bad for morale. I don't see anything wrong with keeping certain professions as male-dominated or female-dominated. There should be certain realms which are only open to a specific gender.

United Faith
Saturday, September 29th, 2007, 10:49 PM
There are a small percentage of women who are physically as strong as men. Psychologically and mentally, I don't think there is an issue, either. The problem seems to arise when it comes to catering to the special needs of women: having extra bathing, sleeping, locker and bathroom facilities, the sexual harassment issues, what would happen if during the middle of a war the female combat troops couldn't get certain supplies unique to their bodily issues, etc. As for women in combat with men, the reason why it isn't done in most of the world is that male soldiers are thinking of their girlfriends, wives and mothers back home, they are tired, stressed out- they don't need to be confronted with young women dead or with limbs blown off on the battlefield at that point. Women aren't supposed to be in combat because it is bad for morale. I don't see anything wrong with keeping certain professions as male-dominated or female-dominated. There should be certain realms which are only open to a specific gender.

I don't see why many people would want to marry a woman who's a man in every way though.

Gruppe Canaris
Sunday, October 7th, 2007, 03:04 AM
i talked with some german officers about women in military service an they told me, that one woman with ten man in a group is not a problem. if there are 2 or more, it is. because the women don't understand the word "kameradschaft", they start to fight each other for getting the best men of the unit and thats destroying morality. women in combat units should be handled like they do in Thailand: strictly separated from the men, fighting in pure female units.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, October 7th, 2007, 08:30 AM
Everything from warefare to teamsports, is an outgrowth of a male oriented hunting band in terms of human evolution. Women had other concerns/interests. One in 1000 women is suited for this, this is just biology. "Kamaradschaft" is not the same as a sewing circle.

Huzar
Sunday, October 7th, 2007, 09:24 AM
...they start to fight each other for getting the best men of the unit..........


Eh, the best attitude to stay in the military...:D

Cuchulain
Tuesday, October 9th, 2007, 04:42 PM
I will not deny that there is a small minority of women who may be quite suitable* for warfare, however I would not want any woman fighting alongside me for the reason that they will affect my emotions more so than men will. I would want to be able to think as clearly and logically as possibly when in combat, to be flat out cold and calculating. This would be a hard enough state of mind to maintain during the stress of combat alone; let alone adding women into the picture, because I would behave and think differently around women. I would be preoccupied with protecting them rather than accomplishing mission objectives, and also i think it would affect me less mentally to see a man take a casualty than a woman.

* One case of woman being particularly suitable for warfare is the Mongols, who fought mostly of horseback with bows and arrows. The women's smaller size made their horses more agile, and they only needed enough strength to draw the bowstring.

Kadu
Tuesday, October 9th, 2007, 11:15 PM
I will not deny that there is a small minority of women who may be quite suitable* for warfare, however I would not want any woman fighting alongside me for the reason that they will affect my emotions more so than men will. I would want to be able to think as clearly and logically as possibly when in combat, to be flat out cold and calculating. This would be a hard enough state of mind to maintain during the stress of combat alone; let alone adding women into the picture, because I would behave and think differently around women. I would be preoccupied with protecting them rather than accomplishing mission objectives, and also i think it would affect me less mentally to see a man take a casualty than a woman.

When you mention that are you refering to your "John Thomas"? I suggest for that some occasional whipping and cold showers after this you're ready to fight side-a-side with any Woman.

Cuchulain
Wednesday, October 10th, 2007, 06:12 PM
That's not what I was referring to. My John Thomas is a battle hardened veteran, and has on occasion (after a night of Jagermeister) encountered much scarier enemies than he would on the battle field. Any sort of beating, whipping or flogging is at this point an exercise in futility.

Crom
Sunday, October 14th, 2007, 01:53 AM
Take away the nails, lipstick & mouths and the women are harmless.

The Lawspeaker
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007, 01:07 PM
Women in the Armed Forces ? Rather not. Perhaps only in the non-combat branches or in the reserves.I do think that women should undergo militairy training though, along with the men. Let's say the women for 6 months plus 12 months of a-on militairy service and 18 months militairy service for men.

The women could be trained to fire weapons in self defense, could be trained as medics, administrators, llaisson officers and such and in war time they will be used FAR behind the lines. Because.. well what if a woman get's captured? She will be violated mercilessly. Assuming that we will not fight European troops but that people like Russians are still a posiblity: we all know what they were like to women.

If a war would seem to break out I will make sure that my girl is on a ferry to Britain before the enemy comes here.

Imperator X
Sunday, October 21st, 2007, 09:35 PM
Women warriors were known chiefly among the Sarmatians, Mongols and other Central Asian/Turkic groups. They were skilled at the bow, at horseback riding, and they wore trousers, not to mention leather boots. That's just hot.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, 09:20 PM
I am surprised that this topic has the milage it does.
And it does seem we have not considered the types of War.
IE Nation State vs Nation State
Nation State vs Terrorism/Freedom Fighter


But in any case I think we should point out the OBVIOUS that being that for western Countries Women are not in the military for strategic or tactical reasons but for political reasons. IE validation of Feminism, and feminist principals, which as we have seen in many other areas as well they are not concerned with Logic or tactical reality.

The Reality is especially in the US armed forces women have been a Absolute Failure.
I will grant you that the reason for the failure may be because most of the women in the military may be causing failure because they are Feminist Nut Jobs, with a political agenda that overrides their duty to the military. An example of irresponsible power happy fem-scum would be Abu Ghraib prison.

So in the Nation State scenario, they seem to not be suited for Military roles, other than mascots for non functional and ridiculous western ideologies such as feminism and equal rights for women.

On the other hand the Moslems have employed women as Suicide bombers very successfully. Almost every time a woman is used as a suicide bomber she successfully detonates and kills the intended targets, mostly because of the western ideological hangup that place women on moral pedestals.

So in conclusion Women make good Terrorist and Lousy Soldiers.

Gefjon
Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, 09:22 PM
Personally, i think it depends on the women - if the woman can meet the same physical and mental standards the males are held to - then it's alright.
Yep, that's what I'd say. If a woman can do it there's no reason to deny her this opportunity.

Brynhild
Saturday, November 3rd, 2007, 09:32 PM
Take away the nails, lipstick & mouths and the women are harmless.

You wouldn't think that women were so harmless when they go on a psychotic bender - Otherwise known as PMS! :D

EQ Fighter
Friday, November 16th, 2007, 03:05 AM
Fallen Angel

Yep, that's what I'd say. If a woman can do it there's no reason to deny her this opportunity.

LOL!
Absolutely!
By 2020 the US/Western Armed Forces will out numbered two to one and outclassed technologically by the Chinese and other non western countries.

It should be fun to watch a female turkey shoot, they have had it coming to them for a long time after all.
Lets face it the West is on the way out, and a large part of that can be attributed to the Feminist white female.

Smart White western men are looking around and seeing the fact that most western women are simply not worth getting married to moving on to Asian women as mates. After all many white women decided that screwing out of race was ok a few decades ago.

And White western women are still looking to the geto for their entertainment, because they simply cant stand the fact that white western men are not going to bow to her Feminist BS.

LOL!
Here is a perfect Example!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNzjx8fFys

Why worry about a Military if you cant even build a stable Family Unit.

Gefjon
Friday, November 16th, 2007, 05:40 PM
;)
Fallen Angel


LOL!
Absolutely!
By 2020 the US/Western Armed Forces will out numbered two to one and outclassed technologically by the Chinese and other non western countries.

It should be fun to watch a female turkey shoot, they have had it coming to them for a long time after all.
Lets face it the West is on the way out, and a large part of that can be attributed to the Feminist white female.

Smart White western men are looking around and seeing the fact that most western women are simply not worth getting married to moving on to Asian women as mates. After all many white women decided that screwing out of race was ok a few decades ago.

And White western women are still looking to the geto for their entertainment, because they simply cant stand the fact that white western men are not going to bow to her Feminist BS.

LOL!
Here is a perfect Example!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVNzjx8fFys

Why worry about a Military if you cant even build a stable Family Unit.
Whoa, are ya afraid we women might prove competent enough and harm your male ego? :p Take a history book and see women were part of armies and it didn't have to do with feminist BS. ;)

How thoughtful of you to blame women for the fetish some white males are having for Asian females. Take some damn responsibility and admit that it's their private parts doing the thinking. ;) Word of advice, if ya wanna score with women, we women don't like male bitching. We already have enough of ourselves doing it, so we don't need you to do it too. Pathetic, I say. :D

CharlesDexterWard
Friday, November 16th, 2007, 06:04 PM
;)
Whoa, are ya afraid we women might prove competent enough and harm your male ego? :p Take a history book and see women were part of armies and it didn't have to do with feminist BS. ;)Sure, women can serve well. I even oppose the policy of compulsory training for men, while women are free to choose it as a career option if they feel like it.

EQ Fighter
Thursday, November 22nd, 2007, 04:31 PM
Fallen Angel

Whoa, are ya afraid we women might prove competent enough and harm your male ego?

Oh yeah! I'm scared now. I really wish you women would get some new material.

Fallen Angel

Take a history book and see women were part of armies and it didn't have to do with feminist BS.

They are also part of society, which explains why most of Western society is so screwed up.
But if you want to pick historical examples, Ancient Sparta would be a good one.
No Women There. LOL!

Fallen Angel

Word of advice, if ya wanna score with women, we women don't like male bitching.

Humm! I am a Misogynist, I'm not trying to score.
But thanks for the advice anyway, Ill pass it on to some Idiot, who can use it.

BrynhildsFate
Thursday, April 17th, 2008, 12:44 PM
Once i saw this i knew i had to post. I am all for women in combat arms. IF THE MEET THE PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS. In the US army there is 2 scales 1 for male 1 for female. Females have about 3 extra minutes to run there 2 mile(due to pelvic bone differences,fat/muscle ratio on lower body is what we are told) and they have to do about 20 push ups less(because of obvious reasons on their chest). The sit up standard is the same.If a female cannot make male standards she should not be allowed in combat. I'm all for if the female cannot make the male standard they should not be allowed in but i guess they wouldn't have to many females.

As for the whole menstrual cycle argument i think is hilarious. There are 2 things i would like to point out.
1.Females loses there periods when there bodyfat drops below a certain point (which is 22% i belive) and almost every truly active female in the army i know has this
2.Females lose there periods under high stress (i.e. combat situations)

Jäger
Thursday, April 17th, 2008, 02:22 PM
The main argument against females in any fighting unit (including political, non-violent ones) is the destruction of emotional homogeneity.
They can cut the bond of brotherhood of man in no time, if we let them of course, but this means letting them.

Hanna
Thursday, April 17th, 2008, 02:45 PM
The main argument against females in any fighting unit (including political, non-violent ones) is the destruction of emotional homogeneity.
They can cut the bond of brotherhood of man in no time, if we let them of course, but this means letting them.

Yep we're soooooo dangerous and you people just love it.

BrynhildsFate
Thursday, April 17th, 2008, 02:52 PM
When I fireman carry a 220 pound male(I'm 125) in a combat exsersize I show I am capable of pulling my own weight plus some. When we go out drinking and I go home to the barracks alone I show I'm not in it to get laid. When were stuck in a bunker for a week without showering telling yet another raunchy joke I belong. Yet I can put my hair down wear a skirt and vist my boyfriends parents and be the picture of a lady. The art of the military female is balance. If I end up in combat with my unit its as a soldier not a "female" soldier .

Guntwachar
Thursday, April 17th, 2008, 03:37 PM
Yes i think women should also fight in the army, here we have since 2/3 years ago that women dont get different training then men anymore.
Women in the army said they didnt get as much respect from others as the males got, so the army changed it and now they have to do exactly the same training some women left because of it but i think its good.

Women mostly want the same treatment so i dont think we should make it more easy for them to do the training, after all the enemy doesnt treat them different they are just one of the soldiers;)

Jäger
Thursday, April 17th, 2008, 03:42 PM
Yep we're soooooo dangerous and you people just love it.
True :)


When I ...
I was talking about the men who have to be with the woman, like I had to during my time in the military, and not about the women.
The men generally want women around, but since those women try to act like men anyway, they mostly get annoyed of them very quickly, if they don't it means that they will compete for the women, which is highly destructive for moral and comradeship.
Women have other purposes then to die on the battlefield, the death of men is not as important, since it's the women who can carry life.

Deary
Thursday, April 17th, 2008, 07:12 PM
As for the whole menstrual cycle argument i think is hilarious. There are 2 things i would like to point out.
1.Females loses there periods when there bodyfat drops below a certain point (which is 22% i belive) and almost every truly active female in the army i know has this
2.Females lose there periods under high stress (i.e. combat situations)

Amenorrhea is not healthy even in atheletes. In atheletes, it is usually a sign that one is exercising too much. One needs to be sure they are eating enough calories while exercising strenously to maintain a healthy body fat level, energy level, and regular cycle. Amenorrhea can easily lead to bone loss. Female atheletes are more at risk for developing osteoporosis than men and typically have bone density levels lower than normal because most of them do not have regular cycles or do not menstruate at all. Women who lose their periods are often recommended by their doctor prescribed contraceptives or hormones combined with calcium supplements. It is something which you and others should be taking very seriously.

Psychonaut
Thursday, April 17th, 2008, 10:59 PM
I am a soldier. I'm really glad that I'm in a non-deployable Military Intelligence unit, because there's no fucking way I'd want to go into combat with any of the females in my unit. Maybe it's a branch thing and MI girls are weak, but even the female PT studs aren't capable of doing a decent fireman's carry when we're wearing a PT uniform, much less in full body armor. But, as it stands, if I were to get shot, I don't think a single female in my unit could save me.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Friday, April 18th, 2008, 01:11 AM
I would be unfair to deny women the opportunity of combat where it is possible, but I do wonder if we have been too ideological in focusing on ideas of equality.

Perhaps women should be allowed to work separately from men and men from women when they choose. I see no point in imposing mixed-gender environments on people, unless you wish to break them down to control them more easily. The same idea applies with multiculturalism as a means of weakening strong homogeneous groupings. Why do that to one's military?

Perhaps gender distinctions are not so important in combat. There seem to be a lot of opinions.

I feel that women and men should have access to more spaces which exclude the opposite gender, as well as more opportunities to mix without pressure.

We have lost some of this today. Gender exclusivity was taken to the extreme in the past, but I think that we have swung to far the other way now.

I am not entirely comfortable with potential child-bearers going into combat, but as a last resort, I think that it should be allowed.

Currently, our political and economic systems run on last resorts, moving from crisis to crisis, instead of preventing them in the first place. The current system makes war a necessity, rather than a option. The misery of high-finance!

We should start with total economic and agricultural self-sufficiency before we send men into combat to patch up our economies, let alone women.

Having women in combat roles certainly works for Israel however, but they are a military-first country, and that is not ideal.

Women have proved that they are capable, but it is ideal?

BrynhildsFate
Friday, April 18th, 2008, 02:58 AM
Amenorrhea is not healthy even in atheletes. In atheletes, it is usually a sign that one is exercising too much. One needs to be sure they are eating enough calories while exercising strenously to maintain a healthy body fat level, energy level, and regular cycle. Amenorrhea can easily lead to bone loss. Female atheletes are more at risk for developing osteoporosis than men and typically have bone density levels lower than normal because most of them do not have regular cycles or do not menstruate at all. Women who lose their periods are often recommended by their doctor prescribed contraceptives or hormones combined with calcium supplements. It is something which you and others should be taking very seriously.
I regularly take calcium supplements along with a daily "womens" vitamin. I refuse the hormones because well its simply easier right now to not deal with it. I have stress fractures in both my legs but allot of males have them to so its not really just a female problem.

Deary
Saturday, April 19th, 2008, 09:57 PM
I regularly take calcium supplements along with a daily "womens" vitamin. I refuse the hormones because well its simply easier right now to not deal with it. I have stress fractures in both my legs but allot of males have them to so its not really just a female problem.

Amenorhea affects one's ability to absorb calcium. Estrogen helps the body to take it in and and sustain bone mass. Supplements are not a solution. In an amenorrheic, most of the calcium injested through pills, food or drink will be excreted from the body upon urination. That is why the combination of hormones and calcium is recommended by doctors because calcium alone is not enough to treat the effects of amenorhea. Periods are a necessary thing for a woman's body like it or not. Look up Female Athelete Triad. It's nothing that should be brushed off so easily.

SwordOfTheVistula
Sunday, April 20th, 2008, 05:54 AM
Recent article on the subject:

http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_04_07/article.html

Women at War

The strain of Iraq forced the shock integration of women into the military. The results aren’t all pretty.

by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

A high point of Kayla Williams’s service as a noncommissioned Army officer in Iraq was receiving a commendation for her support on missions in Baghdad. Low points included getting molested by one of her own men and being asked to mock a naked Iraqi prisoner in an interrogation cage in Mosul.

Riding a line between woman and warrior, “bitch” and “slut,” Williams, 31, was not alone. The Bush administration’s “long war” has forced the military to shock integrate more than 180,000 women into Iraq and Afghanistan over the last six years. The consequences have been both impressive and ugly and do little to put to rest decades of debate over women in combat.

Critics say the rush to put women into combat-related roles for which they weren’t trained has made them more vulnerable, exacerbated male-female tensions in theater, and advanced a controversial policy while most of the country wasn’t looking.

“We have large numbers of women who have been willing to come into the Armed Forces, who are willing to do jobs for which we have a shortage of young men,” says one retired Army colonel, now in the private sector, who declined to be identified because of his ties to the defense community. “I think the women under these circumstances do the best they can.”

Veterans who have spoken to TAC say most female soldiers have exceeded expectations. But the experience of the largest contingent of female soldiers in modern history is not unclouded. The rate of single motherhood among women on active duty is 14 percent, and nursing mothers are being deployed four months after giving birth. Reports of sexual assault are climbing, as are suicides and the number of women—now over 36,000—who have visited VA hospitals since leaving the service. As of February, 102 female soldiers had died in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Army, which represents most women in theater, won’t release figures on how many are evacuated from the field due to noncombat injuries, illness, or pregnancy.

“Whatever they are able to conceal or cover that’s not attractive—whether it’s unplanned pregnancy, rapes, whatever—everyone is prepared to pretend what is happening really isn’t,” says the retired colonel.

The drive to integrate women into every crevice of the military—the “ungendered vision” advocated by Duke law professor Madeleine Morris, a former assistant to Clinton administration Army Secretary Togo West—has created turmoil in Washington since the 1970s. And since then the number of women in the Armed Forces has increased dramatically, from 7,000 in Vietnam (mostly medical personnel) to over 40,000 in the Persian Gulf War to one in seven of our troops in Iraq today.

Thanks to Clinton-era liberals—like former Rep. Pat Schroeder and women-in-combat pioneers like Army Assistant Secretary Sara Lister, who was forced to resign in 1997 after she called the Marines “extremists”—new roles opened to women in the 1990s. Formerly all-male military academies and basic training programs turned co-ed. Today, tens of thousands of women are flying combat aircraft and serving as military police, gunners operating MK19 grenade launchers, interrogators, and prison guards.

Officially, women have not yet ventured into combat, held back by critics who argue that putting them into armored cavalry squadrons or rifle platoons will threaten unit cohesion, weaken standards, and increase injuries, hurting overall force strength. But advocates of full integration insist that women can hold their own on men’s terms. Making them “legitimate” will help transform military culture and bolster unit cohesion.

These arguments are academic, for women are in combat today. While the Bush administration initially appeared less interested in integration than its predecessor, the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, the miscalculation of the subsequent insurgency and civil war, and the desire to wage a global terror war have made it impossible for the all-volunteer force to function without women in combat roles. Reality has taken over.

But if this and future administrations want to continue waging protracted asymmetrical wars with multiple fronts, wars in which everyone—not just combat troops and Marines—has to be on point, the negative consequences of shock integration will have to be acknowledged and addressed.

“In 2004, 2005, and probably in 2006, commanders were jockeying for resources,” says retired Col. Janice Karpinski. “There was this increase of women in a variety of positions they’ve never been in. They did very well. They were wounded, they had their limbs blown off, shot into the sky. They needed to be there, if [only] for their numbers. If we removed every female, you would have to have had a backwards draft.”

Young men home from war are pragmatic about the women who served alongside them. They don’t hesitate to tell of their bravery—the female Chinook pilot, for example, who flew night missions under fire to rescue teams in the mountains of Afghanistan—but they are blunt about the stories that rarely make headlines: sexual mischief, the pretty specialist who left one day and never came back, the rumors of rape never confirmed.

Jason Hartley, who served as an infantry sergeant in Iraq from 2004 to 2005, says the way the military dealt with the new atmosphere created by integration was much like the execution of the war policy overall: confused, inconsistent, reactionary. “Everything gets f---ed up and broken. Then you step back and study it,” says Hartley, who published Just Another Soldier: A Year on the Ground in Iraq when he returned from the war.

Studying the consequences of shock integration can be slippery. Grim anecdotes are abundant—but so too are tales of transcendence. There is a lack of hard data, as it is impossible to measure the number of illicit romances, the impact on a team when an affair turns sour, the lack of response when a woman asks for help, the women who are afraid to ask, the alcohol-fueled encounters, the sexual harassment, the male resentment toward female commanding officers.

“We’ve had six years to study this, but as far as I know, nobody is,” says Kingsley Browne, a law professor at Wayne State University. Browne has written a book, Co-Ed Combat: New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars, which pieces together interviews with soldiers and what little information has slipped into the public domain. “The military has consistently glossed over problems and denied them, denied access to information that could reveal problems,” he says. “To a large extent it is in nobody’s larger interest to reveal that information.”

Media coverage has been spotty and safe, though most women in the military prefer to be left alone with their M-16s and cigarettes rather than become subjects of iconic—or worse, pitying—stories about their sex. Television, where most people get their 30 seconds of war news a day, has avoided all but the most superficial discussions about women in combat and has reduced the narrative to three stories: those of Jessica Lynch, Lynndie England, and Janice Karpinksi, whose sunken eyes betray a 30-year career that ended in disgrace. She characterizes her experience as losing ten rounds with the glass ceiling.

Lynch became, for a shining moment, the face of Operation Iraqi Freedom. She was also the military’s first and last awkward attempt to spin the women-in-combat story for public consumption. A petite blond teenager from a military family, Lynch was severely injured when her supply truck was ambushed by Iraqi fighters on March 23, 2003. Her best friend, Lori Piestewa, a single mother who left two toddlers behind, died from her injuries that day, the first woman killed in the war.

Yet the administration preferred a live hero to a dead one, and Piestewa became a sidebar while Lynch and her West Virginia family were used as patriotic props. Soon after her rescue by U.S. Special Forces, almost every angle of Lynch’s daring resistance and rescue was disputed, even by Lynch herself, who testified before Congress last year that the government had engaged in mythmaking at her expense.

By the time photos surfaced showing Lynch cavorting topless with her fellow soldiers on base, she had been all used up.

The next time a female soldier penetrated the American consciousness she was holding a leash attached to an Iraqi detainee. Elfin and eerily detached, Lynndie England, 21, was pregnant by fellow reservist Charles Graner, the alleged mastermind of their military police company’s notorious sex parties and the grotesque menagerie of photos that led to scandal in 2004. England and several other soldiers were shown abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, posing them naked in pyramids, giving that infamous “thumbs up” alongside their corpses.

Graner, who allegedly manipulated England into staging all sorts of sex photos before and during their deployment, is still in jail. England is on parole, facing a future-crushing dishonorable discharge. She remains a curious example of women who attempted to fit in and went dangerously astray: in a 2006 interview with Marie Claire, the lifelong animal lover recalled how she and her fellow soldiers found humor in toying with animal carcasses in the desert.

Karpinksi, who was in charge of Abu Ghraib along with 14 other detention centers, was a brigadier general, the highest-ranking woman in Iraq when the scandal broke. “Not one of my units were trained to perform prison operations in a combat zone,” she says, “None of them.” She recalled one male commander’s attitude: “Women made their own bed, let them lie in it.”

Maintaining that the mistreatment of prisoners was sanctioned from the top, Karpinski says she was made a scapegoat, partly because she is a woman. She was demoted a year later. “They made me a pox on our history,” says Karpinski, now an Army antagonist.

She notes that partisans in the old integration debate have been oddly quiet. “Where is the National Organization for Women? Where is Hillary Clinton? Where is Nancy Pelosi?” she asks, adding that the women who encouraged other women to “be all that you can be” are now abandoning them to the wolves. “When we have women who come back bruised mentally and physically and have nowhere to go, it’s too late to say, ‘We should have.’ It needs to be done now. Not ten years from now.”

Women have different ways of dealing with the pressures of the pack and of battle stress, and the massive forward operating bases in Iraq have become Petri dishes teeming with strange sexual dynamics and juvenile diversions.

“You got these women in huge, walled garrisons that are getting mortared all the time,” says former Sgt. Rick Scavetta, 34, who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan before leaving the military in 2006, “not to mention you have large numbers of men, who aren’t bad guys, not immoral or indecent, but you put men who’ve been in combat for a year in this small container and shake it up with IED blasts and mortar blasts and it makes for a unique environment.”

Another former Army sergeant who served in Afghanistan reports a similar scene. “You have a bunch of males on the base and a small female population. Then you get downtime. Then things start to happen. It’s just like high school. Then you have females who ruin the reputation of the other females. It can be very debilitating.”

Hartley describes a situation in which his quick reaction force was called up and found to be three men short. It was surmised that the missing soldiers were “hanging out with a chick who had a room right next to the staging area.” “We left,” he continued, “sans three dudes, including our 50-cal. gunner. It was bad.”

In the 2005 scandal at Camp Bucca, sergeants were accused of lending their rooms for sex parties and arranging mud-wrestling contests involving topless female prison guards.

Thanks in part to the behavior of a minority, says Bethany Kibler, 27, a noncommissioned officer in the Army reserves who spent a year in Iraq, women must fight doubly hard against shopworn stereotypes like the idea that they wield their sexuality to win special treatment or get pregnant to avoid service. This leads to “a sort of female hate.” To overcome this, most women in the military act tough and tend to be judgmental of each other, she says. Many women feel compelled to keep up with the men, to act like their sisters. But in such permissive, stressful circumstances, that armor is easily breached.

Kayla Williams, who wrote proudly about her Iraq experience in Love My Rifle More than You: Young and Female in the U.S. Army, says that between the six- and eight-month mark of her 2003 deployment, “there was a general breakdown in military bearing and professionalism” among her team in the field. Fellow soldiers started flipping out, others got their kicks from telling rape jokes. Williams didn’t care much when she was called a “bitch” in a heated moment, but she lost it when a fellow soldier tried to force her hand onto his penis in the dark. She reported the incident, and he was transferred. But the damage was lasting.

“I felt somehow betrayed,” she admits and, conversely, “like I had somehow led … to this situation.” She worried that because she had tried to be a pal, she may have sent the wrong signals. She eventually succumbed to being “the bitch” rather than “the slut,” the dichotomy women say is the male code. “It was difficult and lonely,” Williams says.

Sexual assault reports across the Armed Forces increased from 1,700 in 2004 to 2,947 in 2006, then dipped to 2,688 in 2007, according to the Sexual Assault Prevention and Reporting Office at the Pentagon. In the Central Command region, which includes Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait, there were 206 reports in 2006 and 174 in 2007.

Anita Sanchez of the Miles Foundation, a nonprofit that has an arrangement with the Pentagon to provide immediate care to rape and assault victims in theater and also serves veterans stateside, says the government’s official data seems “a bit low” in her experience.

“[The incidents] are going up significantly,” she says, and not all are being reported because women still avoid coming forward. They expect the male leadership to close ranks around the accused, or they fear getting transferred or, worse, branded. She charges that “there are ongoing reservations about the DoD’s ability to collect, maintain, and analyze the data.”

One former sergeant, who served in Iraq in a public-affairs unit before leaving the military, says it is in the Army’s best interest to “cover up” the ugliness. “They just don’t want to admit it’s a hostile environment against women,” he says. Army officials flatly deny such charges.

Barbie and Matt Heavrin aren’t sure. They were told their 21-year-old daughter was killed crossing the street on base in Iraq on April 4, 2006. They found out later, as the Washington Post recently reported , that their daughter, Pfc. Hannah Gunterman McKinney, a young mother herself, was killed when she fell out of a Humvee driven by Sgt. Damon Shell, who accidentally ran her over and left her mangled body in the road. The two had been drinking and having sex earlier that evening.

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness doesn’t buy the idea that poor leadership and training and inconsistent boundaries are to blame for today’s problems. She insists the troubles stem from throwing men and women so close together in the first place. She would start rehabilitating the situation by insisting that the Army stop illegally collocating women in support brigades with all-male combat units in the field—a practice Army officials deny is even happening.

“We have to figure out what is the best way, the most constructive way, to have a co-ed military,” says Donnelly. “To the greatest extent possible you have to acknowledge that sexuality does matter.”

“Women have done very well,” she adds, “But it’s very disturbing that the signs of trouble and problems have not been given objective review. Our Congress has turned its back. The Pentagon has made excuses.”

Men and women home from the war acknowledge that there are many questions from the old co-ed combat debate still unresolved, despite years of experimentation.

Williams, who has traded her rifle for a graduate program at American University, warns against knee-jerk reactions either way. If Congress were to declare the entire combat zone off-limits to women, for example, the Army in Iraq would suddenly become “15 percent undeployable,” she says.

Shock integration happened when the administration decided to wage a war in Iraq on top of an increasingly complex operation in Afghanistan. And now women in unprecedented combat roles have become essential to sustaining force strength overseas. This situation, and all its unacceptable consequences, will only get worse as long as the Bush administration refuses to initiate troop reductions and limit deployments. The candidates contending to replace Bush, meanwhile, offer little prospect of saner policies: the Democratic candidates have been silent on the realities of co-ed combat, while the Republican nominee insists that we may be in Iraq for another century.

America never consciously chose to send women into combat, but they are there now and in some cases are paying a tragic price.
_________________________________

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter.

Boernician
Friday, April 25th, 2008, 04:46 AM
I would be unfair to deny women the opportunity of combat where it is possible, but I do wonder if we have been too ideological in focusing on ideas of equality.

Perhaps women should be allowed to work separately from men and men from women when they choose. I see no point in imposing mixed-gender environments on people, unless you wish to break them down to control them more easily. The same idea applies with multiculturalism as a means of weakening strong homogeneous groupings. Why do that to one's military?

Perhaps gender distinctions are not so important in combat. There seem to be a lot of opinions.

I feel that women and men should have access to more spaces which exclude the opposite gender, as well as more opportunities to mix without pressure.

We have lost some of this today. Gender exclusivity was taken to the extreme in the past, but I think that we have swung to far the other way now.

I am not entirely comfortable with potential child-bearers going into combat, but as a last resort, I think that it should be allowed.

Currently, our political and economic systems run on last resorts, moving from crisis to crisis, instead of preventing them in the first place. The current system makes war a necessity, rather than a option. The misery of high-finance!

We should start with total economic and agricultural self-sufficiency before we send men into combat to patch up our economies, let alone women.

Having women in combat roles certainly works for Israel however, but they are a military-first country, and that is not ideal.

Women have proved that they are capable, but it is ideal?

They had women snipers in Vietnam(NVR) they were very good. They had the patinece and the skill and the cold heartedness I guess as well.Snipers are spooky sort ,watch someone eat lunch then shoot him after dessert. The VC also had an expert women interrogater a true torture expert. They sent Carlos Hathcock after her. Carlos was a legend In the Corps,the ultimate sniper, Of course he took her out.The Russians had many women snipers.Killing is bad buiness if you get close enough to see someones face it it will haunt you.

Bärin
Thursday, May 22nd, 2008, 01:08 PM
They should be allowed if they pass the tests. Just like men, actually. It's stupid to discriminate based on gender. Abilities should be tested individually because there are strong women and weak men. Our women are part of our nation and we shouldn't discriminate against them as if they were an undesirable element. I'm better at some sports than some of the men I know and I do manual labour which some men shy away from. So I can just laugh if someone says any man is better than a woman at, example, running. Because that's what gender discrimination is, a faulty generalisation. Anyway don't worry I'm not planning to be involved in the Bundeswehr because I think it's a treasonous army which serves foreign, not German interests.

Patrioten
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 02:39 PM
What is your view on women in the military, and particularly women in combat roles? In Sweden, the promised land of equality, women soldiers are naturally seen as a sign of progress. Nothing makes a liberal more happy than to see a woman in uniform, sticking it up to the patriarchal society. To them, it is paramount that everything must be changed for the sake of change. When butchy women wear uniforms and feminine men wear skirts and a nursing dress while strutting around like some teenage girl, that's when they'll be happy. I think it is necessary to understand this perverted obsession of theirs and see the reasons behind their defence of women soldiers, women police offciers, women fire fighters and all the rest, when speaking of this issue. It is ideology, and an ideology that many are starting to buy into.

But getting back on topic, women soldiers. This is not an issue of men vs. women, it is an issue of fact vs. imagination, reality vs. illusion. Wherever ideology trumps reality, I will stand my ground and fight back. Men have performed the role of the soldier, the warrior, the hunter and the fighter since the dawn of man. Women have not. To think that our mentalities do not differ as a result of this, and that women are just as apt for the role of soldiery, is preposterous. The military, our nations' defence, are not the paraolympics to use an old comparison of mine. Our military is not a testing ground for equality or equal opportunity, it is a training ground for excellence where citizens are trained to become killing machines in the service of the state. It's not the cub scouts and it's not a charity organization (the two roles that the Swedish military seem to have adopted in recent years on international missions, a military where women soldiers are said to be needed).

Supporters of women soldiers may point to Joan of Arc and a handful of other historical figures, or even the mythical amazon women, but they soon run out of examples. Men on the other hand have fought in every war, in every conflict since the dawn of time, and not just one or 10 men, but millions and millions of men. Not all men have performed brilliantly or heroically in combat, but overall, they have passed the test many times over. Women have never been tested in the same way, yet ideological activists want us to fill up our ranks with women soldiers and trust them when they claim that women can perform the role of the soldier just as well as any man can. It's not very credible.

Men are more aggressive, more prone to violence and less empathic than women. They are genetically and socially more predispositioned to accepting violence as a legitimate problem solving meassure. They are better at rationalizing and thus also coping with violence directed at an enemy. Boys wrestle, engage in fights that establish a hierarchy of power and learn to take and follow commands, they play "war" and other games which center around violence and fighting etc. None of this is shared by our female counterparts. Women are a lovely breed, for the very reason that they are different from us men. Why pretend as though they are something they are not?

A predictable consequence of women soldiers can be found in the increased risk for PTSD, post traumatic stress disorder, among American female soldiers, and the fact that they suffer from more severe forms of it compared to their male counterparts (google and thou shalt find). They simply aren't wired to deal with the stress and pressures of combat to the same extent that men are (and even men are far from perfect in this department, but they are alot better at it). And what should also be noted is the fact that women soldiers do not serve on the same terms as male soldiers in the US army yet, they are found in support roles yet they are even more likely than male soldiers in combat infantry units to suffer from PTSD. Try integrating women soldiers in real combat units and see what happens, does anyone doubt that they will show an even greater susceptibility to mental disorders than is the case today if you were to do so?

When you ignore history, human experience and common sense in order to force an ideology upon society, the results are seldom pretty. To allow women to serve despite eevrything that speaks against it, is foolish.

Let's acknowledge our differences, and allow men to be men, and women to be women. It has worked well in the past, and there is no reason as to why it wouldn't work just fine in the future (as opposed to the concept of women soldiers).

Psychonaut
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 03:06 PM
What is your view on women in the military, and particularly women in combat roles?

I work in a joint service facility (Army, Navy and Air Force) in a strategic (non-tactical) environment. As far as my job in the Army goes, performance is based not at all on physical ability and entirely on intelligence and mental acuity. However, outside of a strategic military intelligence facility, none of that really applies. Every single time we go do field training there are a number of things that females are incapable of doing as well as males. Females cannot run as fast, which means that when your squad is attempting to move quickly, the entire group is slowed down and put in more danger. Females cannot carry as heavy of a load as males can; this results in either males carrying more than their fair share or in the females developing stress fractures in their hips (this is a very common problem for female soldiers). Females cannot carry the dead weight of their injured comrades. This is a vital point and cannot be stressed enough. In my three years in the Army, I've only run across two or three females that could consistently pick up the limp body of a male solder outfitted in all of their gear and run with him. If you are too physically weak to do this, then you have no business being a soldier, period. If you cannot save the lives of your injured comrades, then you are not fit to be anywhere near combat. Lastly is hand-to-hand combat; one of my duties is to work as the hand-to-hand combat (we call it combatives) instructor for my platoon. In this time I have met exactly one female soldier who was consistently capable of defeating male soldiers of average size in close combat.

There is a damn good reason that females are not allowed to enter into a combat MOS (Military Occupational Specialty), that's because the Army knows that females simply cannot do the job. However, many of the jobs that were once thought to be non-combat positions are turning into combat positions due to the nature of our current military engagements. I have no problem with women fulfilling traditional military roles that they are capable of doing (medical, supply, cooking, etc.) or working in stateside strategic units like mine that have no chance of deploying. But I would not, under any circumstances, want to put my life in the hands of a female soldier in a combat zone.


Men have performed the role of the soldier, the warrior, the hunter and the fighter since the dawn of man. Women have not...Our military is not a testing ground for equality or equal opportunity, it is a training ground for excellence where citizens are trained to become killing machines in the service of the state.

Well said!

BeornWulfWer
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 03:49 PM
Men have performed the role of the soldier, the warrior, the hunter and the fighter since the dawn of man. Women have not.

Before the advent of Christianity, women were present in armies and roving war band's and held very good accounts of themselves.

Indeed, you hear often by ancient scholars of armies containing ferocious women more scary than their husbands.

The main hunting responsibility would not have fallen to the women, but to, instead, stay at home and provide the hearth with a constant fire, so to speak.


Men are more aggressive, more prone to violence and less empathic than women. They are genetically and socially more predispositioned to accepting violence as a legitimate problem solving meassure. They are better at rationalizing and thus also coping with violence directed at an enemy. Boys wrestle, engage in fights that establish a hierarchy of power and learn to take and follow commands, they play "war" and other games which center around violence and fighting etc. None of this is shared by our female counterparts.

And Women aren't?

You need to start drinking in England a lot more and you will see that women are just as evil and violent as men.

It falls back to social conditioning again. The girls are given skipping ropes and hair bands and told to go make the way of kindness and love.

What are we to expect from the ranks of women who know nothing of such ways? They have been brought up to be unconsciously subservient to man's masculinity.


A predictable consequence of women soldiers can be found in the increased risk for PTSD, post traumatic stress disorder, among American female soldiers, and the fact that they suffer from more severe forms of it compared to their male counterparts (google and thou shalt find).

I shall leave myself wide open to ranting and raving, but anyone who suffers from PTSD whether male or female, are weak and should have no place in the ranks of a killing machine.

Just another psychological imbalance to add to many more which didn't exist many years ago.



In summary, I do agree with your stance on not letting women in today's modern army. The women who are brought up by today's standards are not prepared to confront such pressures.

The army can certainly accept women into the ranks, but in a more secure and less physical role.

Unless they can show themselves to be the equal of a man and do as the rest can do.

QuietWind
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 04:25 PM
I believe that there are some women who are certainly capable of serving in combat roles, but these women are the exception and not the rule. If the military were highly selective in screening only those women which could withstand the rigors of war, then I would have no problem with a woman serving. Unfortunately, screening standards are often lowered to allow in less capable individuals (male and female) in order to fill numbers.

I think that there is more st stake then simply a woman's capability when talking about combat positions. Let's talk about biology. Monthly cycles. Sex. Hormones. Rape.

You can't just stop a mission so that a woman can go change her tampon. What about bathroom use? A man can just unzip and pee anywhere. What is the woman in full battle garb supposed to do? And do you really want a woman with PMS holing a hand grenade? And then there is sex. There are nice examples of female soldiers serving in Iraq who come home pregnant. What are we going to do with pregnant soldiers in the field? Or soldiers who are more focused on sex than their mission. Then there is the problem of emotions for others interfering with the job.

Anyhow, I gotta run. Just wanted to add some extra food for thought.

Deary
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 04:30 PM
I find any society which allows women to be put into positions where they might likely die to be immoral. It's disrespectful towards women to thrust them into the face of danger instead of protecting them from it. Soldiers face some of the harshest conditions imaginable. Women in the military also are more subject to rape. It's simply unreasonable to place women amongst a predominantly male group and then expect everyone to behave. How abhorrible it could be for a woman if she is forced into combat or war and captured by enemies. Whose hands is the suffering and blood on then? Feminists: the so-called people who honor women. I oppose women being in the military as anything more than nurses, secretaries and such, as Psychonaut said. It simply isn't proper for women to fight.

Hauke Haien
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 04:43 PM
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=100108&stc=1&d=1222012233


Protests from female soldiers have led to the Swedish military removing the penis of a heraldic lion depicted on the Nordic Battlegroup's coat of arms.

The armed forces agreed to emasculate the lion after a group of women from the rapid reaction force lodged a complaint to the European Court of Justice, Göteborgs-Posten reports.

But although the army was eventually happy to make the changes in the interests of gender equality, the artist who designed the insignia was less than pleased.

"A heraldic lion is a powerful and stately figure with its genitalia intact and I cannot approve an edited image," Vladimir A Sagerlund from the National Archives told Göteborgs-Posten.

Sagerlund blasted the army for making changes to the coat of arms without his permission.

"The army lacks knowledge about heraldry. Once upon a time coats of arms containing lions without genitalia were given to those who betrayed the Crown," said Sagerlund.
The Local: Army castrates heraldic lion (http://www.thelocal.se/9398/20071213/)
The Local: Heraldists want penis reinstated on military badge (http://www.thelocal.se/10064/20080221/)

EQ Fighter
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 04:55 PM
Patrioten

In Sweden, the promised land of equality, women soldiers are naturally seen as a sign of progress. Nothing makes a liberal more happy than to see a woman in uniform, sticking it up to the patriarchal society. To them, it is paramount that everything must be changed for the sake of change. When butchy women wear uniforms and feminine men wear skirts and a nursing dress while strutting around like some teenage girl, that's when they'll be happy.I would say that this is what is called Liberal, homosexual globalism. Sooner or later the people in the various countries are going to have to wake up and ask the question, “Who is this benefiting” . And “Who is Responsible”

The funny thing I see here in the US, is that it is mostly male job position such as cop or solder, that are traditionally male that these women seem to go after. I never see them going after oil field rig hand, or garbage man, welder, or truck driver.

The reason being is that women like attention, and they go after any position that they will get the most attention. So form the Modern women’s position it is not that she wants a male job but she wants attention.

And being an oil field rig hand is probably ten times more dangerous than being a cop, who for the most part drive around in a car, and sit on their tails most of the day. Oil Field personal are regularly killed by explosions and dangerous chemicals, where as cops are rarely killed in my experience.

Back to who it benefits!
Mostly it benefits globalist, and internationalist, who have perceived that women are easier to control in the mass than men, who might rise up and kill them off. So this way they control the male population and reduce the population as a whole. While retaining their hand on power.

The best tool to control men is women, and the best tool to control women is their ego. So the reality is I personally see many of these so called modern women as foolish pawns doing the bidding of their masters.

But here is the up side, most of the so called “Modern Women” are in the process of elimination of themselves through the fact that they do not produce healthy offspring. The women among us who are intelligent enough not to buy into this nonsense have families and are rasing children.

From the Article


"The army lacks knowledge about heraldry. Once upon a time coats of arms containing lions without genitalia were given to those who betrayed the Crown," said Sagerlund. LOL!
Actually it seems about right that groups of Feminist should wear a symbol pertaining to a traitor, and enemy of the people, because that is exactly what they are. :thumbdown

Æmeric
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 04:59 PM
Having had some experience in this matter I say women have no business in the military unless it is in seperate corps. This was the reality more then 30-years ago with WAVES & WACS. Women soldiers & sailors were in seperate units that provided support. Then they started integrating women into Armed Forces but with restrictions on ratings the could hold. The feminists in the military have been pushing for equal results but without regard to abililty or experience. Physical ability is important in the advancement of male servicement. Regardless of the mental level of the individual's rating he needs to prove himself physically & in the enlisted ranks there is a great deal of physical labor involved daily activities for seaman & privates, grunt work. I don't know how many unreps I saw with the male sailors doing the heavy lifting & the female sailors standing off to the side trying to look busy. Women soldiers & sailors just don't go through the same experiences. They don't earn promotions but are advanced on the basis of maintaining equality. Some advocates seem to think female servicemembers should just do mental tasks & leave the grunt work to the men. And then there is the matter of close living spaces & all the problems that entails. Some feminists like to claim that the majority of female servicemembers are sexual assaulted during their service but if that was true why would any reenlist? But basically if a feamle servicemember claims sexual harassment the accused has to prove his innocence. And they are not suited to actual combat situations, for example Jessica Lynch who was injured when she wreck her convoy truck & was taken prisoner but the Pentagon made a story about her being a war hero.

Women, in spite of the drive for equality, make up only about 1/7 or 1/6 of all members of the US Armed Forces. In the military everyone is suppose to conform - individuality is not an option (at least for men) - but special accomondations have to be made to allow women to succeed & some of those accomondations includes lowering standards for everyone, least the special allowances made for women in the military be even more glaring then they already are.

One more problem with women in the military is miscegenation. The first time I saw White women with Negro men on a widespread basis was in the military. The US Armed Forces have officially pursued a policy of total racial integration for 60-years & that enviroment resulted in common numbers of Negro male - White female couples at least a generation before it started to become noticeable in civilian society.

The US Armed Forces integration policy is maintained by force - it is simply a matter of adminstrative or judicial action against anyone not maintaining it. I knew a Navy Lt. who had just reenlisted who was force to resigned his commission because he blurted out the phrase "I hope he knocks that n*gger out" while watching a boxing match between a White Boxer & a Negro boxer being shown on the ship TV system. An unblemished career over in a heartbeat.

In spite of maintaining these anomologies of racial equality/integration for 60-years & of gender equality for 30+-years they still need to be maintained by leagl force because both are unnatural & are an added burden to maintaining a defence force. It is much more simpler to mode men in to a fighting unit then men & women, and also easier to form the commaradity & trust among men of similar racial background neccessary for a trustworthy fighting unit.

Psychonaut
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 11:56 PM
Before the advent of Christianity, women were present in armies and roving war band's and held very good accounts of themselves. Indeed, you hear often by ancient scholars of armies containing ferocious women more scary than their husbands.


I'd like to see a source on that. The Wikipedia article regarding women in ancient warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_ancient_warfare), seems to indicate that royal females would sometimes lead troop into battle. The only examples that seem to fit your position are the cases of Boudica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica), the Greek women who defended their city alongside the elderly during the Gallic invasion of Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Invasion_of_Greece), and "A group of Gothic women who were captured by Romans while fighting dressed as men are paraded through Rome wearing signs that say 'Amazons.'" (from the original Wikipedia cite)


And Women aren't?

You need to start drinking in England a lot more and you will see that women are just as evil and violent as men.

It falls back to social conditioning again. The girls are given skipping ropes and hair bands and told to go make the way of kindness and love.

What are we to expect from the ranks of women who know nothing of such ways? They have been brought up to be unconsciously subservient to man's masculinity.

No, women most certainly are not as aggressive as men. Testosterone is at least partially responsible for levels of aggression in all animals whose bodies produce it. And which gender produces vastly higher amounts of testosterone? Males. According to the Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpus9802.pdf), women have consistently accounted for only about 10% of the American prison population. Are we to assume that this great of a difference is entirely due to social conditioning and that biology does not have a large part to play? Nay.


What are we going to do with pregnant soldiers in the field?

This is another problem that I've seen with female soldiers. As a linguist, I attended the Defense Language Institute as part of my AIT (Advanced Individual Training). Females would quite often intentionally get impregnated right at the end of completing the language training, but while they were still technically in training status. This allowed them to obtain a 'get out of the Army free' card. Additionally, they were in possession of a DLI diploma and security clearance, which makes it rather easy to get hired with the NSA or CIA. This is entirely unfair to the taxpayers form whom these women are allegedly serving.

And then there is the problem of women who choose to remain in the military while they are pregnant. In this case they are effectively unusable by the Army for about one year. Yet this year still counts towards the fulfillment of their contract. This is also highly unfair. If you choose to make yourself unable to serve by getting pregnant, you should not be drawing a taxpayer salary as a soldier.


One more problem with women in the military is miscegenation. The first time I saw White women with Negro men on a widespread basis was in the military. The US Armed Forces have officially pursued a policy of total racial integration for 60-years & that enviroment resulted in common numbers of Negro male - White female couples at least a generation before it started to become noticeable in civilian society.

This is something that my wife remarks on daily. Neither of us have ever seen as many mixed race couples as we have here on post. Naturally they are almost exclusively black males with white females.

Patrioten
Monday, September 22nd, 2008, 01:09 AM
Before the advent of Christianity, women were present in armies and roving war band's and held very good accounts of themselves.

Indeed, you hear often by ancient scholars of armies containing ferocious women more scary than their husbands.You can point to as many anecdotes of "pre-christian" women warriors as you like, it still wont amount to more than anecdotes. Their history is not the same history as that of men, it's that simple.


And Women aren't?

You need to start drinking in England a lot more and you will see that women are just as evil and violent as men.

It falls back to social conditioning again. The girls are given skipping ropes and hair bands and told to go make the way of kindness and love.Regardless of whether girls have been given skipping ropes for the last 100 years or 2000 years, they still don't have the same experiences that men have had in conflicts, in hunting, in fighting and in killing. If you do not believe that men and women have a different mentality or that our different experiences have shaped our genes, brain and mentality differently, then so be it. Women have since the dawn of time been predispositioned to certain roles through their very biology, they are the ones who give birth to children, they are the ones who primarily care for the children and also the home. Men have because of their biology been focused on hunting and defending the tribe from threats. It is a natural division of roles.

They require different mentalities and different traits to be developed unequally. Hightened empathy is needed in caring for a child, while aggressiveness and not so much empathy is needed in hunting and defence of the tribe and family. Has this not been the case since man's earliest existence? Why is boys wrestling and girls brading each others hair (or skipping rope together, or performing some other activity where empathy is primarily needed) an example of conditioning and not the logical result of evolution, a genetically rooted difference in mentality and an historical division of roles? Why is your marxist explanation that ignores human experience, nature and history, more credible than a biological one?



I shall leave myself wide open to ranting and raving, but anyone who suffers from PTSD whether male or female, are weak and should have no place in the ranks of a killing machine. Just another psychological imbalance to add to many more which didn't exist many years ago.You cannot tell for certain who will suffer from deep mental scars beforehand. Men are less likely to suffer from it however, and thus are less likely to suffer from an impaired ability during war time service, and are thus a much safer bet.

When men face difficulties, it is in our nature to suck it up, be a man and to keep our emotions in check (because we would hate to show weakness infront of others). When my grandfather's brothers came home from the wars they didn't speak about what they had experienced, they kept it to themselves and went on living, started their own families and raised their children. The standard story for men of their generation. They were men of the strong and silent type. One of them was still alive as I was growing up and I remember him leaving me with a stoic impression, something which I would think to be a common impression of ww2 veterans.

This is not the case with women, it's the exact opposite. Women are used to being comforted by other empathical women, they are used to breaking down and crying when they experience hardship. Would this be a factor in a combat situation? Do we really want to find out? There are so many unknowns in combat as it is, in combat, the human psyche is being pushed to the edge, and the last thing we need is another risk factor, another unknown, another potential weakness in our military.

Plus, it is our duty as men to defend our women children and the elderly, not to put them at risk.

BeornWulfWer
Monday, September 22nd, 2008, 02:01 AM
Before the advent of Christianity, women were present in armies and roving war band's and held very good accounts of themselves.

Indeed, you hear often by ancient scholars of armies containing ferocious women more scary than their husbands.



I'd like to see a source on that.


To use your wikipedia example first, we can see:


# 186 BC: Chiomara, a Gaul princess, is captured in a battle between Rome and Gaul. She is raped by a centurion, whom she later ordered killed and beheaded by her companions. She then delivered his head to her husband.

# 138 BC The Roman Sextus Junius Brutus found that in Lusitania the women were "fighting and perishing in company with the men with such bravery that they uttered no cry even in the midst of slaughter". And that the Bracari women were "bearing arms with the men, who fought never turning, never showing their backs, or uttering a cry."

102 BC: A battle between Romans and Celts at Aque Sextiae takes place. Plutarch describes it: "the fight had been no less fierce with the women than with the men themselves... the women charged with swords and axes and fell upon their opponents uttering a hideous outcry."

101 BC: General Marius of the Romans fights the Cimbrians. Cimbrian women would follow the men in battle, shooting arrows from mobile "wagon castles", and occasionally leave the wagon castles to fight with swords. Marius reports that when the battle went poorly for the men, the women emerged from their wagon castles with swords and threatened their own men if they did not continue to fight. After reinforcements arrived for the Romans, the men were killed, but the women continued to fight. When the Cimbrian women saw that defeat was imminent, they killed their children and themselves.


60-61: Boudica, a Celtic chieftain in Britain, leads an uprising against the occupying Roman forces.[88] The Romans attempted to raise the morale of their troops by informing them that her army contained more women than men.

".....Ignore the racket made by these savages. There are more women than men in their ranks. They are not soldiers - they're not even properly equipped. We've beaten them before and when they see our weapons and feel our spirit, they'll crack....."

3rd century: Two women warriors from the Danube region in Europe serve in a Roman military unit and are buried in Britain.




It may be easy to discount the presence of some women in history as mere royalty and a rarity in the armies of the ancient world, but I am of the mind that women were very much a common occurrence among the armies.


Sometimes young wives[plain Indians] turned their children over to the grandmothers and accompanied their husbands on raids, helping out by preparing food, nursing the wounded and when necessary fighting beside the men. When the victorious war party returned from battle with their spoils, the women had the privilege of dancing during the victory celebration. In many early tribes, the fate of any captured enemy was decided by the women.

Source: Blue Cloud (http://www.bluecloud.org/battle.html)



Women feature prominently in Celtic myth and their goddesses occupied positions that represented women of practical, everyday Celtic life. They were free to bear arms, become Druids and engage in politics unlike their Greek sisters, who were highly idealised in myth but not representative of the reality governing the lives of Greek women..........

Celtic women then achieved high positions in society and a standing which their sisters in the majority of other contemporary European societies did not have. They were able to govern; they played an active part in political; social and religious life. They could be warriors, doctors, physicians, judges and poets. They could own property and remain the owner even when married. They had sexual freedom, were free to choose their partners and divorce, and could claim damages if molested. Celtic women could, and often did, lead their men into battle. The Roman Deodorizes Sickles observed - "The women of the Celts are nearly as tall as the men and they rival them also in courage". Yet another report by Amicus Marcelling states - "A whole troop of foreigners would not be able to withstand a single Celt if he called his wife to his assistance"! So women went to war in the ancient Celtic world and took command of men. The, training of a warrior was a long task, frequently undertaken by warrior women who were responsible for teaching boys the arts of combat and of love. Specific titles were given to these classes of female warriors such as BAN-GAISGEDAIG (BAN-meaning woman and a derivative of GAS which means young warrior) and BAN-FEJNNIDH (which combines BAN with FEINNIDH meaning 'band of warriors') so it seems they were classed according to age and experience, possibly starting their training as very young girls. Women warriors even appear on Celtic coins as a common iconographic theme. BOUDICCA, the great warrior-queen of the Iceni was a ruler of her people in her own right, and accepted as a war leader against the Romans not only by her own tribe but by the Triumvirates and other neighbouring tribes who joined her, such as the Cretan.


Source: Paybay (http://www.pabay.org/skyeviews.html)

The prevalence of women fighting equally and having equal status in Celtic culture led to a group of captured Brigantians bowing to Claudius' wife, Aggripina instead of him.

A Roman author, Ammianus Marcellinus, describes Gaullish wives as being even stronger than their husbands and fighting with their fists and kicks at the same time "like missiles from a catapult".

Source: Lothene (http://www.lothene.demon.co.uk/others/women.html)




No, women most certainly are not as aggressive as men. Testosterone is at least partially responsible for levels of aggression in all animals whose bodies produce it. And which gender produces vastly higher amounts of testosterone? Males. According to the Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpus9802.pdf), women have consistently accounted for only about 10% of the American prison population. Are we to assume that this great of a difference is entirely due to social conditioning and that biology does not have a large part to play? Nay.


Should that sentence not read:
Women are mostly not as aggressive as men.....?

I'm sure the biological aspects for determining the admittance of women in to the rank and file of the modern army can play a good part in concluding the debate, but does it totally disqualify women from the men Vs women debate?

Women can be trained to be stronger and fitter and more violent then men.
Just as men have to be trained. To dismiss women as more prone to settling by virtue other than fighting is to seriously doubt women.

There are women who are weak and are more than happy to be subservient to men.To tow the sexual category till the end, but, in my life, I have found them to be in the minority rather than the majority.

Sigurd
Monday, September 22nd, 2008, 02:12 AM
I find any society which allows women to be put into positions where they might likely die to be immoral. It's disrespectful towards women to thrust them into the face of danger instead of protecting them from it.

If they choose to be put in that danger themselves, then that is their own choice. Fact is, traditionally in Celto-Germanic societies, afore the advent of Christianity, women sometimes led forces into battle. The most obvious example would be Boudicca, but let's not forget that Freydis lass over in Vinland, that is if the Sagas are to be believed on full account.

And when you look towards the mythology, one does see that most goddesses tend to have predominantly feminine features, i.e. are more of the nurturing than the protecting type - but let's not forget Skadi who challenged all the Aesir over the slaying of her father, nor let us forget that it was Freya in her role as Valfreyja who had a choosing over the slain to be taken to Folkvang before Odin had his pick!

The way I tend to interpret it is that women had been involved in fighting in pre-Christian Germanic and Celtic societies, but that they would however largely have been young, unmarried women who preferred a life in the boots, at least for the meantime. For mothers to go out and fight and die would have been seen as irresponsible.

As such, whilst I tend to see an army as a largely male enterprise, and that it is an able-bodied man's duty to defend his country either in person or by aiding intellectually towards that defence - where women would actually choose a life in the boots, they should be denied that wish, as evidently our ancestors already saw that there was room for different types of women, and that some might be independent women who would favour battle and abstain from bring up a family.

Whether the "unmarried women only" solution (i.e. no family to support and no getting married/starting a family during service, discharge from duty upon pregnancy) is still a good one in this day and age, and should thus be disallowed due to low fertility rates, stands not to debate, because it is not as much that fewer people have children than half a century ago, it is mainly that the same people have fewer children. Since fairly few women are interested in becoming part of the military anyway, I doubt the numbers actually work to much detriment for this at all.

Whether they should be required to fight in separate corps or given separate barracks etc. is also open to discussion, though it stands to reason if you're going to use that "unmarried women only" solution, men and women housed in the same part of the army could technically be breeding like the rabbits, or alternatively aborting like the Khmer Rouge...


Soldiers face some of the harshest conditions imaginable. Women in the military also are more subject to rape. It's simply unreasonable to place women amongst a predominantly male group and then expect everyone to behave. The only issue there would be the disrespect often directed at by some males in the camp, but that should be worked at; instead they should return to an older value, that of respect for the feminine, and thus at best see it an encouragement to give their best so as to preclude that a woman shows that she has more testicles than they do. ;)

For any other dangers that do not come from your own camp, but for instance as you mentioned, being captured by the enemy without a chance for recapture, ransom etc. - that is war, and they knew the risks when they signed up for the job. Sounds harsh, but that's what it is.