Matrix Games Forums

Looks like most of the people oppose to "women in the infantry" are (or have been) in the military themselves. It is a different world. Allowing women into the Infantry is not going to be an end all!
Throughout history, women warriors have fought and led troops into battle

Opinions are irrelevant...Women will join the ranks. If we lose the next war- we can blame it on the woman.

NO don't stop it....I want to see if I can make 2016. [X(]

ORIGINAL: waltero

Throughout history, women warriors have fought and led troops into battle

Noble & royal women have been known to do the leading part. If I understand it correctly, most of them have done that only becouse they haven't had male relatives to do so instead. But did Artemisia or Elizabeth or anyone take part to the fighting too?

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Again, someone who does not know what their talking about. There's nothing wrong with these men. If you think for minute, every Soldier, sailor, Marine or Air Man went to War believing it was only a rich man's war. Again Sir!! what Division did you serve in...as Infantry Man. Please post it here. Other wise, Your just another PC warrior, who doesn't have a clue.

ORIGINAL: Revthought

I am really reluctant to post here; however, I cannot stop myself. There is something really wrong with many of you. Who cares if women can serve in combat roles? Women have been serving in that capacity since the beginning of time. In modernity we saw it in the Soviet Union during the Second World War, where women served with the Soviet armed forces with distinction. There were no problems with discipline, and Soviet society did not collapse. In fact, the Soviets actually won that war, remember?

Furthermore, women have been in combat roles for years in the armies of many nations. I don't hear anyone saying anything about women seriously degrading the IDF.

Finally I don't want to live n your world where there is some assumed natural distinction between genders. I don't care if my 18 year daughter has to face selective service. In fact, I feel the same way about it as my son. I don't want to lose either of them in a rich mans war.

What I do want is a world in which my daughter is acknowledged as a human being, who isn't limited by her gender. One in which people rightly assume that she can do, and should be allowed to do, anything she puts her mind to.

A lot of you are living in a twisted version of the past, the memory of which we cannot hurry out of living memory fast enough.

Ditto!!!

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Ah, the "new" left, where fiction is knowledge.

Not that new, that word is for the new dopes, still fiction, keep repeating though, always plenty of new fools.

There is tranquility in your words and yet so true[;)]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Time to shut this one down guys... please...

It should be shut down if people start with nasty, personal insults.

Most of us have had very civil discussions on the issue. One of the many things I like about you Rhonda is you are able to voice your opinion and then defend it in a polite way. You and I do not agree on the issue of this thread, but we never got hateful with each other.

Take care.

ORIGINAL: PipFromSlitherine

Calm it down with the interpersonal attacks or the thread will need to be locked.

Cheers

Pip

Admin reads all and tbh have already commented on it being shut down if personal insults again start to happen, so i guess this will happen as reported post, some seem to never learn[:(]

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

If you want to make a post in favor of woman in the infantry, you're more than welcome to do so.

That still doesn't make either that or this topic allowed, per the "no politics" rules, and it's just as germane either way to point that out.

And considering the topic is all the way back from 2013, thread necromancy is also at play here.

Never said I favored woman in the infantry, in fact I don't.

Never said the topic shouldn't be allowed, it's fine with me to have a reasonable, valid and proper discussion on the topic.

Why I agree with Rhonda is that some of the posts cross the line becoming insulting, sexual and beyond what falls into reasonable, valid and proper argument. That is what ruins the thread. It may become just one more locked thread because a few posters cross the line that takes away the ability of the others to have a thoughtful, reasonable, valid and perfectly proper discussion and difference of opinion for the rest.

Exactly!

Whether you agree with it or not, it's going to happen, so why bother with it? This is why I've stayed out of the discussion until now.

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Whether you agree with it or not, it's going to happen, so why bother with it? This is why I've stayed out of the discussion until now.

The answer would be because it is not an academic or political or social discussion in the end. It is about the lives of infantry soldiers and the combat effectiveness of infantry formations. We in the US are going to conduct a social experiment that might get soldiers killed and might lose battles when our national security is at stake. And we will be doing it indeed because the political leadership has decided it will be done for political and social reasons. It is easy to say it is the right thing to do. But if it gets one man or women killed, will it be worth it?

My view is that we should field the most effective fighting force possible. I believe putting women in infantry squads will degrade the combat effectiveness of those squads and will in combat get people killed. In part that will happen because standards will be lowered, whether officially or, with a wink and a nod, unofficially, to meet the political goal. In part it will be because there is an obvious dynamic between men and women that can't be wished or ordered away that will affect soldiers in infantry squads.

Can women fight? Certainly. Can they do most military jobs as well as men? Certainly. But I think there is a place at the tip of the bayonet where they will be detrimental to combat effectiveness. And I don't think that makes me sexist or backwards or misogynistic to believe that. I am simply trying to be a realist. John Kennedy said our destinies are sometimes focused on the small point of a bayonet. When it really matters, that bayonet point better be sharp. I don't think it will be as sharp in the future.

We will probably muddle through, though, because we will probably not face a major conflict with our backs again the wall, but small conflicts where problems with the experiment can be covered up, just as other problems are covered up. Our government is very good at lying. But like you said, it will happen whether it is a good idea or not.

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: waltero

Throughout history, women warriors have fought and led troops into battle

Noble & royal women have been known to do the leading part. If I understand it correctly, most of them have done that only becouse they haven't had male relatives to do so instead. But did Artemisia or Elizabeth or anyone take part to the fighting too?

History is full of women warriors, women armies...Some fierce warriors!
If you search you will find.

It is here! you might as well except it. Fact of the matter is- you don't know.
What we do know; Israel, which on paper has one of the most gender-neutral militaries in the world.
Israeli news media claims integrating women into combat roles had been a success.
Nobody wants to **ck with Israel.

Give women a chance to prove their worth. Let us see if the positive outweighs the negative regarding women in the infantry.

ORIGINAL: waltero

Looks like most of the people oppose to "women in the infantry" are (or have been) in the military themselves. It is a different world. Allowing women into the Infantry is not going to be an end all!
Throughout history, women warriors have fought and led troops into battle

Opinions are irrelevant...Women will join the ranks. If we lose the next war- we can blame it on the woman.

Just a simple clarification.
I'm not opposed to women in the military. Heck they've been involved for centuries.
My opposition is in the area of infantry fighters and women having "reduced" standards to take their gender into account, instead of allowing women who only pass the infantry fighter standard that men do to be allowed the privilege of becoming an infantry fighter.

The job is not infantry fighter/men and/or infantry fighter/women. The job is simply infantry fighter and should have one standard for both.
Like a puzzle, the combat team must be made of pieces that fit together. Not pieces of puzzle from different puzzle boxes.

And, because of that I would not want to lose any future war or the lives of our infantry fighters if it can be avoided by not injecting double standards to meet someones PC needs (to make them feel good).

How many must die to provide an "experiment's playing field"? Sorry, that is just repeating mistakes of the past. The lives of our infantry fighters are too precious to play the game of social engineering with?

RR

Man, this PC thing, equalizing whatnot and whatever has gone way too far. I mean if we are discussing women serving in infantry why is most of the discussion about reduced standards? About what women can't and can do? It's really simple in the end: if the woman can serve to the standard that is required from frontline infantry then they need to be able to serve if they want to. Otherwise you are treating women with the opposite idiotic standard as those who would reduce standards for women so they can all serve in infantry. If women serving in infantry automatically means to you that your GOVERNMENT and ARMY will reduce the performance requirements then the issue is not with women, it's with your god damn country.

And I mean it's frontline infantry, cannon fodder. Come war they'll take take any man, woman, boy, dog, or tree stump that will fit the casualty reduced standards...but that's another discussion.

Well, I have to go back to something I asked earlier. How many women will be playing in the NFL games (American pro football) today? How many will be playing in NBA games? How many in the Premier League this week? Why is that? Sexism? Are men preventing qualified and talented women from playing these elite professional sports? Or do you think that if a woman could perform at the elite professional level that professional teams would sign her in a heartbeat for the publicity? And there would be a huge drumbeat from the media to see that woman play. But there aren't any. Only a small group of men can play at that elite level. Now imagine a decree that the NFL will have to accept and play female players....

ORIGINAL: JW

Well, I have to go back to something I asked earlier. How many women will be playing in the NFL games (American pro football) today? How many will be playing in NBA games? How many in the Premier League this week? Why is that? Sexism? Are men preventing qualified and talented women from playing these elite professional sports? Or do you think that if a woman could perform at the elite professional level that professional teams would sign her in a heartbeat for the publicity? And there would be a huge drumbeat from the media to see that woman play. But there aren't any. Only a small group of men can play at that elite level. Now imagine a decree that the NFL will have to accept and play female players....

Irrelevant[:-]

ORIGINAL: Karri

Man, this PC thing, equalizing whatnot and whatever has gone way too far. I mean if we are discussing women serving in infantry why is most of the discussion about reduced standards? About what women can't and can do? It's really simple in the end: if the woman can serve to the standard that is required from frontline infantry then they need to be able to serve if they want to. Otherwise you are treating women with the opposite idiotic standard as those who would reduce standards for women so they can all serve in infantry. If women serving in infantry automatically means to you that your GOVERNMENT and ARMY will reduce the performance requirements then the issue is not with women, it's with your god damn country.

And I mean it's frontline infantry, cannon fodder. Come war they'll take take any man, woman, boy, dog, or tree stump that will fit the casualty reduced standards...but that's another discussion.

And you have hit on a major point. In America this is a social and political issue that has nothing to do with military readiness. Those pushing for women in all combat roles are not concerned about readiness and effectiveness. They have a belief -- a belief -- that women and the equivalent of men in all ways and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary, even extensive tests regarding the effectiveness of women in combat infantry squads. It also affects other areas of life. Here is a good example:

"A New York firefighter who did not pass her physical tests was injured just 10 days into her job."

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... 0-days-job

This is a legitimate concern.

As for your last point, there is a different between a nation fighting for its very survival -- The Soviet Union in WWII, Israel today -- and a nation like the US and Western European nations that are not fighting for survival and needing every breathing person they can push into the front lines. We are talking about highly skilled combat forces where we have the ability to find the most elite personnel and field the best possible infantry teams and squads.

But as said earlier, we will conduct this experiment in the US. And I honestly hope I am wrong, that standards will be upheld and that those women who meet the minimum standards will not lower the effectiveness of combat units, since it is going to happen.

ORIGINAL: JW

ORIGINAL: Karri

Man, this PC thing, equalizing whatnot and whatever has gone way too far. I mean if we are discussing women serving in infantry why is most of the discussion about reduced standards? About what women can't and can do? It's really simple in the end: if the woman can serve to the standard that is required from frontline infantry then they need to be able to serve if they want to. Otherwise you are treating women with the opposite idiotic standard as those who would reduce standards for women so they can all serve in infantry. If women serving in infantry automatically means to you that your GOVERNMENT and ARMY will reduce the performance requirements then the issue is not with women, it's with your god damn country.

And I mean it's frontline infantry, cannon fodder. Come war they'll take take any man, woman, boy, dog, or tree stump that will fit the casualty reduced standards...but that's another discussion.

And you have hit on a major point. In America this is a social and political issue that has nothing to do with military readiness. Those pushing for women in all combat roles are not concerned about readiness and effectiveness. They have a belief -- a belief -- that women and the equivalent of men in all ways and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary, even extensive tests regarding the effectiveness of women in combat infantry squads. It also affects other areas of life. Here is a good example:

"A New York firefighter who did not pass her physical tests was injured just 10 days into her job."

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... 0-days-job

This is a legitimate concern.

As for your last point, there is a different between a nation fighting for its very survival -- The Soviet Union in WWII, Israel today -- and a nation like the US and Western European nations that are not fighting for survival and needing every breathing person they can push into the front lines. We are talking about highly skilled combat forces where we have the ability to find the most elite personnel and field the best possible infantry teams and squads.

But as said earlier, we will conduct this experiment in the US. And I honestly hope I am wrong, that standards will be upheld and that those women who meet the minimum standards will not lower the effectiveness of combat units, since it is going to happen.

It might be a good idea integrating women into the "infantry" before there comes a real need for it.
Better to be ahead of the ball game. We might think about integrating midgets too[X(]

if they can make it work eh, why not...send in the midget monks!

I have never been a fan of women in the military, but if it works, all the more power to them.
I hated taking orders from them...unless it was in the bedroom.

Since this is a political decision (not a constitutional or legislative one), it can be changed with a new administration. The President is the Commander in Chief. This 'experiment' will likely only last another <13 months.

ORIGINAL: waltero

ORIGINAL: JW

ORIGINAL: Karri

Man, this PC thing, equalizing whatnot and whatever has gone way too far. I mean if we are discussing women serving in infantry why is most of the discussion about reduced standards? About what women can't and can do? It's really simple in the end: if the woman can serve to the standard that is required from frontline infantry then they need to be able to serve if they want to. Otherwise you are treating women with the opposite idiotic standard as those who would reduce standards for women so they can all serve in infantry. If women serving in infantry automatically means to you that your GOVERNMENT and ARMY will reduce the performance requirements then the issue is not with women, it's with your god damn country.

And I mean it's frontline infantry, cannon fodder. Come war they'll take take any man, woman, boy, dog, or tree stump that will fit the casualty reduced standards...but that's another discussion.

And you have hit on a major point. In America this is a social and political issue that has nothing to do with military readiness. Those pushing for women in all combat roles are not concerned about readiness and effectiveness. They have a belief -- a belief -- that women and the equivalent of men in all ways and refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary, even extensive tests regarding the effectiveness of women in combat infantry squads. It also affects other areas of life. Here is a good example:

"A New York firefighter who did not pass her physical tests was injured just 10 days into her job."

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... 0-days-job

This is a legitimate concern.

As for your last point, there is a different between a nation fighting for its very survival -- The Soviet Union in WWII, Israel today -- and a nation like the US and Western European nations that are not fighting for survival and needing every breathing person they can push into the front lines. We are talking about highly skilled combat forces where we have the ability to find the most elite personnel and field the best possible infantry teams and squads.

But as said earlier, we will conduct this experiment in the US. And I honestly hope I am wrong, that standards will be upheld and that those women who meet the minimum standards will not lower the effectiveness of combat units, since it is going to happen.

It might be a good idea integrating women into the "infantry" before there comes a real need for it.
Better to be ahead of the ball game. We might think about integrating midgets too[X(]

if they can make it work eh, why not...!send in the midget monks

I have never been a fan of women in the military, but if it works, all the more power to them.
I hated taking orders from them...unless it was in the bedroom.

Forward thinking person? I guess still allows for politically incorrect thinking. Little people (not midgets)would be offended by your statement and adding monks into the mix? Priests are acceptable fodder for liberals as well.

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Since this is a political decision (not a constitutional or legislative one), it can be changed with a new administration. The President is the Commander in Chief. This 'experiment' will likely only last another <13 months.

In a way, this speaks to how change is not a constant plodding inevitability, as the acceptance of women into combat roles (actual implementation guidelines aside) was enabled by the current administration and may well have not happened had a different Commander-in-Chief / Defense Secretary been at the helm.

Speaking to the specifics of "13 months from now" though, it's unlikely that the next President would be of a different party, and therefore unlikely that the next President would reverse course in this matter.