Women in the military

[LeninBalls]

Do you believe women should serve full time in any branch of the military, including front line combat, as any other male soldier?

I don't see why not, if the women think so.

READ:


And by military, I mean some revolutionary militia or people's army or something similiar.

[Trystan]

I don't believe in the military. So obviously, no. I don't think anyone should join up . . . unless we're talking about some left-wing militia, in which case, yes.

[Dóchas]

i dont see why not, they chose to join the military so they should fight. what would worry me is the risk of assault and abuse my the male soldiers they are fighting along side. :(

edit: obviously as the above post states we shouldnt support the military but we should accept decisions people make

[Bitter Ashes]

i dont see why not, they chose to join the military so they should fight. what would worry me is the risk of assault and abuse my the male soldiers they are fighting along side. :(
It does happen, but to be fair, the male soldiers get it off thier own too almost as bad, except where the army jails are concerned where I can honestly say that women get it a lot worse there.

Anyway, in the intrest of answering the question. I voted yes, not suprisingly. It pissed me off when there was all these accusions flying around that women couldnt pass a CFT, even when the evidence pointed otherwise. Or that women were too soft to fight, when the evidence pointed otherwise. Or that women fighting ammoungst men would spark a Sacred Band mentality, which used to confuse me loads as that was once seen as a valid military strategy and also seeing as though the British Army permits openly gay soldiers, why would it be any different than two gay soldiers having that ideoligy? Madness.

[LeninBalls]

And by military, I mean some revolutionary militia or people's army or something similiar.

[Dóchas]

And by military, I mean some revolutionary militia or people's army or something similiar.

oh right well then i vote yes. i thought you meant the actual military of a country

[cleef]

then the answer is obvious...women should be at home taking care of the children :blink:

People from all backgrounds should be encouraged to fight irrespective of gender

[RedAnarchist]

Many women have fought in wars, and many women are much stronger than a lot of men or are better trained. The only reason women would be excluded is chauvinism.

[Guerrilla22]

No one should join the military.

[TC]

To even pose the question, as if a *serious one*, is implicitly sexist, regardless of how its answered, because it starts by questioning the legitimacy of women's equal participation in political life and the state. To question that even if to answer in an unsexist way is still sexist since no one on the left would question it.

As to whether anyone should serve in the military, clearly no one should serve in reactionary armies that enforce reactionary class interests and people willing and able should fight where they fight for the liberation or defense of the oppressed against the oppressors.

[NecroCommie]

All the women that know their class should fight the class war. Fighting for one's class is a duty, regardless one's gender.

When it comes to bourgeoisie armies, we should shoot the bourgeoisie whether man or woman. Some people here would like to draft all the women too to the army. I oppose, as I see that no man should enter the nationalist army either, so why take women too. In Finnish army you just get exposed to ridiculous amounts of nationalist propaganda.

[LeninBalls]

To even pose the question, as if a *serious one*, is implicitly sexist, regardless of how its answered, because it starts by questioning the legitimacy of women's equal participation in political life and the state. To question that even if to answer in an unsexist way is still sexist since no one on the left would question it.

As to whether anyone should serve in the military, clearly no one should serve in reactionary armies that enforce reactionary class interests and people willing and able should fight where they fight for the liberation or defense of the oppressed against the oppressors.

Yeah ok chill out. I'm not a sexist, I said in my first post I think women should be in the army (not of the reactionary), I was just interested if anyone disagreeed.

If you bothered to read the rest of the thread you'll see that I don't mean capitalist armies, and that I mean some revolutionary one.

[Bitter Ashes]

btw, one intresting thing is to do with this subject is lack of suitable equipment for certain groups within the British Army.

Rifles that shower you with red hot shell casing if you try to use them left handed and body armour that is outright painful to wear if you've got breasts, becoming agony if they're large. Fortuantly I didnt fall into either catagory (although the armour was still bloody sore), but I knew somebody who had both issues and she was not a happy bunny in the slightest as she was running around having to use her rifle right handed and replacing the ceramic plates in her flak vest with, wait for it, cardboard. The poor girl was in a constant cycle of pain and punishment from officers. Whenever they caught her with cardboard down there instead of plates, they'd beast her and then force her to put the plates back in. She'd suffer the plates for a while and then have to hide them again because she'd become so bruised. They'd catch her and the cycle would begin again. By the time she'd left she was covered head to toe in bruises and scars inflicted upon her by the practices of officers and the RMP.

Even the pants we were issued with were innapropriate. In order for them to stay up you had to get a tight waist size, but they were far too tight on your hips which when you're sweating can cause some very painful chaffing. Of course, the army wouldnt take kindly if you asked for a larger size and just let them hang off your hips instead of bieng bolted to your waist.

Any militas or people's armies, if there's to be any, really needs to take this stuff into consideration too. Despite claiming to be equal oportunties in the British Army, the limitation of that is for thier female soldiers to live in unnesscary pain throughout thier army career.

[NecroCommie]

btw, one intresting thing is to do with this subject is lack of suitable equipment for certain groups within the British Army.
Any militas or people's armies, if there's to be any, really needs to take this stuff into consideration too. Despite claiming to be equal oportunties in the British Army, the limitation of that is for thier female soldiers to live in unnesscary pain throughout thier army career.

Rare militias have the resources to spare to consider such things. Luckily enough, many militias also have a colourful display of equipment and weapons. Thusly it might just be possible to issue the few "left-handed" weapons to the left handed, and bulletproof vests would be rare anyway.

BTW if you think british gear is uncomfortable, try the east-german gear. You will fucking die! (I own both... do ya want me autograph? :cool:)

[Psy]

btw, one intresting thing is to do with this subject is lack of suitable equipment for certain groups within the British Army.

Rifles that shower you with red hot shell casing if you try to use them left handed

There are left handed versions of rifles that switch the side the casings are ejected and switch the side you charge the chamber.



and body armour that is outright painful to wear if you've got breasts, becoming agony if they're large.

Not all solders wear body armour, in fact few guerrilla fighters wear body armour not really due to expense but because it slows them down so they can't march/sprint as fast and as far, that is a huge disadvantage for armed forces that are primary on foot (if the bulk of your fighting force has to march to the battle then how much weight they have to lug becomes key to losing or winning the upcoming battle). Also airborne units don't tend to wear body armour as there is only so much weight they can take with them when they are dropped and airborne tend to find themselves having to fight on foot after they are airdropped (while modern armies do airdrop APCs and light tanks they draw far more attention since they require rockets in their parachutes to slow down their decent, else they have to dropped at very low alitutes that kinda draws unwanted attention to the drop zones).



Even the pants we were issued with were innapropriate. In order for them to stay up you had to get a tight waist size, but they were far too tight on your hips which when you're sweating can cause some very painful chaffing. Of course, the army wouldnt take kindly if you asked for a larger size and just let them hang off your hips instead of bieng bolted to your waist.

Wouldn't that reduce marching distance?

[Pogue]

Oh, come on, everyone knows women can't do anything other than cook, clean and bring up children!

What a stupid question. Of course they can, and they did. Look at the Spanish Civil War and all the women in the Anarchist militias (before the Stalinists banned this, that is.)

What sort of idiot judges someone's military capability based on their gender anyway.

[Agrippa]

I voted "no" before I realized what Mr. LeninBalls was asking. I don't think women should join the capitalist military, unless they do so to turn their guns of the brass, or commit other acts of sabotage. I sincerely do hope the captalist militiary would ban female soldiers, that way our enemies' forces would be reduced, and more women would realize what kind of sexist society we live in...essentially the primary reason for women to be enrolled in the military is so they can be sexually abused by male soldiers.

As for a "people's militia", of course women would fight in it. They'd probably make up the primary fighting force.

[Killfacer]

Gender shouldn't be anything to do with it. How capable a soldier the person makes should be the determining factor. I didn't vote.

[Bitter Ashes]

There are left handed versions of rifles that switch the side the casings are ejected and switch the side you charge the chamber.
Indeed there are! The Americans' weapons even had a way of adjusting thier rifles to eject the casings on the correct side. The British Army with its newer weapons, chose not to incorporate this concept, or even the option of keeping left handed weapons in stores.



Not all solders wear body armour, in fact few guerrilla fighters wear body armour not really due to expense but because it slows them down so they can't march/sprint as fast and as far, that is a huge disadvantage for armed forces that are primary on foot (if the bulk of your fighting force has to march to the battle then how much weight they have to lug becomes key to losing or winning the upcoming battle). Also airborne units don't tend to wear body armour as there is only so much weight they can take with them when they are dropped and airborne tend to find themselves having to fight on foot after they are airdropped (while modern armies do airdrop APCs and light tanks they draw far more attention since they require rockets in their parachutes to slow down their decent, else they have to dropped at very low alitutes that kinda draws unwanted attention to the drop zones).
Body armour is issued as and when it's required. The infantry are always issued body armour, even paras, although I dont believe they actualy wear it when they're parachuting. Other corps tend only to be given it if they're expected to be on the front line for any period of time. My particular corps spent a lot of time in the field, so we were issued body armour very regualy.

Good body armour is a lifesaver though, but it's got to be ceramic plates to withstand a rifle round. Kevlar might stop a shotgun, or pistol, or sometimes shrapnel, but seeing as though the rifle is the standard kit for most armies there's no point in issuing kevlar (although they do for helmets intrestingly enough!). Plates will even stop most LMGs and GPMGs. Its use to a guerilla army would indeed be limited though. Dont have any dreams in your heads that wearing plates turns you into some kind of walking tank. If you're hit and the armour works you'll certainly be knocked to the floor and you'll no doubt need immediate medical attention. If you've not got some doctors to fall back on, then you'll probably have wished you hadnt worn it in the first place. Expect severe bruising, broken bones and probably internal bleeding and/or organ damage. So, in short, body armour gets soldiers back home, it doesnt keep them fighting.


Wouldn't that reduce marching distance?
No kidding! This is where the myth that women cant tab as far as men came from.

[Rjevan]

Of course, I don't see why women shouldn't serve in the military, if they want to. I just never understod why anyone would want to serve in the military (besides of financial reasons), I don't fight and maybe get shot for a stupid government and "the fatherland", if I have to, I fight and maybe get shot for my beliefs and my rights but definitely not for Mrs Merkel. Revolutionary militia is something different (as this has something to do with my beliefs ;)) and of course women should be allowed to serve there, too.
The only problem I see is the chauvinist attitude of some male soldiers, which was already mentioned.


What a stupid question. Of course they can, and they did. Look at the Spanish Civil War and all the women in the Anarchist militias (before the Stalinists banned this, that is.)
Yes, and look at the women who served in the Red Army, which was led by the Stalinists. :p
http://www.battlefield-site.co.uk/yelizaveta_mironova.jpghttp://www.2ndguards.com/Images/b%2Bw%20pictures/web%20site%20pictures%201203.jpghttp://www.2ndguards.com/Images/b%2Bw%20pictures/IMG_0152.jpg

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'd get too distracted if the women look like that. I suppose I'd get over it pretty fast if I was in near death situations. Still...

Just put some prostitutes in each army group to relieve the soldiers once in awhile.

[LeninBalls]

Just put some prostitutes in each army group to relieve the soldiers once in awhile.

That's pretty ridiculous.

[More Fire for the People]

Anybody who votes no gets an auto-restrict.

[Invader Zim]

Anybody who votes no gets an auto-restrict.

Leftists shouldn't think anyone should join the military, be they male of female. While I can understand and empathise with many who do for financial reasons, or even because they are inundated with pro-military propaganda from all walks of society, it doesn't mean we should believe that they should join and fight.

Is that a yes or no vote?

[Il Medico]

I don't support war. I believe killing should be the absolute last resort. However, that said, in a struggle for the people, in revolution, then both sexes should take part. All sexes, and races in the working class are equal and should be treated as such.

Love,
Captain Jack

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

That's pretty ridiculous.

True, but the military is probably stressful, and prostitutes need safe work.

[Psy]

Indeed there are! The Americans' weapons even had a way of adjusting thier rifles to eject the casings on the correct side. The British Army with its newer weapons, chose not to incorporate this concept, or even the option of keeping left handed weapons in stores.

Then just show up with a left hand AK-101 :)

Really I don't know why the British Army would want a assault rifle that can't easily be modified for left handed firing.



Body armour is issued as and when it's required. The infantry are always issued body armour, even paras, although I dont believe they actualy wear it when they're parachuting. Other corps tend only to be given it if they're expected to be on the front line for any period of time. My particular corps spent a lot of time in the field, so we were issued body armour very regualy.

Good body armour is a lifesaver though, but it's got to be ceramic plates to withstand a rifle round. Kevlar might stop a shotgun, or pistol, or sometimes shrapnel, but seeing as though the rifle is the standard kit for most armies there's no point in issuing kevlar (although they do for helmets intrestingly enough!). Plates will even stop most LMGs and GPMGs. Its use to a guerilla army would indeed be limited though. Dont have any dreams in your heads that wearing plates turns you into some kind of walking tank. If you're hit and the armour works you'll certainly be knocked to the floor and you'll no doubt need immediate medical attention. If you've not got some doctors to fall back on, then you'll probably have wished you hadnt worn it in the first place. Expect severe bruising, broken bones and probably internal bleeding and/or organ damage. So, in short, body armour gets soldiers back home, it doesnt keep them fighting.

Not all modern armies rely so heavily on body armour since even Kevlar significantly reduces marching distance and means less equipment and supply the solider can carry. Also in tropical climates body armour makes solders mostly immobile due to heat and humility, arctic conditions are no better due to the weight of the winter clothing, muddy battlefields are also bad for body armour as the extra weight will just make the solider sink faster.

To put in another way there are armies when deciding if their soldiers should carry extra supplies or wear body armour they decide on extra supplies.

[EqualityandFreedom]

The title should have been "Woman in a revolutionary militia" which I would of course vote yes.

[Agrippa]

That's pretty ridiculous.

Yeah, totally. Why would we go back to using prostitutes to alleviate soldiers' sexual frustration, when we put women in the military so male soldiers would stop contracting venereal diseases from prostitutes in the first place! :laugh:

[More Fire for the People]

Leftists shouldn't think anyone should join the military, be they male of female. While I can understand and empathise with many who do for financial reasons, or even because they are inundated with pro-military propaganda from all walks of society, it doesn't mean we should believe that they should join and fight.

Is that a yes or no vote?
He's talking about organized people's militias, not formal armies.

[Decolonize The Left]

I feel as though individuals should pay more attention to TC's post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1462392&postcount=10) earlier in this thread. The analysis offered in this post is accurate and coherent, and the conclusions drawn spot-on.

I didn't vote.

- August

[Radical]

To give men the option to join the military and not women, is sexist.

All communists should advocate giving women the equal right to choose.

[Bitter Ashes]

I'd get too distracted if the women look like that. I suppose I'd get over it pretty fast if I was in near death situations. Still...

Just put some prostitutes in each army group to relieve the soldiers once in awhile.
Does anyone else find this post offensive? :confused:

I mean, I re-read it and all I see is; "I see women's role in the military as eye-candy and whores"

[IrishWorker]

During the War in Ireland some of the best and dedicated revolutionary’s were/are women my own auntie did a long stretch in a British jail for trying to assassinate a member of the Ulster Defense Regiment.
The gun jammed when she put it to the back of his head:(

[TC]

(before the Stalinists banned this, that is.)


Care to cite a source to go along with your red-baiting? Dolores Ibárruri one of the best known Spanish 'Stalinists' and eventual leader of the Spanish Communist Party coined the famous "No Pasaran!" anti-fascist slogan in Madrid during the Battle of Madrid; do you imagine she'd have been unarmed? Comintern women fought as both partisan guerrillas and red army soldiers and officers in the second world war while Stalin led the international communist movement. Some of the most famous Chinese and Korean communist ('Stalinist') military leaders during the same time frame were women. So, seriously, back it up.

[TC]

I'd get too distracted if the women look like that. I suppose I'd get over it pretty fast if I was in near death situations. Still...

Just put some prostitutes in each army group to relieve the soldiers once in awhile.


What the fuck is wrong with you? Your statement only provides an argument for why *you* should not be allowed to serve in the military, or possibly in any role that requires concentration and human contact at the same time.

[Dimentio]

I don't think any human beings should fight, but since we are forced to have military personnel, I think that whatever kind of military we chose to have, either a professional, a voluntary or a draft-based one, women should have the same rights and duties as men.

[Dimentio]

I'd get too distracted if the women look like that. I suppose I'd get over it pretty fast if I was in near death situations. Still...

Just put some prostitutes in each army group to relieve the soldiers once in awhile.

*throws up*

[NecroCommie]

*throws up*
May I join?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Does anyone else find this post offensive? :confused:

I mean, I re-read it and all I see is; "I see women's role in the military as eye-candy and whores"

The post I was responding to had a sexual context. We were appreciating how attractive those women were in the pictures. That's not terrible. When I wrote that post, I was also assuming the prostitutes would be of both genders. I guess I wrongly supposed that was a given.

Seriously, why would anyone actively deny women the ability to participate in the military? On a leftist forum? Why wouldn't you give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I'm a sexual deviant before assuming I'm sexist? TC was on the mark with that one.

I'm just saying the argument that women and men being in the same environment distracts one another, I think, is true. I'll still take another person to watch my back in a dangerous situation. I'm just saying we should be realistic here. Sexuality doesn't turn off because it's inconvenient.

Throwing prostitutes into military groups might actually be beneficial. I mean these soldiers are usually accustomed to sexual release and are gone for long periods of time. Why not?

I suppose my post was interpreted as women shouldn't be in the military, but we should let some women in the military as prostitutes. That's all I can think of that would illicit such a harsh response. If that's the case, my bad. As I said, I thought the sarcasm was a given, and the existence of prostitutes of both sexes was a given.

**

Serious hat. I actually voted no, but I'm undecided. Why did I vote no? Paternalism. People shouldn't be joining the military at all - as it is. I figured if they aren't smart enough to protect their own life, why not stop them from risking it? I'm not sure about this position though. It is there life to risk. I certainly wouldn't vote in favoring of restricting liberty if given the opportunity to vote on such an issue. Given that, I probably should've voted yes.

Something just seems unsettling about telling someone they shouldn't do something terrible but letting them do it anyway.

[Agrippa]

Does anyone else find this post offensive? :confused:

I mean, I re-read it and all I see is; "I see women's role in the military as eye-candy and whores"

You thought I was actually serious?

Edit: n/m you were responding to the guy before me. I'm fairly certain he was also joking

[Tomhet]

Yes, a girl named Ludmilla, a sniper for the soviet in World War 2. I believe had the highest kill count of the war. Women should be entitled the exact same rights as men for everything, fuck patriarchy.

[hugsandmarxism]

http://enzodavid.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/lyudmyla_m_pavlichenko.jpg

This. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludmila_Pavlichenko)

Edit: Damnit, someone beat me to it!

[Bitter Ashes]

http://enzodavid.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/lyudmyla_m_pavlichenko.jpg

This. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludmila_Pavlichenko)

Edit: Damnit, someone beat me to it!
hehe. Aye. Ludmila rocked. They so should have made Enemy at the Gates about her instead of Vasily though. Sexism in the film industry?

[JammyDodger]

And by military, I mean some revolutionary militia or people's army or something similiar.

I voted no before I read this, in this case its a global struggle, no person excluded, id happily let my 8 year old nephew and 10 years old niece pitch in here (though I hope thats a last resort for manpower:lol:).

But in the case of what we currently know as "the military" id vote no be it for women or men.

[Old Man Diogenes]

If men can fight, why can't women? If men are willing to fight for a cause, women will be too. And I also agree with what many other of my comrades have said on this thread, that neither men nor women should fight in what is currently known as military, but in a revolutionary militia, as the current military seems to just be a tool for rich world leaders to kill off their countries young people.

[JammyDodger]

If men can fight, why can't women? If men are willing to fight for a cause, women will be too. And I also agree with what many other of my comrades have said on this thread, that neither men nor women should fight in what is currently known as military, but in a revolutionary militia, as the current military seems to just be a tool for rich world leaders to kill off their countries young people.

Or to keep us all distracted, anyone dumb enough to want to join the military should be refused or atleast quit there jibba jabba if they come back incomplete.

[Comrade B]

I think the funniest thing going on in the US right now is that women are allowed to join the military, but homosexuals are not because apparently their attraction to others in their unit will be troubling...
I do however, stand for having people take psychological exams before joining an organized communist military. I have a couple friends joining or already in the military who I do not think will be able to handle their first deployment.

[Radical]

Should women be given equal rights to men as having the option to fight on the frontline, as here in the UK their currently not allowed.

I believe its a serious form of sexism and discrimation towards women to allow men to fight on the front line, but not women.


Vote, Discuss!

[RedAnarchist]

Do you mean in the national army, fighting imperialist wars? Although I would rather no working class person would risk their life for the government and the rich, I think that women should be allowed to fight on the front line. Being female doesn't mean that they cannot fight a war - there are some women who are better at "masculine" activities than many men, and vice versa.

[Red October]

Women should be allowed to do anything men are, 'nuff said.

[Il Medico]

Women will fight along side men in the revolution. Until then, no body should be fighting on the front lines of imperialist wars.:closedeyes:

[KurtFF8]

What kind of poll question is this for a "leftist/radical" community to ask?

Are we supposed to seriously consider leaving some sort of gender hierarchy with us during a revolutionary conflict? Or if you're talking about fighting wars for the current ruling classes, the answer is: this is the wrong kind of thing to be wasting our time considering.

[piet11111]

yes if they can match the standards required of a soldier* i see no reason why they should not be allowed to do so if they want to.

* meaning that they for instance are trained to use a weapon just as effectively or to carry their gear for X distance within Y amount of time up to the same standards that the men have to.

in the soviet army they got far allowing women in their army performing certain roles but not even there did they become frontline soldiers.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I guess I'm the odd one out. :lol:

[Manxboz]

women should have the right to fight alongside us male comrades, they did in the past and should be able to do so now but i agree not in any imperialist war.

[Manxboz]

Women should be allowed to serve in a revolutionary war.

[ComradeOm]

Throwing prostitutes into military groups might actually be beneficial. I mean these soldiers are usually accustomed to sexual release and are gone for long periods of time. Why not?Interestingly enough the same logic was arrived at by Heinrich Himmler who was the driving force behind the Nazi use of regulated prostitution for the purpose of 'maintaining morale' amongst military formations at the front. Guess it didn't work all that well

[Bitter Ashes]

Women already fight on the front line, but this is frequently unrecognised.

The current rules in the British Army are that women are not allowed to join the Infantry, Armoured Corps, Air Corps and one other that eludes me. To say that only these combat corps are on the front line is a massive oversight. Women do regualy fight on "the front line" for other corps and perform just as well as males. Despite this evidence, the gates are still barred for women to join the combat corps and thier current actions ignored. It's time to open up the combat corps to women.

[KurtFF8]

But really though, why is no body acknowledging the fact that even the very asking of this question comes from this assumption that "women are weaker and are unable to do things like fight on the front line: it's up to men to decide whether to permit this" is problematic?

Such thinking certainly shouldn't be a part of a revolutionary movement if it truly seeks to transform society and eliminate forms of oppression like gender inequality.

[piet11111]

But really though, why is no body acknowledging the fact that even the very asking of this question comes from this assumption that "women are weaker and are unable to do things like fight on the front line: it's up to men to decide whether to permit this" is problematic?

Such thinking certainly shouldn't be a part of a revolutionary movement if it truly seeks to transform society and eliminate forms of oppression like gender inequality.

its not an assumption the average woman is physically weaker then the average man.
however they are just as well suited for combat roles if they match the required standards that are required of any soldier regardless of gender.

however they might be better in roles like fighter pilot (women handle G-forces better then men) and tankers (their smaller average size allows them to move easier inside a tank especially handy when serving as a loader in tanks that have no auto-loader)

[Pogue]

Women already fight on the front line, but this is frequently unrecognised.

The current rules in the British Army are that women are not allowed to join the Infantry, Armoured Corps, Air Corps and one other that eludes me. To say that only these combat corps are on the front line is a massive oversight. Women do regualy fight on "the front line" for other corps and perform just as well as males. Despite this evidence, the gates are still barred for women to join the combat corps and thier current actions ignored. It's time to open up the combat corps to women.

No, its time we let women join a peoples militia.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I guess I'm the odd one out. :lol:

That is because this is the wrong website for you.

[cyu]

How about some alternate questions:

1. Should women have the right to frag asshole officers?

2. Should women have the right to shoot politicians that are sending them off to die?

3. Should women have the right to assassinate media moguls that are fanning the flames of war?

When war comes, you are basically saying it's "acceptable" for "these people" to kill "those people" - why not another group of people?

[KurtFF8]

its not an assumption the average woman is physically weaker then the average man.
however they are just as well suited for combat roles if they match the required standards that are required of any soldier regardless of gender.

however they might be better in roles like fighter pilot (women handle G-forces better then men) and tankers (their smaller average size allows them to move easier inside a tank especially handy when serving as a loader in tanks that have no auto-loader)

This still doesn't get around the inherent flaw in a question like "should they be allowed to fight on the front lines?"

What kind of pseudo-revolutionary leftist would even consider such a question? The real question is: what kind of social/economic group has the right to deny them such a "right" to fight in a revolutionary conflict or even imperialist conflict?

The question also doesn't address what kind of conflict we're talking about. If we're talking about a matter of policy under a liberal democracy that engages in imperialistic conflicts like the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, then I would imagine the answer should be something along the lines of:

Gender oppression/discrimination are wrong and a denial of "being on the front lines" is a further expression of that discrimination, but we should be asking ourselves instead: why should any woman or man fight in these kind of conflicts?

And if it's a matter of a revolutionary conflict: Why would we even consider having the option of disallowing women to do this? Even if they were not "built" the same way and unable to perform the task of front line fighting (Which is false by the way, and doesn't take into account the vast differences among women and among men: there may be many women who are more qualified to do the job than many men) then why deny them the opportunity in the first place?

This thread/poll question is very problematic to be on a revolutionary leftist forum in my opinion and belongs more in the Opposing Ideologies section.

[Il Medico]

But really though, why is no body acknowledging the fact that even the very asking of this question comes from this assumption that "women are weaker and are unable to do things like fight on the front line: it's up to men to decide whether to permit this" is problematic?

Such thinking certainly shouldn't be a part of a revolutionary movement if it truly seeks to transform society and eliminate forms of oppression like gender inequality.
I full heartedly agree. This is a rather silly question to ask leftist. Also, the idea that anyone should fight for the bourgeois in killing other workers.... well I just had to do a face palm when I read the OP.

P.S : For those of you that don't know a face palm is what yo do when words can't express accurately how stupid that was.

[DreamWeaver]

Well... captured soldiers are bad publicity. Captured female soldiers are a scandal and something that will seriously undermine your military goals. That's why the men at the top don't want women on the front lines.

[ZeroNowhere]

They should have equal rights with men, yes. I voted 'No'.

[KurtFF8]

Well... captured soldiers are bad publicity. Captured female soldiers are a scandal and something that will seriously undermine your military goals. That's why the men at the top don't want women on the front lines.

Exactly, that's why men need to step in and protect the helpless women...:confused:

[Bitter Ashes]

Well... captured soldiers are bad publicity. Captured female soldiers are a scandal and something that will seriously undermine your military goals. That's why the men at the top don't want women on the front lines.
I never considered this actualy. Damn. That's got to be the best explanation of thier excuses I've ever heard and I've heard a lot :O

[( R )evolution]

Woman can point and fire a gun as well as any man. So yes of course, as long as there pointing it at the bourgeois ;)

[piet11111]

Gender oppression/discrimination are wrong and a denial of "being on the front lines" is a further expression of that discrimination, but we should be asking ourselves instead: why should any woman or man fight in these kind of conflicts?

i answered the question from the perspective of a post-revolutionary army.



And if it's a matter of a revolutionary conflict: Why would we even consider having the option of disallowing women to do this? Even if they were not "built" the same way and unable to perform the task of front line fighting (Which is false by the way, and doesn't take into account the vast differences among women and among men: there may be many women who are more qualified to do the job than many men) then why deny them the opportunity in the first place?

i agree but like i said the army should not be filled with people that do not match the required standards be they male of female.
sad as it is but i am convinced we will require an army after the revolution for quite some time so i consider it necessary to have all soldiers up to a good standard.


This thread/poll question is very problematic to be on a revolutionary leftist forum in my opinion and belongs more in the Opposing Ideologies section.

i treated this topic from a post-revolution perspective.

[KurtFF8]

i agree but like i said the army should not be filled with people that do not match the required standards be they male of female.
sad as it is but i am convinced we will require an army after the revolution for quite some time so i consider it necessary to have all soldiers up to a good standard.

Then if it's really only about qualifications, why is the question of "whether women should be allowed to" or not even relevant?

[Il Medico]

Well... captured soldiers are bad publicity. Captured female soldiers are a scandal and something that will seriously undermine your military goals. That's why the men at the top don't want women on the front lines.
*Face Palm*

[Killfacer]

Woman can point and fire a gun as well as any man. So yes of course, as long as there pointing it at the bourgeois ;)

I think they should, but the idea that all there is to being a soldier and fighting a war is pointing a gun and pulling the trigger is ridiculous.

[KurtFF8]

I think they should, but the idea that all there is to being a soldier and fighting a war is pointing a gun and pulling the trigger is ridiculous.

Indeed. The amount of simplistic reduction of important issues like gender roles and even war in this thread is...well a little much for a revolutionary message board.

[piet11111]

Then if it's really only about qualifications, why is the question of "whether women should be allowed to" or not even relevant?

maybe i misread this quote


Even if they were not "built" the same way and unable to perform the task of front line fighting (Which is false by the way, and doesn't take into account the vast differences among women and among men: there may be many women who are more qualified to do the job than many men) then why deny them the opportunity in the first place?

i read is as the women that are unable to reach the requirements should still be let in the army.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I am sickened to find even 6 No's to the poll. These people should be banned from this board. No one can claim to be Anarchist/Communist whilst promoting sexism.

[KurtFF8]

i read is as the women that are unable to reach the requirements should still be let in the army.

No, I would imagine even a revolutionary armed force would have certain requirements, but to gender those requirements is reactionary and based on a history of gender oppression that often continues to seep in even in leftist currents.

And I'd be interested to see what two members voted "no" and why

[Guerrilla22]

Ban everyone from fighting on the front lines.

[( R )evolution]

I think they should, but the idea that all there is to being a soldier and fighting a war is pointing a gun and pulling the trigger is ridiculous.

It was just an example of something that will occur in war, I didnt mean for it to entitle the entire use of anyone in war. Of course there are various positions that are vital to the success of a war. Sorry if my comment wasnt clear enough.

[( R )evolution]

And I'd be interested to see what two members voted "no" and why

I would like to know as well, and now its 3. Voice your opinion please

[TC]

This topic is a precise duplicate of another thread already going on in learning here http://www.revleft.com/vb/women-military-t110667/index.html?t=110667 so i'm merging it if no one objects.

[Il Medico]

I object to the fact the six "Leftist" voted no. Sad.:closedeyes:

[KurtFF8]

Probably users that are on the path to being restricted ;)

[LeninBalls]

Or some that didn't read the original post properly.

[Tatarin]

Too distinct question. No, no one should have to fight. No to joining the capitalist army, but yes to progressive fights like demonstrations, strikes, uprisings and revolutions. The more the merrier :) .

[KurtFF8]

And another "leftist" voted no. Can you vote in polls like this if you're already restricted? That could explain it.

[Il Medico]

UPDATE: 7 'leftist' have voted no on this poll. This is starting to make me sad. :(



And another "leftist" voted no. Can you vote in polls like this if you're already restricted? That could explain it.
As far as I know restricted members can't post outside OI. However, an admin or mod has to find cappies and right wingers before they can restrict them.

__________________

[Invariance]

UPDATE: 7 'leftist' have voted no on this poll. This is starting to make me sad. :(


I object to the fact the six "Leftist" voted no. Sad.:closedeyes:


And another "leftist" voted no. Can you vote in polls like this if you're already restricted? That could explain it.


Probably users that are on the path to being restricted ;) We don't need your witch-hunt/self-indignant commentary. Before I'm restricted for voting no in this poll, I'd like to point out that I voted no because I think that even considering this as a valid question on a revolutionary forum is pathetic and offensive. So, I voted no because I think that its a stupid poll and should be derided and mocked, and that its even stupider that people are debating it, or think that its a debatable topic. Its like having a topic of 'do you think communism is good? vote yes or no' - its not, or shouldn't be, a debatable topic on this forum. And this poll shouldn't even be in learning, but in OI.

[Il Medico]

We don't need your witch-hunt/self-indignant commentary. Before I'm restricted for voting no in this poll, I'd like to point out that I voted no because I think that even considering this as a valid question on a revolutionary forum is pathetic and offensive. So, I voted no because I think that its a stupid poll and should be derided and mocked, and that its even stupider that people are debating it, or think that its a debatable topic. Its like having a topic of 'do you think communism is good? vote yes or no' - its not, or shouldn't be, a debatable topic on this forum. And this poll shouldn't even be in learning, but in OI.
So, instead of voting 'yes' and ridiculing the poll question in a post as did the rest of us did. You instead vote the opposite way then you believe, because you believe the question is stupid, just to prove a point? That sounds like a ridiculous lie to try to cover your ass and not get restricted. Either that or you're not very smart. When since did going along with sexist and bigoted statements become a form of protest for a leftist?

[Invariance]

So, instead of voting 'yes' and ridiculing the poll question in a post as did the rest of us did. You instead vote the opposite way then you believe, because you believe the question is stupid, just to prove a point?

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


That sounds like a ridiculous lie to try to cover your ass and not get restricted. Odd, I seem to remember you calling a female user on here 'honey' and claiming that was just a joke. Was that a cover just to avoid your ass getting restricted?


Either that or your not very smart.

*You're


When since did going along with sexist and bigoted statements become a form of protest for a leftist? Nowhere have I gone along with sexist and bigoted statements. I'm sure the other people who voted 'no' considered it a stupid poll. And if you voted 'yes', then its just as pathetic, because you think that this is actually a debatable question. Seriously, you need to reconsider your position if you're getting sad over how people vote in a poll.

[Il Medico]

Vinnie this is a serious forum, not Chit-Chat. To vote a silly answer like "Blackscare I Love you" is acceptable in Chit-Chat. However, to vote a sexist thing in a thread on Learning is not appropriate. It gives the new members here to learn the wrong impression. Next time you want to try sarcasm, try a post followed by :rolleyes:. There has been many silly polls posted in the past. One on LGBT Liberation asked if people thought it was a choice. 10 people voted choice. You vote the way you believe, no matter if you think the poll is stupid or not. And as for the 'honey' thing, my stupid mistake in the past by no means gives you a free pass. Instead of making the same mistake, you should have learned not to post something that will offend people, even if it is meant to be satirical. I think you ought to apologize for your action. And no, you should not be restricted, just don't do it again. I also apologize for calling you dumb and the "you're" thing is just embarrassing, especially considering my profession. (writer) :o

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Interestingly enough the same logic was arrived at by Heinrich Himmler who was the driving force behind the Nazi use of regulated prostitution for the purpose of 'maintaining morale' amongst military formations at the front. Guess it didn't work all that well

Nazis were creative like any other people. That's pretty interesting though. I would've thought it would help maintain moral. Anywhere I can read up on it?

As for the "is this question ridiculous argument," I don't know what to say. Of course we actually think women have a right to fight as much as men. We just don't agree with imperialist wars. If that is out of the equation, it's not much of a debate.

I voted before realizing the revolutionary context. It might have been in the information, but I don't always read carefully enough. Basically, I thought maybe we should restrict freedoms if people are going to make stupid choices within a capitalist paradigm. Basically, restrictions on freedoms might be theoretically justifiable within a cultural context. I'd reject that view now, most likely. I just don't want to see indoctrinated women (or men, but they already can) join the military and go die/kill innocent people.

As for people who voted "no" to mock the poll itself, how is that improbable? Many leftists disregard political elections. If we all voted for the most terrible candidate because political elections are a joke, would that necessarily be good or bad? I'd say it's hard to make a claim either way. I'd say it probably does cause harm.

That being said, if someone wants to mock this question, why not? What leftist would actually be against equality in this situation, really? It's almost a leading question to get people restricted (though I doubt that was the intent of the OP).

As for some sort of incident of calling someone "honey," it's hardly a capital offense. Gender-specific terms existing are a reality. I don't know if he used it positively or negatively. If positively, I fail to see the problem. If negatively, it's difficult. If someone uses a sexist term, it's hard to quantify what exactly the issue is. It's like fighting someone when you have a gun and they don't. What makes you obligated to put down the gun? If a leftist is upset with someone, and sexism is an effective tactic, it takes considerable willpower to make the right decision. The use of sexist terminology does not imply sexism but rather an awareness of the power of specific language within a particular context, as I see it.

Equality bad. Sexism bad. Humans making mistakes an acting in a way that is easily misinterpreted. Part of life. It happens to me all the time. I say something terrible every other post because I'm too open minded. Luckily my conscience is a leftist and doesn't perform actions based on my particular thoughts or fancies at a given moment.

[Invariance]

Vinnie this is a serious forum, not Chit-Chat. To vote a silly answer like "Blackscare I Love you" is acceptable in Chit-Chat. This might be a serious forum, but this is not a serious topic or worthy of this forum or this site. It either belongs in OI or the Trash.


However, to vote a sexist thing in a thread on Learning is not appropriate. Once again, voting ‘no’ doesn’t mean you’re sexist. Some people could vote yes or no just to see the results – that’s what I’ve done in the past in polls where none of the options reflected my views.


It gives the new members here to learn the wrong impression. I’m pretty sure whatever I vote isn’t going to give an impression towards anyone. And if it does, they should get a backbone and not be so easily influenced.


Next time you want to try sarcasm, try a post followed by :rolleyes:. Kind of hard to add a sarcasm face to a vote.


There has been many silly polls posted in the past.For example, a poll on whether GWB should be tried before the Hague. You know, one started by you.


One on LGBT Liberation asked if people thought it was a choice. 10 people voted choice. You vote the way you believe, no matter if you think the poll is stupid or not.That debate might actually have merit – this one doesn’t have any merit at all. Incidentally, that poll was also stupid, because it presented it as an either/or question. Further, whether it is natural, a choice, or a mixture has absolutely no relevance to whether someone should be discriminated against. Hence, if the question was to be asked at all, it should have been in the science forum, not the discrimination forum.


And as for the 'honey' thing, my stupid mistake in the past by no means gives you a free pass.Doesn’t seem like a ‘stupid mistake’ since you tried to defend it, and then started a thread on ‘terms of endearment’ where you again tried to defend your word usage.


Instead of making the same mistake, you should have learned not to post something that will offend people, even if it is meant to be satirical. What I posted wasn’t a mistake, it was deliberate. And voting doesn’t offend people. Calling someone ‘honey’ does.


I think you ought to apologize for your action. And I think you should go fuck yourself.


And no, you should not be restricted, just don't do it again. I’ll vote however the hell I want to vote. You are the person on this site who has made sexist and degrading comments towards female users, whom has defended those comments, who has a warped view of feminism, and then you’re trying to give me a lesson on sexism? Give me a break.


I also apologize for calling you dumb and the "you're" thing is just embarrassing, especially considering my profession. (writer) :o Next time you should think before you write.

[Il Medico]

This might be a serious forum, but this is not a serious topic or worthy of this forum or this site. It either belongs in OI or the Trash.
That is your opinion. However, if I remember correctly, on the Learning, no questions are stupid. That is what it is here for people to learn.


Once again, voting ‘no’ doesn’t mean you’re sexist.
Voting "no women should not be allowed to fight along side men"isn't sexist? Since when?


Some people could vote yes or no just to see the results – that’s what I’ve done in the past in polls where none of the options reflected my views.
Then why didn't you just vote your real opinions? You got to see the result either way. And I don't see how "yes Women have every right to fight along side men"would not be your view in this case.


I’m pretty sure whatever I vote isn’t going to give an impression towards anyone. And if it does, they should get a backbone and not be so easily influenced.
If they are new and don't know a lot about leftist ideology, then it might. The propose of the learning forum is to help new and inexperienced users to learn about leftist ideas, not confuse them.


Kind of hard to add a sarcasm face to a vote.
That is why you don't use sarcasm in a vote. People don't know you're being sarcastic.


For example, a poll on whether GWB should be tried before the Hague. You know, one started by you.
Actually that is one that is debatable because the Hague is a bourgeois court and possibly wouldn't give a bourgeois like Bush a fair trial.


That debate might actually have merit – this one doesn’t have any merit at all. Incidentally, that poll was also stupid, because it presented it as an either/or question. Further, whether it is natural, a choice, or a mixture has absolutely no relevance to whether someone should be discriminated against. Hence, if the question was to be asked at all, it should have been in the science forum, not the discrimination forum.
I don't see how it would have merit given the fact that all evidence supports sexuality is from birth. And the idea that it is a choice is one of the main reasons for the right attacking the LGBT community. If you wish to argue with me, then post in that thread.


Doesn’t seem like a ‘stupid mistake’ since you tried to defend it,
I tried to explain it because I didn't want to admit to myself that I had done something that stupid. This is exactly what you are doing now, however, I quickly realized my mistake and apologized.


and then started a thread on ‘terms of endearment’ where you again tried to defend your word usage.
No, as it says in the thread the question arose in my mind when people took issue with the word not it's context. I never denied that terms of endearment can be used in a sexist way.


What I posted wasn’t a mistake, it was deliberate. And voting doesn’t offend people. Calling someone ‘honey’ does.
I don't see how voting NOT to ALLOW women to fight dosen't offend people.


And I think you should go fuck yourself.
Well, that certainly proved to me you never are insulting, how silly of me to question your non offensive vote.:rolleyes:


I’ll vote however the hell I want to vote. You are the person on this site who has made sexist and degrading comments towards female users, whom has defended those comments, who has a warped view of feminism, and then you’re trying to give me a lesson on sexism? Give me a break.
Unless feminism is actually what the right portrays it as "A men hating women's superiority movement", rather then a gender equality movement, then I see not how I have a warped view of it.


Next time you should think before you write.
And proof read!:lol:

Love,
Captain Jack

[Invariance]

That is your opinion. However, if I remember correctly, on the Learning, no questions are stupid. That is what it is here for people to learn. Bigoted questions (as indeed this question is) don't belong in learning, they belong in OI learning, if anywhere.


Voting "no women should not be allowed to fight along side men"isn't sexist? Since when? I'll say it for the last time, since the point seems unable to penetrate your thick head. Someone voting no is no evidence that a person is sexist. They may consider it, as I do, as a poll totally unworthy of any seriousness.


If they are new and don't know a lot about leftist ideology, then it might. The propose of the learning forum is to help new and inexperienced users to learn about leftist ideas, not confuse them. The only people who would think that females should not fight along side men, would tend to be quite conservative. I tend to think that people can think for themselves, and that me voting no in a poll isn't going to influence them into horrible patriarchy. Seriously, your whole line that I'm leading innocent young leftists astray is just pathetic garbage which has no basis in reality.


That is why you don't use sarcasm in a vote. People don't know you're being sarcastic.In a poll like this, I would consider a 'no' vote by default sarcastic/mocking. Likewise, if there was a poll (on a communist/revolutionary leftist forum) asking 'do you like communism?' then I would consider 'no' votes by default sarcastic/mocking. That is my whole point regarding this poll - it is so inherently stupid that you cannot take any votes in it seriously. Now please, stop trying to avoid this point.


I don't see how it would have merit given the fact that all evidence supports sexuality is from birth.You honestly haven't a clue what you're talking about. Sexuality is intrinsically epistemically problematic (not at least from the fact that sexual orientations themselves are constructs and hence rest on shaky grounds). We cannot isolate variables as to what causes or influences a person's sexuality in a way which can ever lead to a definitive answer. Whether it is environmental/socially influenced or strictly genetic cannot simply be determined. Saying that it is one ignores the other. And as I have stated, it is totally irrelevant to whether someone should be discriminated against.


And the idea that it is a choice is one of the main reasons for the right attacking the LGBT community. If you wish to argue with me, then post in that thread. Totally and utterly irrelevant. If members of the LGBT community, or indeed anyone else, maintain that it is solely natural and therefore homosexuals should not be discriminated against, then well, they have fallen for liberal standards and have accepted the grounds upon which their reactionary opponents argue on. I totally reject the basis of the debate on those grounds - as indeed all revolutionaries should. Hence, the matter of whether it is natural, social or a mixture of both is totally irrelevant to discrimination. The question should only be addressed in a scientific paradigm, and as stated the science rests on precarious epistemology – we cannot simply know whether homosexuals are born that way or whether it is socially influenced – that’s simply the nature of the issue we are dealing with. The only reasonable argument is that it is both a matter of genetics and social influence.

Incidentally, what evidence that homosexuality is solely determined by genetics?


Unless feminism is actually what the right portrays it as "A men hating women's superiority movement", rather then a gender equality movement, then I see not how I have a warped view of it. From your own words, a feminist whom uses the word 'womyn' promotes the idea that females are superior to men. Yes, that would constitute a very warped idea of feminism, as well as the usage of that word.


Love,
Captain Jack Totally inappropriate to a political debate.

[KurtFF8]

We don't need your witch-hunt/self-indignant commentary. Before I'm restricted for voting no in this poll, I'd like to point out that I voted no because I think that even considering this as a valid question on a revolutionary forum is pathetic and offensive. So, I voted no because I think that its a stupid poll and should be derided and mocked, and that its even stupider that people are debating it, or think that its a debatable topic. Its like having a topic of 'do you think communism is good? vote yes or no' - its not, or shouldn't be, a debatable topic on this forum. And this poll shouldn't even be in learning, but in OI.

I actually suggested it be moved to OI some time ago.

I don't see how voting "no" demonstrates the absurdity of the poll, it instead makes it look like sexism is alive and well in the leftist movement (which to an extent, it very much is)

[crazytaxi]

a society that ignores the power of half of its population does so at its own expense, Women are human beings, they should have equality with other human beings, they must have equality.. to deny them equality it is simply counter productive and foolish.