women on submarines

[pianistimo]

do you think that women should be allowed on submarines?  especially since they are allowed on shuttle flights.  what will happen to the navy if good looking women are distracting them or should they all be ugly women?  will that cause more submarine disasters or will it help morale?  there is very little privacy on submarines - but perhaps no less than shuttle flights.  should a sub or shuttle be all women or all men?  do you think an all woman submarine might actually be quieter or would they be detected right away?  what if an all woman spotted an all man sub - would they use missles on each other or would it promote peace if the women looked out the windows and waved?  just curious.

*wonders if anyone has thought of teaching piano in space.  what would it be like to have the pages flying all around.  maybe good experience for those who have to catch falling pages.  or, would we have page catchers?  wonder how hard it would be for people to learn piano if it was an addition to the control panel  (as an activity to relax).

[bearzinthehood]

The difference is that shuttle missions are short term, but as I understand it submarine missions are very long term.

The question I think you should ask yourself is whether you would think a coed prison would be a good idea.  IMO the leap from prison to extended submarine voyage is not too great.

[pianistimo]

yes.  i suppose that's probably right.  anyway, i'm not really for women in the military.  if women go to war - their children are raised by someone else.  and yet, if a woman is not married, does not have a family - if the stakes are raised by the government - then will women be forced to go into these situations or will there be a choice?  or do you think the government would likely never choose women to be in these situations.  i don't think that i personallywould want to - (landlubber) - but it's just a curiousity.

[prometheus]

My country recently decided to have woman on submarines.

Life on a submarine is very awkward. I am not sure if everyone realises that. I don't really want to go into it, I am lazy, but there are all kinds of problems, or rather potential problems. The main problem is speration of sexes in things lik showers and toilets. But also beds. People share beds, one person works while the other sleeps so no bed is ever empty, to save space.

Another problem is a physological one. How will males react to a very small number of females on board. It does not seem healty. It seems to me you have to balance the genders or have one gender.

Actually, the dicussion about this in my country has been overshadowed, to put it mildy, by a few cases of intimidation of females, and even rape of males by males, on board of one of the navy vessels.

[anekdote]

Women should not be soldiers in the military at all, muchless in mixed-company submarines. Military women are a burden to men in the military. Besides the most obvious problems of privacy and sex, there are other issues. If men and women go into combat together, the men almost always will fight to protect the women. This is a good thing on the part of the men, but it should not take place on the battlefield (you should not bring along dependants). Women would also be distractions to the men who need to be focused entirely on their mission. And then there are the social issues. Shouldn't women stay safe and away from fire back in their own countries with their families and children? Women are the basis for population. Isn't it counter-productive to take women to war?

And of course, there is still the issue of whether or not women are even capable and independant enough to fight. Women are generally weaker than men, and they are more emotionally fragile. What if the enemy resorted to tactics such as raping the women?

Why would women even WANT to fight (it is certainly not a feminine activity)? Men have been fighting to keep their women and families safe for thousands of years. And men are more naturally suited to fighting. That's why they have testosterone!

Women should not be put on the battlefield just as children should not be put to work. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of having women fight. I think it is sad when women are put in harm's way.

[rimv2]

Women should not be soldiers in the military at all, muchless in mixed-company submarines. Military women are a burden to men in the military. Besides the most obvious problems of privacy and sex, there are other issues. If men and women go into combat together, the men almost always will fight to protect the women. This is a good thing on the part of the men, but it should not take place on the battlefield (you should not bring along dependants). Women would also be distractions to the men who need to be focused entirely on their mission. And then there are the social issues. Shouldn't women stay safe and away from fire back in their own countries with their families and children? Women are the basis for population. Isn't it counter-productive to take women to war?

And of course, there is still the issue of whether or not women are even capable and independant enough to fight. Women are generally weaker than men, and they are more emotionally fragile. What if the enemy resorted to tactics such as raping the women?

Why would women even WANT to fight (it is certainly not a feminine activity)? Men have been fighting to keep their women and families safe for thousands of years. And men are more naturally suited to fighting. That's why they have testosterone!

Women should not be put on the battlefield just as children should not be put to work. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of having women fight. I think it is sad when women are put in harm's way.

Damned strait

Keep em where they belong!!!

Random Fact: While on the highway today Ah noticed two females in the car next meh. During the brief moment Ah took to admire these beauties I noticed red lights in the corner of my eye. The point? Cars can swerve, bullets cant.

[mycrabface]

I like men in navy uniform

[prometheus]

Women should not be soldiers in the military at all, muchless in mixed-company submarines. Military women are a burden to men in the military. Besides the most obvious problems of privacy and sex, there are other issues. If men and women go into combat together, the men almost always will fight to protect the women. This is a good thing on the part of the men, but it should not take place on the battlefield (you should not bring along dependants). Women would also be distractions to the men who need to be focused entirely on their mission.

So the problem here is with the men? Sounds to me that an all female army would be better than a mixed one if you are right.

And then there are the social issues. Shouldn't women stay safe and away from fire back in their own countries with their families and children? Women are the basis for population. Isn't it counter-productive to take women to war?

Most wars are counter-productive. Men should be with their woman and children also, they shouldn't give their lives for their government. They should give their lives for their woman and children.

If you are going to fight an offensive war you will need poor mindless scum that have no place in a civilised country. So those that volenteer to an army.
If you are going to do a peacekeeping mission you need to draft ordinary people.
So this has nothing to do with being male or being female.

And of course, there is still the issue of whether or not women are even capable and independant enough to fight. Women are generally weaker than men, and they are more emotionally fragile. What if the enemy resorted to tactics such as raping the women?

Woman are emotionally stronger than men. Also, the weakness doesn't really matter since we use guns. Woman do have more endurance than men.

Why would women even WANT to fight?

No person in their right mind would want to fight, at least not at this age in time. And fighting isn't masculine or feminine, it is foolish.

Men have been fighting to keep their women and families safe for thousands of years. And men are more naturally suited to fighting. That's why they have testosterone!

Maybe men are more immoral, hmm. Surely they are more aggressive and stronger. But these qualities helped in ancient and medieval warfare. Not that much in modern warfare.

Women should not be put on the battlefield just as children should not be put to work. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of having women fight. I think it is sad when women are put in harm's way.

It is just immoral to put anyone on the battlefield when it is not needed, be it a male or a female, or even a child. When it is needed everyone that can fight should fight. Now when you have a child you have the issue of dying. So you need to consider who the best parent is. Often this is the female.

Now you mention it. Children make excellent soldiers. Do you want to put them on the battlefield?

[tac-tics]

should a sub or shuttle be all women or all men? 

Two and a half words: Zero-G boobies!

Thus, women MUST be sent to space.

Subs on the otherhand are lame. No one -- men nor women -- should have to ride them.

*wonders if anyone has thought of teaching piano in space.  what would it be like to have the pages flying all around.  maybe good experience for those who have to catch falling pages.  or, would we have page catchers?  wonder how hard it would be for people to learn piano if it was an addition to the control panel  (as an activity to relax).

It would suck to play piano in 0 G. For one thing, every piano would feelt like an upright. But really, the keys would not work. You would need to play on a digital keyboard with spring-powered weighting. And even then, it would be hard to play. Your fingers rely quite a bit on gravity to play piano.

[pianistimo]

hmm. zero gravity.  yes. ummm.  i forgot about what it could do.  eliminate bras, but ruin piano techniques.  *slightly sorry i asked such an involved question. 

[rimv2]

So the problem here is with the men? Sounds to me that an all female army would be better than a mixed one if you are right.

They'd get lost more easily.
They'd try to kill each other 12 times a year.
But they wouldnt hesitate shoot children so maybe this is correct.

If you are going to fight an offensive war you will need poor mindless scum that have no place in a civilised country. So those that volenteer to an army.
If you are going to do a peacekeeping mission you need to draft ordinary people.
So this has nothing to do with being male or being female.

Poor, mindless scum, same thing

Woman are emotionally stronger than men. Also, the weakness doesn't really matter since we use guns. Woman do have more endurance than men.

You meant emotionally stubborn, right?

No person in their right mind would want to fight, at least not at this age in time. And fighting isn't masculine or feminine, it is foolish.

How many in the age in time are actually in their right mind? (cough, upper, to high, cough, class)

Maybe men are more immoral, hmm. Surely they are more aggressive and stronger. But these qualities helped in ancient and medieval warfare. Not that much in modern warfare.

Closed quarters. No ammunition. 2 vs 1. Which would you rather be?

It is just immoral to put anyone on the battlefield when it is not needed, be it a male or a female, or even a child. When it is needed everyone that can fight should fight. Now when you have a child you have the issue of dying.

Hmmm. Offensive war? Unneeded battle? You're talking about Vietnam aren't you!!!

So you need to consider who the best parent is. Often this is the female.

20 years ago (when thing were as they should be). The female was the best parent. Now you might as well flip a coin.

Now you mention it. Children make excellent soldiers. Do you want to put them on the battlefield?

Except fot the whole not being able to carry a heavy gun, go long distances and time without sustainance, and having to go more often than adults this might be a good Idea. They are smaller targets and most men wouldnt shoot at them, then again, with an all female army that kid as good as gone so their might be some advantages.

Women vs Children - in a conflict like this ah might have to side with the ladies.

[pianistimo]

well, as i read the bible - women have a foot in the door, but maybe not usually.  there's the example of deborah who told barak to go fight a war and he said 'only if you come with me.'  then, in so many words she said, 'watch a woman fight a battle.'  she sent the enemy king running to hide in a tent.  and, the woman who's tent it was, gave him some food and drink and let him go to sleep and then she put a tent peg through his head.

[thalbergmad]

well, as i read the bible - women have a foot in the door, but maybe not usually.  there's the example of deborah who told barak to go fight a war and he said 'only if you come with me.'  then, in so many words she said, 'watch a woman fight a battle.'  she sent the enemy king running to hide in a tent.  and, the woman who's tent it was, gave him some food and drink and let him go to sleep and then she put a tent peg through his head.

My God woman, you have managed to mention the bible in a thread about submarines.

Anyway, women should be allowed on submarines, as someone has to do the washing up.

Thal

[jas]

Women should not be soldiers in the military at all, muchless in mixed-company submarines. Military women are a burden to men in the military. Besides the most obvious problems of privacy and sex, there are other issues. If men and women go into combat together, the men almost always will fight to protect the women. This is a good thing on the part of the men, but it should not take place on the battlefield (you should not bring along dependants). Women would also be distractions to the men who need to be focused entirely on their mission.

What? Don't be an arse. The only way women could pose a distraction is if the men they're with are a pack of drooling neanderthals who can't see a woman without all rational thought leaving their heads, in which case it's their own problem. You're implying that women should be punished for something men may or may not do. And referring to women as dependents is the most ridiculous and frankly sexist thing you've said, and the competition is stiff.

And then there are the social issues. Shouldn't women stay safe and away from fire back in their own countries with their families and children? Women are the basis for population. Isn't it counter-productive to take women to war?

Immaculate conception isn't possible, you know. Of course it's not counter-productive to take women to war. The war would have to be on a scale previously unheard of to be a threat to the future of humankind.

And of course, there is still the issue of whether or not women are even capable and independant enough to fight. Women are generally weaker than men, and they are more emotionally fragile. What if the enemy resorted to tactics such as raping the women?

What do you mean there's still the issue? For most people, this stopped being an issue decades ago. Women are capable and independent enough to do anything that men can do, and what possible justification can you have for saying that their "emotionally fragility" is likely to cause problems? Do you honestly believe that women in the army will burst into hysterical tears at every sign of threat? You seem to be grossly overestimating the differences between how men and women's minds work.

Why would women even WANT to fight (it is certainly not a feminine activity)? Men have been fighting to keep their women and families safe for thousands of years. And men are more naturally suited to fighting. That's why they have testosterone!

Yes, you're right. We all have burning desires to stay at home and sew, because they're feminine activities. You realise, don't you, that the concepts of masculine and feminine don't quite apply the way they used to? In a modern battle situation, testosterone isn't what gives one army the edge over another. It's intelligence and planning. It's no longer a case of charging in there and ripping the heads off the enemy with no tactics or upper brain activity involved.

Women should not be put on the battlefield just as children should not be put to work. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of having women fight. I think it is sad when women are put in harm's way.

Just because you're not comfortable with it doesn't mean that anything you just said is a valid reason against it. Everything you said is outdated and invalid. I'm no feminist but your post disgusted me. Did you not enter the 21st century with the rest of us?

[anekdote]

What? Don't be an arse. The only way women could pose a distraction is if the men they're with are a pack of drooling neanderthals who can't see a woman without all rational thought leaving their heads, in which case it's their own problem. You're implying that women should be punished for something men may or may not do. And referring to women as dependents is the most ridiculous and frankly sexist thing you've said, and the competition is stiff.

Men do see women as sex objects, no matter how intelligent they are. Intelligence only leads to restraint, not a lack of feeling or stimulus.

Immaculate conception isn't possible, you know. Of course it's not counter-productive to take women to war. The war would have to be on a scale previously unheard of to be a threat to the future of humankind.

Conception doesn't take place on the battlefield, it takes place at home and away from the front. Haven't you ever heard about WWII and how many men died leaving their children without a father? If you take women to war, any children birthed will likely die and many men AND women will die also. This is much more "impossible", and much more foolish. As I have said, women are the basis of population. (Not to sound sexist here, but one man could impregnate hundreds of women a year if granted the opportunity and lacking the restraint. One woman has to wait at least nine months for another child.)

What do you mean there's still the issue? For most people, this stopped being an issue decades ago. Women are capable and independent enough to do anything that men can do, and what possible justification can you have for saying that their "emotionally fragility" is likely to cause problems? Do you honestly believe that women in the army will burst into hysterical tears at every sign of threat? You seem to be grossly overestimating the differences between how men and women's minds work.

Women are just not as "fearless" as men are in battle (in truth neither gender is entirely "fearless," but men certainly are more so). Women are also (in my experience) not as capable as handling things such as blood, guts, and carnage as men are. If you have ever watched a horror/gory movie with a woman, or witnessed their reactions to blood or insects, you know subconsiously this to be the case.

I do not believe "that women in the army will burst into hysterical tears at every sign of threat." I simply believe that women will take less risks then men, and will have greater emotional difficulty in dealing with the consequences of war.

Yes, you're right. We all have burning desires to stay at home and sew, because they're feminine activities.

I never said that, I only said that women don't have a desire to pursue military careers or war. This can be somewhat backed up with fact. In today's supposedly "enlightened" age, when women are not discouraged from any career, they still compose only roughly 15% of all enlisted US army personnel. In the Navy, 14%; Marines 6%; Air Force 19%; and Coast Guard 12%. I wonder why the percentages are highest in the Air Force and lowest in the Marines? Could it be related to strenuous activity and endurance? Of course not, that's sexist!

You realise, don't you, that the concepts of masculine and feminine don't quite apply the way they used to? In a modern battle situation, testosterone isn't necessarily going to help, anyway. It's not a case of charging in there and ripping the heads of the enemy with no tactics or upper brain activity involved.

You are right, it isn't. Testosterone must be balanced with intelligence, and that is why the US army requires an ASVAB test. Testosterone certainly is an advantage. And it is even better when intelligence is coupled with testosterone.

Just because you're not comfortable with it doesn't mean that anything you just said is a valid reason against it. Everything you said is outdated and invalid. I'm no feminist but your post disgusted me.

Outdated and invalid? Since when is "newest" always "best"? Things are as they are today because of politics, not science or rationality/observation.

According to [unpoliticized and credible] science, men and women must by nature have inherent differences because of biological evolution, which has determined and maintained definite gender roles for millions of years. Human society is not artificially constructed, but naturally evolved. If men and women were equal, and capable of fulfilling the same roles in society, there would be no genders and we would all reproduce asexually.

Observation has shown us that traditionally men have been the best [and usually the only] soldiers. It has shown us the roles men occupy in society, and those woman occupy. Denial of observation is denial of facts.

Is there any reason to assume men and women are inherently equals? Only propaganda and politics have led us to assume this much. Anybody from a previous era or a far away country understands intuitively that there are "differences" between men and women.

I am no sexist. I do not see any gender as superior to any other. But I do recognize distinct "differences" in what defines us as genders. Both men and women hold equally important positions in society. Neither is superior to the other.

Did you not enter the 21st century with the rest of us?

No.    I used my heard to arrive at my own conclusions, regardless of what the "rest of us" tell me to believe.

[anekdote]

So the problem here is with the men? Sounds to me that an all female army would be better than a mixed one if you are right.

Great logic. If A stimulates B negatively, remove B.

Most wars are counter-productive. Men should be with their woman and children also, they shouldn't give their lives for their government. They should give their lives for their woman and children.

People don't give their lives for the government. People gives their lives for the preservation of the status quo, and religion, family, and community. Nowadays in Western nations, none of these things are directly threatened externally at the moment.

If you are going to fight an offensive war you will need poor mindless scum that have no place in a civilised country. So those that volenteer to an army.
If you are going to do a peacekeeping mission you need to draft ordinary people.
So this has nothing to do with being male or being female.

Wow, that is ignorant. Provide evidence.

Woman are emotionally stronger than men. Also, the weakness doesn't really matter since we use guns. Woman do have more endurance than men.

Strength does matter. Weapons have weight and mass, shelters may require strength to erect, some vehicles may require strength to operate. And to your other points I also disagree. Once again, provide the evidence.

No person in their right mind would want to fight, at least not at this age in time. And fighting isn't masculine or feminine, it is foolish.

See the third post up. Wars involving the West today have nothing to gain or preserve for their people, hence they are foolish.

Maybe men are more immoral, hmm. Surely they are more aggressive and stronger. But these qualities helped in ancient and medieval warfare. Not that much in modern warfare.

This has been addressed already.

It is just immoral to put anyone on the battlefield when it is not needed, be it a male or a female, or even a child. When it is needed everyone that can fight should fight. Now when you have a child you have the issue of dying. So you need to consider who the best parent is. Often this is the female.

When you bring women and children to the front, they run the risk of dying, along with the men. You lessen your odds. Your society is much more likely to be defeated and destroyed.

Now you mention it. Children make excellent soldiers. Do you want to put them on the battlefield?

Children do not make excellent soldiers, especially when compared to full-grown men. That is why before the modern era, children and youth (alway boys) fulfilled protect and low military roles such as cabin boy, squire, or drummer boy. Only when they came of age did they become normal soldiers.

[prometheus]

Men do see women as sex objects, no matter how intelligent they are. Intelligence only leads to restraint, not a lack of feeling or stimulus.

Speak for yourself. It is kind of strange that you admit being a sexist here while you deny it a bit later.

Women are just not as "fearless" as men are in battle. Women are also not as capable as handling things such as blood, guts, and carnage as men are. If you have ever watched a horror/gory movie with a woman, or witnessed their reactions to blood or insects, you know subconsiously this to be the case.

That what the average woman thinks or does is irrelevant. There are lots of woman that  do this better than the average male.

I do not believe I simply believe that women will take less risks then men, and will have greater emotional difficulty in dealing with the consequences of war.

Again, the median of the female population is irrevelant. Also, there are many different roles in modern armies. Some require people to be reckless, others demand conservatism.

I never said that, I only said that women don't have a desire to pursue military careers or war.

Apperently some woman have. Woman serve in armies as volentiers and woman as a head of state has started them as well.

This can be somewhat backed up with fact. In today's supposedly "enlightened" age, when women are not discouraged from any career, they still compose only roughly 15% of all enlisted US army personnel. In the Navy, 14%; Marines 6%; Air Force 19%; and Coast Guard 12%. I wonder why the percentages are highest in the Air Force and lowest in the Marines? Could it be related to strenuous activity and endurance? Of course not, that's sexist!

Irrevelant.

You are right, it isn't. Testosterone must be balanced with intelligence, and that is why the US army requires an ASVAB test. Testosterone certainly is an advantage. And it is even better when intelligence is coupled with testosterone.

There are many ways to fight modern wars that do not demand testosterone. There are even roles in modern armies that do not require much intelligence.

Outdated and invalid? Since when is "newest" always "best"? Things are as they are today because of politics, not science or rationality/observation.

Funny that you say this.

According to [unpoliticized and credible] science, men and women must by nature have inherent differences because of biological evolution, which has determined and maintained definite gender roles for millions of years. Human society is not artificially constructed, but naturally evolved. If men and women were equal, and capable of fulfilling the same roles in society, there would be no genders and we would all reproduce asexually.

This is a pure straw man and you know this.

Observation has shown us that traditionally men have been the best [and usually the only] soldiers. It has shown us the roles men occupy in society, and those woman occupy. Denial of observation is denial of facts.

Do you know how ancient warfare was waged? Do you know how totally different it is compared to modern war?

Is there any reason to assume men and women are inherently equals? Only propaganda and politics have led us to assume this much.

Do you know the difference between 'equal' and 'similar'? The fact that there are differences does not have anything to do with equality.

I am no sexist. I do not see any gender as superior to any other. But I do recognize distinct "differences" in what defines us as genders. Both men and women hold equally important positions in society. Neither is superior to the other.

But you do use the word 'equal' I wonder if Freud has something to say about this...

[prometheus]

Great logic. If A stimulates B negatively, remove B.

Males aren't responsible for their own actions? Hahaha, this is absurd. Evenmore since you use the word 'logic'. You think that females are responsible about how they might arouse males? You mean that if a woman dresses sexy and thus arounses a male the male cannot be held responsible for any action that may be the result of this?

People don't give their lives for the government. People gives their lives for the preservation of the status quo, and religion, family, and community. Nowadays in Western nations, none of these things are directly threatened externally at the moment.

The government commands the army. Soldiers only follow orders. If they do more than this they are of no use. The motivation of a soldier is irrelevant. A government does not look at the motivations of its soldiers when it decides how to use its army. The government uses the army to defend or conquer interests of the state. And the interests of the state are very different from things like family and community, let alone religion.

Wow, that is ignorant. Provide evidence.

Because the army that fights a offensive war needs to be ruthless. Normal people will not do. This is why the war in Vietnam failed or at least a big mistake. This why the British have the Gurkhas and the French have the Foreign Legion. Most of these people are psychopaths. Normal people will not kill, they will be passive and only shoot back when they feel they are in danger. There have been many studies on this subjets. The british military paper called these men 'gutless men'. This is why in ancient warfare elite units and mercenaries were so succesful and or infamous. It has nothing to do with physical strenght but with the ability to kill without feeling empathy or conscience. These people are the people that will actually actively kill an enemy.

It is also funny how you say this is ignorant and then ask evidence. If you are so sure I am ignorant about this when why bother? Why not forget about it?

 

Strength does matter. Weapons have weight and mass, shelters may require strength to erect, some vehicles may require strength to operate. And to your other points I also disagree. Once again, provide the evidence.

Most modern infantry is mechanised. Most weapons are too light. Infantry is a small part of the army. It all depends on what kind of army you have and what the soldier needs to do. Also, there are females that are stronger than males. So if one wants to make a distinction on strenght one does not make one on sex, even if they are related.

See the third post up. Wars involving the West today have nothing to gain or preserve for their people, hence they are foolish.

Are you repeating my point? I don't understand.

When you bring women and children to the front, they run the risk of dying, along with the men. You lessen your odds. Your society is much more likely to be defeated and destroyed.

Only if you lose the battle. Many ancient people were nobles and took their woman and children with them to the battlefied in the support caravan. Many of these people won many wars.

Again this misses the point. My point is that one should only fight for the survival on the community. In that case I don't see why woman or children should not join in. But of course it is hard to say if this were a good idea from a tactical point of view. My opinion expressed here is one of ethics. Since I read a lot of books on warfare I could say many things on this subject but they are irrelevant.

Children do not make excellent soldiers, especially when compared to full-grown men. That is why before the modern era, children and youth (alway boys) fulfilled protect and low military roles such as cabin boy, squire, or drummer boy. Only when they came of age did they become normal soldiers.

Children are protected by law because of ethics, not because of military tactics. People do not like war. If someone has to fight then it will often be the men that are willing to do so. In Africa children with AK's and under influence of drugs have proven themselves to be very very effective.

[thalbergmad]

If women on submarines caused half as much disagreement as this thread, they should not go anywhere near them.

[anekdote]

Speak for yourself. It is kind of strange that you admit being a sexist here while you deny it a bit later.

I didn't catch that. I wrote "sex objects" because that is what I thought the poster was alluding to (the Neanderthals reference). It is a fairly common mantra among feminists and egalitarians that men's objectification of women must end, hence that term was what came to my mind. What I meant was that men are sexually attracted to women, and some have more restraint and self-discipline than others. But nevertheless I have never really heard of any man stifling their attraction so much that they do not find women attractive (eye-catching, sexually appealing, pretty, warranting special treatment, etc.). (And that only applies to straight men obviously.) Hence, women will cause a distraction to men in war, whether it be explicity sexual or not. I'm sure you can understand.

Males aren't responsible for their own actions? Hahaha, this is absurd. Evenmore since you use the word 'logic'. You think that females are responsible about how they might arouse males? You mean that if a woman dresses sexy and thus arounses a male the male cannot be held responsible for any action that may be the result of this?

Does it matter whether males, or females for that matter, are responsible for their own actions? The fact is, that stuff happens and it is here to stay. You could close your eyes and try to ignore it, and place men and women together on the battlefield, or you could recognize that it is an unfortunate reality and separate them. However, neither is intrinsically right or wrong.

The government commands the army. Soldiers only follow orders. If they do more than this they are of no use. The motivation of a soldier is irrelevant. A government does not look at the motivations of its soldiers when it decides how to use its army. The government uses the army to defend or conquer interests of the state. And the interests of the state are very different from things like family and community, let alone religion.

But if those things are under threat, it is not foolish to join the army. In Western nations today it is foolish simply because you have no idea where the military may decide to ship you. This is not so much the fault of the enlistee, but of the government for getting too concerned over things which do not involve the national interests. But even still, if everyone was wise and no one enlisted, an army would be nonexistant and the nation would be extremely weak and susceptible to attack.

So the problem is not so much the fault of the enlistee, but mostly the fault of the government's meddling.

Because the army that fights a offensive war needs to be ruthless. Normal people will not do. This is why the war in Vietnam failed or at least a big mistake. This why the British have the Gurkhas and the French have the Foreign Legion. Most of these people are psychopaths. Normal people will not kill, they will be passive and only shoot back when they feel they are in danger. There have been many studies on this subjets. The british military paper called these men 'gutless men'. This is why in ancient warfare elite units and mercenaries were so succesful and or infamous. It has nothing to do with physical strenght but with the ability to kill without feeling empathy or conscience. These people are the people that will actually actively kill an enemy.

It is also funny how you say this is ignorant and then ask evidence. If you are so sure I am ignorant about this when why bother? Why not forget about it?

Are you saying there were wars wherein there was no other goal other than to kill the enemy? In almost all wars, ancient and medieval included, the government or the rulers have been able to convince the people that even offensive wars (with the goal of stealing land, say) are in the national/societal interest. If your statement were true, it would mean that everytime a battle was fought not out of immediate self-defense, the fighters were all sociopaths.

But maybe you just mean that an army is composed of two types of people. Those who only "shoot back" (such as archers and infantry, traditionally) or those who "shoot first" (such as cavalry, traditionally). The former being normal people, and the latter being the sociopaths. If this was your point it is irrelevant, as this has nothing to do with males or females. I disagree with this scenario anyway. And even besides that, most sociopaths are male.

Only if you lose the battle. Many ancient people were nobles and took their woman and children with them to the battlefied in the support caravan. Many of these people won many wars.

Again this misses the point. My point is that one should only fight for the survival on the community. In that case I don't see why woman or children should not join in. But of course it is hard to say if this were a good idea from a tactical point of view. My opinion expressed here is one of ethics. Since I read a lot of books on warfare I could say many things on this subject but they are irrelevant.

"and took their woman and children with them to the battlefied in the support caravan." Exactly. And if they were to lose, the caravans would run away I'm sure. The women and children did not fight. Even in the American Civil War people spectated. But the spectators never actually fought so this is a moot point. We all know most people love a good war movie.

"But of course it is hard to say if this were a good idea from a tactical point of view." Exactly, again. It is not tactical to bring women and/or children to the battle field. So essentially you are conceding that you think women should be in the military only because you support ethical and egalitarian ideals and believe everyone should be allowed to pursue whichever interests they feel (and that the government should not interfere and tell the citizens what to do and not to do). So this debate is useless as we are looking at this completely differently.

Children are protected by law because of ethics, not because of military tactics. People do not like war. If someone has to fight then it will often be the men that are willing to do so. In Africa children with AK's and under influence of drugs have proven themselves to be very very effective.

And if those children with AK47s were men taking drugs, the effect would be much greater. Do you agree?

-----

What I say in this post doesn't matter anyway. You and I could argue all day and never change positions.

[rimv2]

I didn't catch that. I wrote "sex objects" because that is what I thought the poster was alluding to (the Neanderthals reference). It is a fairly common mantra among feminists and egalitarians that men's objectification of women must end, hence that term was what came to my mind. What I meant was that men are sexually attracted to women, and some have more restraint and self-discipline than others. But nevertheless I have never really heard of any man stifling their attraction so much that they do not find women attractive (eye-catching, sexually appealing, pretty, warranting special treatment, etc.). (And that only applies to straight men obviously.) Hence, women will cause a distraction to men in war, whether it be explicity sexual or not. I'm sure you can understand.

Does it matter whether males, or females for that matter, are responsible for their own actions? The fact is, that stuff happens and it is here to stay. You could close your eyes and try to ignore it, and place men and women together on the battlefield, or you could recognize that it is an unfortunate reality and separate them. However, neither is intrinsically right or wrong.

But if those things are under threat, it is not foolish to join the army. In Western nations today it is foolish simply because you have no idea where the military may decide to ship you. This is not so much the fault of the enlistee, but of the government for getting too concerned over things which do not involve the national interests. But even still, if everyone was wise and no one enlisted, an army would be nonexistant and the nation would be extremely weak and susceptible to attack.

So the problem is not so much the fault of the enlistee, but mostly the fault of the government's meddling.

Are you saying there were wars wherein there was no other goal other than to kill the enemy? In almost all wars, ancient and medieval included, the government or the rulers have been able to convince the people that even offensive wars (with the goal of stealing land, say) are in the national/societal interest. If your statement were true, it would mean that everytime a battle was fought not out of immediate self-defense, the fighters were all sociopaths.

But maybe you just mean that an army is composed of two types of people. Those who only "shoot back" (such as archers and infantry, traditionally) or those who "shoot first" (such as cavalry, traditionally). The former being normal people, and the latter being the sociopaths. If this was your point it is irrelevant, as this has nothing to do with males or females. I disagree with this scenario anyway. And even besides that, most sociopaths are male.

"and took their woman and children with them to the battlefied in the support caravan." Exactly. And if they were to lose, the caravans would run away I'm sure. The women and children did not fight. Even in the American Civil War people spectated. But the spectators never actually fought so this is a moot point. We all know most people love a good war movie.

"But of course it is hard to say if this were a good idea from a tactical point of view." Exactly, again. It is not tactical to bring women and/or children to the battle field. So essentially you are conceding that you think women should be in the military only because you support ethical and egalitarian ideals and believe everyone should be allowed to pursue whichever interests they feel (and that the government should not interfere and tell the citizens what to do and not to do). So this debate is useless as we are looking at this completely differently.

And if those children with AK47s were men taking drugs, the effect would be much greater. Do you agree?

-----

What I say in this post doesn't matter anyway. You and I could argue all day and never change positions.

You are all making useless points and assumptions. So is ah.

But ah do not assume when ah say that women do not belong on submarines.

Should they be in the military? If they're ugly yes. Dumb yes.

No one wants to see a perfect intelligent beautiful baby maker with a bullet through her brain or missing the bottom half of her body.

But we are talking subs.

And even if they're so dumb and ugly they blend in with men, they'll attract the attention of dumb ugly males, and a few of the few smart ones actually on board.

The military is coagulated with dumb people.

In fact, the dumb far outnumber the not.

Redundant here, but.

ASVAB, or ASMAB or whatever the heck its called, tests on a middle school level. And you dont even have to get a good grade on it.

There is nothing sexist about my extremely sexist opinion that women shouldnt be allowed on subs, because its only extremely sexist because ahm trying to convey it in an extremely sexist manner.

But it makes no sense.

Like women as seals. Big ugly amazons... maybe. But more no than so.

But any other woman, why woud you want to, and what the heck would you offer?

But back to subs.

Dumb horny men with a vagina around will flock to it.

It's that simple.

Subs are too small to make accomodations especially for females.

It's that simple.

A guy with no arms shouldnt complain when hes not allowed to box (though that would be an interesting site)

Guys dont whine that they're not allowed to go into women's restrooms (that what ah say and its what am sticking to)

So let's bring this useless banter to an end shall we.











The final word:




Stop wanting everything to be same when we is clearly different.

[pianistimo]

well, it all started when i thought i was watching the news and this question came on.  then, i realized that it was a religious channel (pat robertson, i think) and they pretty much agreed that women shouldn't be conscripted into working on subs.  anyhew, i tend to agree with both sides - war shouldn't have to be fought by anyone - and the men and women who go are very courageous.  guess that women have fine motor skills that are good - and some jobs take that.  also, they are good with tending and mending (as in wwII).  would you want a guy for a nurse?  suppose that everyone has their place and i tend to agree that women with family or who want a family probably should stay out of the military.  losing a parent or a spouse would be terrible - although, many in the military have spouses and children.  must be very rough. 

ps i tend to like 'knightly' men - but, wish that war wasn't important.


. 

[Tash]

my friend once had a dream another of our friends built a submarine, and we were all sitting in it, except it had no saftey features, or a door, so we were stuck in it. but then she was like it's ok, we have a giant tub of icecream!! so we apparently sat there eating icecream in the sub hahahaha