Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Amazon Fighting women

This article is interesting, and mentions some of the plans the army has to make our fighting force more efficient. This effort to protect America is being criticized by people on account of the fact that women will be closer to combat.

Now, the Army's transformation plans include proposals for much tighter mingling of combat and noncombat units. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, has redesigned the basic combat brigade into self-contained "units of action" that train and deploy with their support teams, including a unit called the Forward Support Company (FSC). Currently, women serve in units that perform the functions of FSCs.

First women wanted to vote. Then they wanted the same jobs as men. Then they wanted the same pay as men. Now we have moved into the next phase of them wanting better treatment than men.

"Female soldiers, including young mothers, should not have to pay the price for Pentagon bureaucratic blunders and gender-based recruiting quotas that have caused apparent shortages in male soldiers for the new land-combat brigades," Mrs. Donnelly said.

What about young fathers? The problem is that the military is all volunteer. So if the women signed up, they must be willing to fight (at least to some degree). The only exemption that I have heard of is when a single mom got orders to ship out, and she did not have anyone to care for her child. Of course if a single dad had that problem, he is just screwed.

"It does not make sense to sacrifice the advantage of modular organizations, just to make ideological points about gender equality. Land combat is not fair or equal, nor is it even civilized," she said.

Of course she is going to want to get PAID just as much as a man even though she just admitted that women are inferior in land combat, and cannot be used in as many different places as men can. In other words whatever job a man in the army can do, a woman may or may not be able to do them. If they cannot do the work, they should not get paid as much, but that would be discrimination.

My personal view of women fighting is that they should be given preferential treatment because they are weaker and not able to kill as readily as men are. Of course they should also be given the option of opting to be treated like a solider, instead of like a woman solider. This would allow the ones willing and able to fight the opportunity to serve.


cube

8 comments:

Vestigial Fish said...

You may want to check your assumptions on that Chester. While upper arm strength is generally less, endurance and resistance to pain is higher. Take into account that most combat takes place with ranged weaponry, and there isn't really any good reason why a woman won't be as good a soldier as a man.

BTW, I agree with you on the voluntary thing. If someone volunteers to fight, man or woman, then you should treat them equally.

Nome said...

Wow! There are quite a few assumptions here on your part. Let me set you straight on some of this:

1. All single parents are expected to formulate and maintain a deployment plan for their families. It is to be up to date at all times. It doesn't matter if you are a Mom or a Dad, you can be Article 15ed for not having this. Of course, the military will work with you if your deployment plan for your family falls through. That last statement applies to men and women also.

2. I deployed to the field with an infantry unit when I was in and would have been in Bosnia with them, also. How did I do that? I was part of the forward support element for my battalion. I was on the team that worked on their tracks before they went back to rear support element. Things like this are already in place and have been for years. I was treated like any other soldier (although the infantry guys were very nice to me. :P) I didn't ask for preferential treatment and received none. I was, first and foremost, a soldier as are most of the women serving in the military.

3. Some women may, in some ways, be physically weaker than some men. I would have bet on myself (in the military) up against any male coder in a fair fight. It all depends on your level of activity. I completely disagree with women killing less readily. I believe that being able to kill (readily or not) differs from person to person, regardless of gender.

The woman in the article is way off. I believe women in the military should be paid the same amount for the same job, period! I don't believe women should be in combat simply because men will die in misguided attmepts to protect women if women are around.

Cubicle said...

"Take into account that most combat takes place with ranged weaponry, and there isn't really any good reason why a woman won't be as good a soldier as a man."

I submit as evidence the entire history of the human race to back up my claim that women do not make as good killing machines as men.

If women made better killing machines than men, don't you think the men would have figured it out and then converted the all the male killing machines to women killing machines there by saving their selves?

The human fighting condition has not changed in the past few thousand years, and there is no reason to think that a few guns that are lighter and shoot a bit farther will change that.

On average, men are stronger and faster than women. Once you reconzie that there are differences between people, genders, races, you can learn to appericate and use those differences.

Cubicle said...

"That last statement applies to men and women also."

belive it when i see it.

" I believe that being able to kill (readily or not) differs from person to person, regardless of gender."

again i cite the entire history of the human race.

"I don't believe women should be in combat simply because men will die in misguided attmepts to protect women if women are around."

I had a different read of that, I could have misqoute the less-than-amazon-fighting-woman. I will take a look at that later.

Dave Justus said...

I agree with V.F. and Nome on this one cube. Yes, for thousands of years men have been the killers, when killing was primarily a function of muscle power.

Also, historically, with the frequency of death in childbirth, letting women fight would be stupid for any society. It was dangerous enough being a women and losing more to war would doom a group of people.

However, both of those things have changed. Women, with the aid of technology are as physically capable as men at killing. Certainly men are on average stronger that matters very little.

As for the 'killer instinct' I doubt that their would be much difference between women and men. Even less between those women and those men who self-select for military service.

Cubicle said...

"Also, historically, with the frequency of death in childbirth, letting women fight would be stupid for any society. It was dangerous enough being a women and losing more to war would doom a group of people."

I will conceed that point.

Thought i again will disagree on this point.

"However, both of those things have changed. Women, with the aid of technology are as physically capable as men at killing. Certainly men are on average stronger that matters very little. "

Not just stronger, but faster (which means less likly to get shoot, and more likly to kill). A modern infanty solider is likely to carry any where from 20 to 60 pounds on him (gun, ammo, body armor, camelbaks). To say that women on average will be as good as men on average underenath those physcial stresses is silly.

Secondly men have a faster reaction time than women.

http://biae.clemson.edu/bpc/bp/Lab/110/reaction.htm#Gender

And that makes men better killers.

And i am not talding about a killing instinct (i think women are the devil anyways so they would probably get my vote for having more killer instinct)

Women are infeiror killing machines. When people realize that women and men are not equal in certian areas, the world will be a lot nicer place.

Men are strong and faster, and a few guns that shoot faster, are lighter will not change the advantages that men have over women in combat.

Dave Justus said...

First off, I will repeat my assertion that I expect that the differences between men and women who self select for combat will be minimal.

As an illustration, I concede fully that men are on average stronger than women. However, I expect that professional women athletes are on average, stronger than the average man. I expect that that also holds true for their reaction times.

The website on reaction times was interesting but a few things jumped out at me. First, the gender difference expiraments that were cited were only of the 'simple' reaction types. It is plausible that women fair equal (or perhaps even better) then men at complex reaction types. It also stated that amoung other things physical fitness generally corellated with reduced reaction types. If, as I suspect to be the case, physical fitness is also more common amoung men then women (for societal, not physiological reasons) then that could explain this difference as well.

Regardless of that, I am far from sure that quickness of reaction time has much to do with lethality in combat. Despite what you see in action movies, I don't think many combat missions require fast draw techniques. Indeed from studies I have seen it is tough to get even trained soldiers to actually fire at a person. I don't know of any studies that say if this is easier or hard with women than with men.

As for the strength to carry the equipment, I agree that women who are not fit enough to do the job shouldn't be given the job, but if women can pass the same tests as men, why shouldn't they be allowed to fight?

I am sure that their are a lot of women who are stronger, faster, and quicker than me despite the fact that I have a penis and they don't. Yet by your criteria I should be allowed in combat and they shouldn't simply because my gender averages better on these tests.

Cubicle said...

"I am sure that their are a lot of women who are stronger, faster, and quicker than me despite the fact that I have a penis and they don't. Yet by your criteria I should be allowed in combat and they shouldn't simply because my gender averages better on these tests."

Of couse their are ceritan women that are faster than you. Personally i was beaten hiking up a mountian one time by a 60 year old woman. My point, is that on average women are not as fast and strong as men and therefore are not as effiecent killing machines.

I never said they should not be allowed to fight. In fact i am all about women fighting, but i dislike women being treated better just because they are women (which was what the less-than-fighting-amazon woman was calling for).

They wanted equality, and now they are going to have to live with it.

"First off, I will repeat my assertion that I expect that the differences between men and women who self select for combat will be minimal."

That may be true, but better is better even if it is better only by a few percentage points. Women are not as good killing machines as men. Even if that difference is "minimal", it still is a difference.

Of couse we do not have any real information because women are not allowed into combat positions.