women in the military

Cash80 · #1 4th May 2011, 12:40 AM

I have a question for everybody: what do you think about women serving in the military and to what extent you think it's biblical? You can share your personal stories, if you have any, as well.

briareos · #2 7th May 2011, 04:41 AM

I think it's fine. I see no biblical relevance on the subject. I think women should be able to be more combat oriented than the U.S Military currently allows becuase the prohibition of women serving in primarily combat roles is sexist. But inappropriate influence from religion or other social stereotypes are prevelant in the military.

Tim Myers · #3 7th May 2011, 04:47 AM

I still do not understand why women fought tooth-and-nail to be able to get combat duty..........

who93 · #4 7th May 2011, 04:52 AM

As a woman myself, I wouldn't want to serve in the military. However, I respect any service member, male or female.

briareos · #5 7th May 2011, 05:05 AM

Myers,

Well I think it's the principle of the matter, sexism is wrong even if it's one of those less oppurtune instances, there is also a huge prevailing mindset that the Military in general sexualises, demeans and takes advantage of women period. Some male soldiers absolutely think that women have no place in leadership or on the battlefield.

Tim Myers · #6 7th May 2011, 05:14 AM

Reos,

I was not referring to gender, I was referring to why anyone (male or female) would fight so hard for the right to get killed or have their appendages blown off.....

Noelle_Faith · #7 7th May 2011, 05:17 AM

If a woman wants to, and is fit enough to carry out active duty - I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed. Women have the right to do whatever they want, and to be treated equally to men, so if they want to join the military who is anyone to say they can't.

briareos · #8 7th May 2011, 12:35 PM

Tim,

(I mean't nothing in referring to you by your last name)

Anyway, you said women so I thought you were talking about women. I can understand the desire to serve in combat or the military, it's honorable and has some really good benefits. The military provided me a life that I could not have attained on my own presently, it's done alot for me. It helped me recover from alot of bad mistakes in my past and I am proud of what I have done and do and I am part of history, something I can tell my grandkids about one day. When you walk through an airport in your uniform and a small child says "hey dad, there's a hero" a sense of pride and wonder fills you lets you know that your doing great things. Not unlike nonmilitary people. America has a completely volunteer military and we're the most powerful and probly the most proffesional in the world, people who want to protect their nation, people, ideals. Kind of like the firemen who willingly run into burning buildings.

Cash80 · #9 7th May 2011, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by briareos

I think it's fine. I see no biblical relevance on the subject. I think women should be able to be more combat oriented than the U.S Military currently allows becuase the prohibition of women serving in primarily combat roles is sexist. But inappropriate influence from religion or other social stereotypes are prevelant in the military.

Why is it sexism, and not common sense? How do you deal with the facts that many women, due to their biological nature cannot physically perform duties that only a man can do? Shouldn't our priority be with the succession of military's mission accomplishment, rather than with equal opportunity? This is why women are allowed to serve in the military, but disallowed to have some duties, including combat, armor, and Special Ops.

Do you think it will have no negative effect on good order, discipline, and unit cohesion if women be allowed to serve in direct ground combat, whatsoever? If no, why?

Also, what's so sexist about saying that beautiful girls who are mothers with little children at home, shouldn't be fighting a combat war in another country, and coming home in body bags in large numbers, but instead take care of them? FYI, about 50% of US female servicemembers have children, so I'm wondering what will happen if we put them all on front lines.

briareos · #10 8th May 2011, 01:17 AM

Well the reasons you give are not the reasons the military gives.

The DoD policies concerning women serving used to be A LOT more nonsense than it is now but even now it's still based on the same sexist standards, remembering how it used to be shows how it is actually sexist. Back in WW2 or earlier women could only serve as nurses etc, then it got changed that only 2% of the military staffing could be filled by women then a policy called "the risk rule" was adopted where woman could not serve in any position placing them in an amount of risk equal to that of combat soldier. Such as driving a gas truck or mail through a dangerous war zone or being a medic on a chopper that flies into a war zone to medivac fallen soldiers.
The risk rule was later dismissed but even today the policy states that women cannot serve at a BCT or lower who's primary mission is to engage hostile enemies in combat. The regulation doesn't state that women can't serve in combat or say infantry, it actually says the words above, which accomplish the same thing. They could serve in an infantry unit at Division or higer.
The idea was and still is, that women cannot serve in positions that primarily risk their lives. The rule is becoming more and more lenient but that is what it remains to be, and it's completely sexist. It totally is. But that is how it is. The regulation does not talk about body composition, physical fitness standards, ability to perform in combat, female hygein concerns... the regulation states they cannot serve in a mission that routinely engages enemies in combat, that's it and 50 years ago the rule was called "the risk rule" saying they could not risk their lives.
The issue is women aren't supposed to die, aren't supposed to fight, aren't supposed to face enemies or participate in combat becuase they just don't belong there whether they want to or not. Totally sexist becuase it enforces social stereotypical roles which is the definition of sexism.

Also, what's so sexist about saying that beautiful girls who are mothers with little children at home, shouldn't be fighting a combat war in another country, and coming home in body bags in large numbers, but instead take care of them?

That is absolutely sexism, becuase it's social stereotypical roles... sexism.

FYI, about 50% of US female servicemembers have children, so I'm wondering what will happen if we put them all on front lines.

The same thing that happens to fathers in combat. Your ideas are sexist ideas becuase they display the idea of enforcing social stereotypical roles for a gender, which is sexism.