Log in

View Full Version : Women in Combat and sexism surrounding it...



Hexen
6th November 2008, 19:21
There is something that has been bothering me lately, eversince I talked to some Iraqi war veteran about his views about women in the military, he first said that "men have a instinct to save women" where he was talking about where he jumped on a woman and punched her who was using a mounted machine gun (according to him he said that her hands clinched on it and she was praying) and he took over and started firing. He also said that the main reason that women "shouldn't be combat" is because of "vaginal infections" from not taking showers for days which he doesn't even know which know which one specifically.

I have researched about women in combat in other places in the world and I found out that New Zealand and Sweden have women in the infantry, armory, artilitary so everything I heard from that vetern was just bogus and just a product of American sexism?

Chapaev
6th November 2008, 19:38
Women are capable of combat. Women partisans symobolized supreme dedication and patriotic struggle in the Fatherland War. Women can also be exceptional military leaders, as Joan of Arc demonstrates.

However, it would not be practical to require or encourage women to serve in the armed forces. If there was to be a war against aggressors, it would be necessary for all able-bodied males to serve in the armed forces. Women would serve primarily at the home front by working in factories and looking after the children.

Sankofa
6th November 2008, 19:44
he first said that "men have a instinct to save women" where he was

Pure chauvinistic garbage. Just take a look a Leftist guerilla movements across the globe. The women fighters serve along side the men who equally fight and die for their cause together.

Women have proven they are more than capable of handling themselves in combat situations.

F9
6th November 2008, 20:19
There is something that has been bothering me lately, eversince I talked to some Iraqi war veteran about his views about women in the military, he first said that "men have a instinct to save women" where he was talking about where he jumped on a woman and punched her who was using a mounted machine gun (according to him he said that her hands clinched on it and she was praying) and he took over and started firing. He also said that the main reason that women "shouldn't be combat" is because of "vaginal infections" from not taking showers for days which he doesn't even know which know which one specifically.

I have researched about women in combat in other places in the world and I found out that New Zealand and Sweden have women in the infantry, armory, artilitary so everything I heard from that vetern was just bogus and just a product of American sexism?

Its just a product of sexism of course.You can easily tell him to fuck off please?


Women would serve primarily at the home front by working in factories and looking after the children.

What?:mad: Why?

Fuserg9:star:

Chapaev
6th November 2008, 20:55
What?http://www.revleft.com/vb/women-combat-and-t93715/revleft/smilies/angry.gif Why?

Sending both men and women to the front would obviously leave those important tasks unfulfilled. During the Great Fatherland War, women primarily served on the home front.

F9
6th November 2008, 21:00
Sending both men and women to the front would obviously leave those important tasks unfulfilled. During the Great Fatherland War, women primarily served on the home front.

So why let behind only women, and take in the "fronts" just men?

Fuserg9:star:

Hexen
6th November 2008, 21:30
Sending both men and women to the front would obviously leave those important tasks unfulfilled. During the Great Fatherland War, women primarily served on the home front.

Don't you realize that both men and women can do both jobs depending on the individual? Please, don't retort to sexist sterotypes.

Chapaev
6th November 2008, 21:38
Don't you realize that both men and women can do both jobs

A woman cannot be both a soldier and a producer of armaments. Neither can a man. In a war there would have to be specialization for the war and home fronts so that they would be performed efficiently.

Recall that I pointed out how women are capable of combat. Do not accuse me of perpetuating stereotypes.

AutomaticMan
6th November 2008, 23:26
A woman cannot be both a soldier and a producer of armaments. Neither can a man. In a war there would have to be specialization for the war and home fronts so that they would be performed efficiently.

Recall that I pointed out how women are capable of combat. Do not accuse me of perpetuating stereotypes.

It doesn't follow at all that just because during a war people are needed both on the frontlines and back at home, that we should determine who fights and who doesn't on the basis of sex.

Perhaps, you know, it should be determined on a) who wants to fight and b) who can fight well, not what type of genitals a person possesses.

Jazzratt
7th November 2008, 10:32
A woman cannot be both a soldier and a producer of armaments. Neither can a man. In a war there would have to be specialization for the war and home fronts so that they would be performed efficiently.

You've really, really missed the point here. A bloke is just as capable of working in an armament factory as a woman, just as women are just as capable of pointing a gun at something and pulling the trigger (as you yourself have said). The question, then, is why leave women at home? There is no logical reason not to allow women to serve on whatever front they feel like, ditto with men.

Hexen:


He also said that the main reason that women "shouldn't be combat" is because of "vaginal infections" from not taking showers for days

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What a contemptible little cretin this guy sounds like. He's right that women may well get vaginal problems, what he seems to ignore is that men who don't shower for long periods of time get a build up of matter on their helmet - smegma or "dick cheese" which is just as incapacitating (i.e not at all).

Whoever this guy is you have found some grade A stupid.

Oh, also:


he was talking about where he jumped on a woman and punched her who was using a mounted machine gun

Surely if this woman was on his side he should have been disciplined? I mean in most armies assaulting one of your own people, especially in a combat situation (and if the machinegun was in use it probably meant some kind of combat was occuring), tends to carry rather strict penalties. This guy sounds like perfect armament factory material.

Junius
7th November 2008, 11:37
I mean, from what I know the most common causes of vaginal infections is not a lack of showering; vaginas naturally balance the amount of bacteria in the vagina by introducing chemicals to keep the pH level at an appropriate level. Its an introduction of drugs which offset this chemical imbalance which allows for infections to occur; i.e. anti-biotics, birth control pills which affect hormonal imbalance, as well as changing sex partners (which presumably will not happen when you are in a war). But hey, I'm not a doctor.

Incidentally, I don't think any national liberation guerrilla movement is progressive merely because it includes women amongst its fighters. It just shows that they see the tactical advantages of having as versatile an army as possible, and one not limited to men.

ellipsis
7th November 2008, 11:40
Technically, women cannot serve in combat roles in the US military. However, this may not always be possible in today's wars.

The EZLN leadership and rank and file are made in large part up by women. Assigning tasks and labor based on gender has been eliminated, many man cook and clean for the first time in the Zapatistas. The shining path and the Sandinistas also had many female members and entire female units.

Zapata's army was followed by women who made millions of tortillas to feed the soldiers. These women were not on the front lines but none the less played an integral role in the Mexican Revolution.

In Guerrilla Warfare, Che talks about using women in a support role i.e. cooking and cleaning. This view is outdated and I think that any true revolutionary movement must include a gender equality and women's rights platform.

Module
8th November 2008, 00:59
The vag is a self cleaning organ.
That guy sounds like a misogynist douchebag; yes, it's a product of 'American sexism'.
A woman is, as others have pointed out, just as capable at shooting a gun than a man is. You can't divide people in terms of ability on the basis of their sex. You can only divide people in terms of ability on the basis of their ability!

AAFCE
8th November 2008, 18:05
Almost goes hand in hand with "gays trying to save those of the same sex" argument.

Either way I see know problem with it and as women alot of times have smaller frames they could probably do even better than males in alot of positions.

Tunnel Rat (Im sure this doesnt happen anymore but an example)
Armor Crewwoman
Etc.

Sasha
8th November 2008, 20:56
impresive part of an interview with marcos about the position of women in the EZLN and Chiapas,

sorry for the long read but wel worth it:

Interviewers: Well, one of the things that we are most concerned about - specifically the companeras - are the gender politics within the EZLN. You facilitated our being able to interview a number of compan~eras and we have seen - to the point that you have allowed us to see [laughs] - that there exists an equality. This can be seen clearly. The women say it themselves: My partner, - or in the case of those who are married - My husband washes his things, does his work, does his part. And when you ask her if she has children, she says, Yes, I already have mine, my M-16. Things like this show that yes, there is an equality that exists, at least in practice. The single compan~eras that we've interviewed also tell us they do the same work as the men, that they aren't limited to working as nurses or in the kitchen as a result of being women. We would like you to tell us, as spokesperson of the EZLN: What are the politics of the EZLN towards gender issues?
Marcos: Look, there are many problems. I am speaking of the companeras. . . above all in the civilian population, the civilians have continued practicing many ancestral customs that don't belong in even a pre-revolutionary situation. For example, many still believe that the man should choose the woman that he wants to marry, but that the woman should have no choice in the matter. The difference, including the physical difference, between the civilian women and the combatant women is very clear. At the age when many of the combatant women have, as you say, an M-16, many civilian women already have four or five children, are beaten by their husbands; they don't know how to read or write, they have no opportunity to develop themselves as people. What the compan~eras say is that they cannot have their equality decreed from above, they have to achieve it through struggle. They say, You can like it or not, but now we are going to change these things. By force. That's why in our list of demands to the government, it doesn't mention anything about gender. The companeras say, We aren't going to ask the government to give us freedom, nor are we going to ask you male fools. We are going to ensure our freedom, our respect and our dignity as women and as human beings. I'm speaking of the companeras. . . They also criticize us, the men, for our sexist or authoritarian attitudes. For example, in relationships between combatants, many things have changed, things that haven't changed in the civilian population. For example, in the civilian population, when a woman marries, she is no longer allowed to dance. She is married, and dances are places where single people meet and decide to get married. If she is married, then she doesn't dance because now she is somebody's property. Amongst the civilians it is still this way. Amongst the combatants, no, the combatants dance whether they are married or single, and it is very common that the woman chooses her dancing partner. They dance just to dance, to have fun, without any other motive such as to sleep with someone or have a relationship.
The politics of gender in the EZLN, among the regular forces. . . There isn't a politic of gender, there are only combatants. There are women soldiers and there are men soldiers, but in the end they are soldiers. In order to rise to a command position, in order to rise in rank or to carry out actions and missions, we take into account the soldier's apptitudes; it doesn't matter whether they are male or female. Many times, in our daily life as combatants, in couple relationships, sexist attitudes are reproduced and because of this our laws tend to favor the woman. It is very common for couples to fight physically when they fight. Let's say that the difference between the women combatants and civilian women is that the women combatants hit back [laughter].
Interviewers: They defend themselves.
Marcos: Yes, it's common that it's the man who comes to us complaining that his partner hit him. We have to be very cautious in this respect because both are armed, if it occurs to one of them to shoot the other. . . A blow is much different than a gunshot. For us - for me it's very clear, and I believe that it's clear to many compan~eras as well - that equality isn't something that's conceded. You can't say, I as a man am going to give you your freedom and now we are going to be equal. That's not true, of course. In the same way, the government can't concede us our rights as indigenous peoples, we have to fight for them. The women are also fighting for them, many times in very radical ways. I believe that they've achieved many things inside the combat forces and inside the civilian population. For example, men who had never received orders from a women, who couldn't stand it when women would give them orders in the mountains. . . When they saw them fighting, they saw that the compan~eras knew how to fight. They look on them with respect now because they realized that the women knew how to fight and they didn't. They saw them facing death and they stopped being women. They stopped being women in the classic sense of the term, weak and unable to. . .
Interviewers: Women in the pejorative sense.
Marcos: It could be also that you see a women and you think that she's only there to sleep with. But when it changes to, She's going to give me orders and I have to obey her, or I'm going to give her orders and she is going to obey me, in that moment you stop being a female combatant or a male combatant and you become a soldier, equals. I'm not saying that the women stop being women and become men, but that both women and men stop being what they are and become combatants. Since we are soldiers all the time - we aren't able to take vacations - it is very difficult to tell when one is acting in the role of combatant and when one is off-duty. I believe that this has brought more benefits to the compan~eras than to the sexists, to us men, in the sense that this equality in combat, in work is transmitted to other aspects of life. Interviewers: Do you accept the analysis that we live in a patriarchal society, that men have controlled society for centuries and that this is also part of the system that feeds Capital, that feeds the bourgeoisie?
Marcos: Definitely!
Interviewers: We must rise above this and the sexist attitudes that we hold.
Marcos: Definitely! There are companeros who are very revolutionary politically, but who are real assholes in relationships, in marriages, in relationships between men and women. But, I believe that changes in this aren't going to be our concession - I'm speaking as a man. The women are going to change things whether we like it or not, despite our close-mindedness. It is the same thing as we are doing with respect to the government. The government doesn't like the fact that the indigenous peoples have risen up, but we did it. The sexists don't like the fact that the women are doing what they are doing, but they are going to do it and that's that. They have fought in combat, they even won. Some of them led sucessful missions, they won, they defeated men. They commanded entire units of men. The EZLN is composed of about two-thirds men and one-third women. It is very common to have military units where the only woman is the commander; the entire unit, all of her subordinates are men. This caused many problems before January first.
Interviewers: And these problems were eliminated?
Marcos: They finally saw that yes, that what was important wasn't that they were women but that they had learned during their years in the mountains to lead the same as any man.
Interviewers: We have seen this. We have met many women captains during our stay here in the liberated territories. We have met many female captains and this demonstrates the truth of what you are saying. . .
Marcos: The male captains hide themselves [laughter]. No, that's not true.
Interviewers: Continuing along this same subject. . . We have seen that there is also a cultural difference, a difference in tradition. You said this also, at the beginning when you spoke of your links to the indigenous communities. Many of the companeras have told us that they aren't allowed to have sex until they are married, that there is a regulation that says that they must be married. If they like a man and they want to sleep with him, it's easier to marry him. We're not speaking of a religious marriage, but that you, the EZLN, expediate some form of marriage. . . But we feel this to be a little puritanical, as if to say, You can't have sex because you are a woman and you have to be married.
Marcos: No, no, it's that marriage for us means that you are a couple and you have permission. Let me explain. When you are going to have a sexual relationship. . . During the day you can't have sex, you're working. The most logical thing is that you are going to sleep with someone at night. You have to advise the commander that you are going to be having sex somewhere, because if you are attacked the commander has to look for you and. . . We tell the combatants, You have to trust the commanders to tell them that you are sleeping with someone. Why? It doesn't matter to me, I'm not going to watch you, I'm not a voyeur. It isn't like that. What I'm interested in is that I have someone covering your position. If we are attacked, we can't have the entire defensive line having sex. Well, it could happen, but it shouldn't happen. We don't demand that they are married.
Interviewers: You mean a woman can have sexual relations freely?
Marcos: Yes, what she is told is to follow a birth-control method. That's why she is told to let us know, so that she can follow a method. Because if you become pregnant. . . you can't stay in the mountains pregnant, you have to go to town, go abort there. It has already happened; there are companeras that abort on the long walks that. . . Then, the method has to be followed, you have to look after yourself. Only when the army says, Now it's possible to have children and remain in the mountains or at some positions, only then will it cease to be an issue. But, yes, the nurses are asked to be checking for pregnancy.
Interviewers: Yes, they told us that there is. . .
Marcos: But there is no formal procedure. You do have to ask the commanders for permission, but it's not as if. . .
Interviewers: As if it's mandatory to be married to have sex, or anything like that.
Marcos: No, no.
Interviewers: Simply put, it's more a matter of coordination, to...
Marcos: Yes, a military question. You let the commanders know, but generally no, they don't get married to have sex.
Interviewers: They can have sexual relations freely?
Marcos: In fact, they have sex and then they say, Well, not this one. Or Yes, this is the one I want to marry. Or maybe I don't want to marry this person, but I just want it to be clear that we are a couple. They say this to avoid gossip - like that he or she gets in bed with one person and then another, and so on.
Interviewers: That involves culture and tradition as well.
Marcos: Yes, we are talking about indigenous people that come from the villages. . .
Interviewers: Who hold different concepts than we who come from the cities.
Marcos: But it is a rule is that you have to let the commanders know.
Interviewers: Now, when you were explaining this to us, something else came to mind, another question. You spoke of the possibility. . . well, of pregnant companeras who risk abortion while engaging in maneuvers. In the Revolutionary Womens Law [One of the revolutionary laws promulgated by the EZLN in the liberated territories - translators] it is stated explicitly that a woman has full rights over her body and her life. Radical feminists have been fighting throughout the world to truly have control over their lives and bodies. However, the issue becomes very confused when an article appears in the media, in a paper like La Jornada, saying that the EZLN has presented a law proposal to the governor of Chiapas in which abortion is addressed, but at no time does it make clear in the media the position of the EZLN concerning the issue. I don't know if it was intentional or if there really was no in-depth knowledge about your position, but the media assumed that the EZLN is opposed to abortion. Thus, I would like to divide the question in several parts. The first question would be: What is the proposal of the Zapatistas in relation to the legalization of abortion? And the second question is: At this time, if a compan~era becomes pregnant because her contraceptive method fails and she does not wish to carry the pregnancy to term, if she wants to interrupt it, does she have authority over her body in order to decide if she aborts or not? And the third question...
Marcos: Wait, wait, let's start with the first question.
Interviewers: Well, yes, let's go question by question. The first one is: What does this law proposal consist of?
Marcos: The EZLN demands that the state's penal code be modified because there is no political freedom. The government, taking advantage of the fact that we are tied up in talks and that we are surrounded, is taking the opportunity to reverse the decriminalization of abortion that existed in the Penal Code. They say that this is at the EZLN's request, but the EZLN did not request the modification of the Code in that respect. The stupidity of this article is based on the argument that this is a position of Samuel Ruiz Garcia, that it evidences the influence of the church on the EZLN, and since the church is against abortion they want it to be penalized. Then, according to the argument, the church directed us to present this law proposal. We have not presented any law proposal or anything of the kind - nor a electoral reform proposal or anything like that either. The proposal says contextually: We demand that the Penal Code of the state be eliminated. We don't say that it should be reformed or replaced by a more just one. We demand that it be removed because it leaves us no other form of political participation other than taking up arms. That's what it says. I sent a letter to La Jornada because of that stupid article that was published.
Interviewers: Very insidious!
Marcos: Yes. That answers the first question. Question two: the companera not only has the right to terminate the pregnancy, but the organization also has the obligation to provide the means for her to do it with total safety.
Interviewers: Well, that was the third question, you already answered it.
Marcos: If she says, I have become pregnant - it could even be that she became pregnant on purpose, not just that the birth-control method failed - but I don't want it anymore, this is fine, as long as her life is not in danger; I mean, if a certain number of months have gone by it can't be done. Then she can demand by the right of Zapatista law that the EZLN give her the means to terminate the pregnancy under the best health conditions that the EZLN can ensure. It is the obligation of the commanders that she is given these means. If the pregnancy can't be stopped, aborted, then the commanders have to find the way to resolve the problem.
Interviewers: In this case, for free.
Marcos: It is not in the strictest sense control over their bodies and the companeras demonstrate this very clearly, We are not free in this sense because, for example, I can't become pregnant and continue to serve in the army. In this sense I am not free. I am free in that if I am pregnant I can stop the pregnancy, but if I am not pregnant I can't decide to become pregnant, because if I become pregnant I have to leave the army. And yes, we do tell them they have to leave the army, because of the conditions we face. That's why the compan~eras say, There is no freedom over my own body. In the case of the female combatants it is only half-freedom, the other freedom is lacking. Right now they can't decide to carry a pregnany to term and remain in the army. It is only fair to point this out, and the compan~eras continue to fight for their right to become pregnant. The other side of the issue has already been resolved for many years and we deal with abortions with the means we have at our disposal. Until now no one has died during an abortion. In the communities abortion is practiced to the extent that our resources allow.
Interviewers: Then it exists also for the civilian population, for the women in the civilian community. There is that possibility in case she needs it, if she so wishes.
Marcos: Yes. In general, they don't seek it because of their beliefs; also for health reasons, since in their nutritional conditions an abortion can be deadly. Sometimes it is best to let the pregnancy be carried through, even if there is still time for an abortion. But we do facilitate the use of contraceptives and all that, for example.
Interviewers: The companeras we met also had access to contraceptives. The question has been raised of whether there is the possibility for the organization of women's groups within the army where women could organize as women of the army but also autonomously as women. By this we mean self- help collectives where they could gain and acquire more knowledge about their bodies, and could even get to the point. . . for example, in the case of abortions in the first weeks, there are methods that have been proposed by radical women's groups, like abortion by menstrual extraction, one of the first methods for aborting early in the pregnancy. Is autonomy given in this sense or not?
Marcos: No, I didn't know about this method. The situation here is not so advanced. The most we managed to achieve some time ago - when I was captain - many years ago, was to have sex-education classes, explaining the man's body, the woman's body, what was the mechanism of pregnancy, what things were going on in their bodies. This was received with much enthusiasm from the men, and much embarrassment from the women. The men came to see how a woman's body was. For example - look, this town has a power plant project that breaks down all the time, but when it works... some months ago it worked for few days. One of the companeros told us, very enthusiastically, that at last he had seen his wife. He said, I finally saw all of her. And they have ten kids. He had ten kids and he didn't know his wife's body. He didn't know his wife's body! Until there was electric light and they thought of making love with the light on, and then yes, he could see everything that was going on. And he talked about it as if it had been his first time. He already had ten children, one of them fully grown, already an insurgent [combatant in the EZLN - translators], an 18 year-old, a member of a combat unit.
We organized these classes in order to combat the diseases that afflict the women, so that they understand the necessity of hygiene. It is a problem for them; the men don't take it into account. They think that when a companera has a urinary-tract infection, from lack of cleanliness for example - or if she has her period - that she is just lazy, that she doesn't want to work. We need to sensitize the men to this so that they understand that a woman's body is not like a man's, in many senses. And that's why we organized these classes. We try in the talks and lectures to address these issues.
Interviewers: Is there an education as far as the use of the condom- not only as a contraceptive but also to avoid diseases, to avoid contracting and spreading them?
Marcos: No, in reality no. In reality, we teach about the condom as a contraceptive when the compan~eras can't use the pill, when they get sick from the pill. There are many who get ill from the pill, they are very young; when they use pills with high estrogen content they get sick. With all the heavy work they do already they get nauseous, get headaches and all that - it's very hard on them. They can't always get IUDs, the rhythm method is really prehistoric, so then there is the use of condoms. But we should say that the Zapatistas' sexual horizons are very limited. I mean by this that gonorrhea, and things of this sort. . . well, we didn't get a chance to catch them in the cities since we fled before attacking the whorehouses. We are in the mountain, we are at war - within the regular troops, I'm saying, it is very, very difficult to spread diseases. In fact, we have not seen one case. And we can instill fear, in fact we did it, and they tell you, Not me, I have never been with a woman, where am I going to become infected, or in what whorehouse am I going to catch this? It's more pragmatic in that sense. I am not saying it is good, because I do think that it would be good to promote their use. . . but no, we haven't done it, I would lie to you if I said that we were doing it. It is recommended when. . . as a contraceptive, not for sexual hygiene.
Interviewers: Well, in case that this kind of sexual education could be resumed. . . do you believe that it would be acceptable that the problem of disease, in the case of AIDS, etcetera, be included in the instruction?
Marcos: I believe so. Let's say that we understand, for example, about AIDS. Well, according to the information that we were getting when we were in the mountains AIDS is a homosexuals' disease, and therefore, if you weren't a homosexual, nothing would happen to you. In fact, we just found that you can get AIDS in other ways, it can be transmitted even in heterosexual relationships. I am talking about the basic sexual culture here, because in this case all references to AIDS are in the context of homosexuality: If I'm not homosexual I have nothing to worry about. The main worry here is different: What I have to worry about is to not get anyone pregnant, or that no one gets me pregnant. No, we don't have a sexual culture based on fear of disease due to our isolation, but yes, we do need educate about it.
Interviewers: Well, let's relate this to another question. . . We want to ask another question relating to immediate solidarity. Have you received or do you have access to condoms? Would it be feasible to bring them?
Marcos: Yes, but unfortunately they would be very hard to eat [Laughs]. But yes, we do get contraceptives, condoms and all that.
Interviewers: So, as I was saying. . .
Marcos: These things are allowed through by the Mexican army so that the Zapatistas don't reproduce [Laughs]. They have enough problems with the ones that already exist for us to make even more.
Interviewers: Now, relating the answers with other questions. . . One of the questions that we were asked to ask by companeros Mateo and Robin is what is the EZLN's policy, in the army and in the liberated communities, toward sexual preference, in this specific case, homosexuality and lesbianism. Is the EZLN given to the satanization of homosexuality that has sometimes been found in other leftist groups? Or is it simply unknown what you are talking about when you attempt to address these issues?
Marcos: No, let's say that at a level of, well, of basic culture, it is not punished. I mean, they don't say, He's a homosexual, put him in jail, kill him. On one hand, they laugh, make jokes, but homosexuals have a normal life in the community. Our position as an army is that - let me put it to you in a general way - there are many minorities that will have to say, Enough is enough! Just as the indigenous people said, Enough is enough!, other minorities not tolerated by the powerful will have to say it also. In that sense, then, there is no sexual policy in the Zapatista Army.
Interviewers: That is, there is no law - in the communities either - that forbids lesbianism or homosexuality.
Marcos: No
Interviewers: Not even in the army?
Marcos: No, not even in the army.
Interviewers: There is no policy in the army that says, We found two girls fucking or two guys fucking and well. . . they are jailed, suspended, expelled - I don't know. . .
Marcos: No, there is nothing like that. They go ask the commanders, the same as when it is a male-female couple. That means, they let us know they are not going to be at their posts, because that is what the commanders are concerned about, that their position is covered.

source: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/anmarin.html

ÑóẊîöʼn
8th November 2008, 21:28
Quickly scanning the above interview, it certainly looks, well, "good" I suppose. No sure if that's the right word.


Almost goes hand in hand with "gays trying to save those of the same sex" argument.

Yeah, those Spartans were totally ineffective in combat... wait a minute...

The whole "women/homosexuals are useless in combat" myth has been thoroughly debunked in a much better manner though.

TC
8th November 2008, 22:07
Women would serve primarily at the home front by working in factories and looking after the children.

You're clearly sexist and unmarxist, read Engels and stop being a loser. I wish I had time to correct you properly but I don't.

AAFCE
9th November 2008, 04:17
[quote=NoXion;1279910]
Yeah, those Spartans were totally ineffective in combat... wait a minute...

quote]

"Your spear is stabbing me in the back"
"Thats not my spear"
"Carry on then"

Something of that sort.

Either way, does anyone see the Woman fighting in the Military changing soon in countries that wont allow it?

JorgeLobo
9th November 2008, 17:33
Loved the extended discussion of health - esp, the ignorant talking to vaginal health ("self-cleaning organ", etc - lol). The ad hominems of chauvanism and sexism were equally entertaining and instructive of those incapable of or not investing thought.

Bottom line is that those of us who have been in the military would prefer to fight with folks who can engage effectively in all forms of combat as well as invest strength and resilience to standing up to the rigors of roles not involving combat. Typically men are more effective in this role. It's not just a matter of point a weapon and pulling the trigger. The role of woman in historic warfare proves the point - if they were so effective, they'd have served in units composed only of women and those units would be the predominant ones. Joan of Arc as the example of what was an anomaly.

That said, western society's men are not sustaining even the limited voluntary standing armies of many countries, making female enlistment a necessity.

Module
9th November 2008, 21:44
esp, the ignorant talking to vaginal health ("self-cleaning organ", etc - lol)Err... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina#Sexual_health_and_hygiene
:rolleyes:

Bottom line is that those of us who have been in the military would prefer to fight with folks who can engage effectively in all forms of combat as well as invest strength and resilience to standing up to the rigors of roles not involving combat. Typically men are more effective in this role.I doubt that, but if you could actually give an example instead of making assertions it would make this discussion a lot easier.

It's not just a matter of point a weapon and pulling the trigger. The role of woman in historic warfare proves the point - if they were so effective, they'd have served in units composed only of women and those units would be the predominant ones. Joan of Arc as the example of what was an anomaly.How does that argument even work? :lol:
Why would they have served in units composed only of women, and why would they have been the predominant ones?
Warfare throughout most of human history has been fought close combat, no guns, no advanced technology. But as somebody said above;
The EZLN leadership and rank and file are made in large part up by women. Assigning tasks and labor based on gender has been eliminated, many man cook and clean for the first time in the Zapatistas. The shining path and the Sandinistas also had many female members and entire female units.
Of course Joan of Arc was an anomaly. She got burned at the stake for it. You seem to think that the social structure 600 years ago actually "proves" something about the present day. Women were also confined to the home and child rearing duties, weren't allowed to earn their own money, have any political power and were considered the 'property' of their husbands. Does that prove anything about how things are now? :rolleyes:
Please, give us a real argument. :lol:

Black Dagger
10th November 2008, 00:38
A woman cannot be both a soldier and a producer of armaments. Neither can a man. In a war there would have to be specialization for the war and home fronts so that they would be performed efficiently.

Recall that I pointed out how women are capable of combat. Do not accuse me of perpetuating stereotypes.

Ok, but why specialise the roles in this way? I.E. Men at war, women at home?

Obviously an individual man or woman cannot be in two places at once (that is at the home front and the battle front)- but that doesn't explain why the tasks should be divided in the fashion you suggest.

Why gender these activities at all? Why not simply have the people who want to fight go to war and the people who don't want to fight stay at home? It's pretty silly to pretend like it's just a coincidence that what you're advocating is the orthodox patriarchal position.

piet11111
10th November 2008, 20:35
well the average infantry soldier has to carry a load of 40 kilo's of gear into battle and i can see how men can handle that load a bit easier then women.
also i would suspect a man would have less trouble dealing with the recoil of a heavy machine gun just because of upper body strength.

women can handle more G-forces making them better suited as pilots and their smaller body's would also make them better for tanks and other cramped vehicles.

i am not saying that a woman can not or should not be an infantry soldier just that they are going to have to work harder to perform on the same level as the men.

brigadista
16th January 2009, 22:48
dont understand why anyone would join the US army right now..

ellipsis
22nd January 2009, 10:23
soldiers definitely do not carry 40kg/90lbs of gear. try 20kg/40-50lbs.


well the average infantry soldier has to carry a load of 40 kilo's of gear into battle and i can see how men can handle that load a bit easier then women.
also i would suspect a man would have less trouble dealing with the recoil of a heavy machine gun just because of upper body strength.

ev
22nd January 2009, 16:39
Lets take a minute to analyze where these stereotypes come from, history. Example: when men in Rome would carry heavy armour and weapons, they were deemed more suitable for combat roles because of the male body is more muscular, it was a logical choice. In today's military environment however, it is irrelevant as i doubt you'll be doing any hand to hand combat so a women would easily be able to perform efficiently in a combat environment. All that is required in today's military (when you think about it) is good fitness (which is attainable by both sexes) and military training in specialist combat related fields that support the military structure. I believe that discrimination towards women in a combat environment will cease to exist in the near future, examples of this happening are in Sweden, New Zeland, Australia & I'm sure other countries as well.

Killfacer
22nd January 2009, 22:46
Men were better at fighting when pure strength was involved. Now however, it's just plain stupid. There is no reason a woman can't shoot as well as a man. Just don't let them park the tank.

As for "female hygiene", i can't say i know enough about it. Odd that.


(the thing about the tank was a joke, so don't start sobbing about it)

gorillafuck
1st February 2009, 03:28
I really doubt he punched her off the gun, he would be severely disciplined for punching a soldier on his own side during combat (In combat being an important factor, I wouldn't be surprised out of combat. 15% of women in the military suffer from sexual trauma, which is an indication of their "place" in the military). Combined with what he said about vaginal infections, because from my experience idiots are more likely to tell lies like this.

Psy
3rd February 2009, 18:11
Lets take a minute to analyze where these stereotypes come from, history. Example: when men in Rome would carry heavy armour and weapons, they were deemed more suitable for combat roles because of the male body is more muscular, it was a logical choice.

Women do tend to build up body strength when they do physical labor so the division of labor along gender lines is a factor to average women strength.



In today's military environment however, it is irrelevant as i doubt you'll be doing any hand to hand combat

Hand to hand combat still happens due all major armies have special forces, meaning a solider might find themselves grabbed from behind by a enemy commando and have to break their opponents hold quickly.