Y
Yes Man
Guest
it posted 2x
Women in Combat - What about this?
- Thread starter muskrat89
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
OK so the army has a couple thou extra uniforms. They surplus ‘em out and get aome money.
As to the quarters, I doubt they would stop the draft all of a sudden. They would most likely to draft x number of people per year to maintain or increase the size of a military. So if the number were increasing they would need more if they stayed the same you‘re set since you already have enough.
As to the quarters, I doubt they would stop the draft all of a sudden. They would most likely to draft x number of people per year to maintain or increase the size of a military. So if the number were increasing they would need more if they stayed the same you‘re set since you already have enough.
Y
Yes Man
Guest
A nation could only keep a draft for so long, The cost of equipping and training a drafted army are huge. Why spend more money on a drafted army of both males and females when you don‘t have to. Equality is great but its not worth going bankrupt over and losing the war.
EDIT: this is my opinion, plz dont shoot me over this
EDIT: this is my opinion, plz dont shoot me over this
Ex Ranger Instructor
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 48
- Points
- 330
Yes Man: I don‘t think you‘ve said a single thing here that makes any sense. The CF couldn‘t use the new buildings they‘d have to build because they were originally built for women? Take a screwdriver, change the sign to read "Men", and I don‘t see the problem. There would be a backbreaking cost issue for uniforms? Quite simply, no there wouldn‘t be. There is already quite a size range in the CF as it stands.
All these points you make about waste after the draft is over would be "concerns" even if they only drafted men. Are you aware that at the end of WW II, the Canadian Navy was the third largest in the world? How long do you think it stayed that way? There would have been all kinds of surplus involved after WW II, and not a single woman was drafted. Let‘s not forget the fact that Canada would never, EVER implement a draft unless it was a military neccessity, i.e. the **** had well and truly hit the fan, and we needed troops NOW. In that case, I doubt that future "waste" would be too much of a pressing concern. Furthermore, it‘s been proven that women can be effective members of the forces, in all capacities, and if we ever needed troops badly enough to implement a draft, we‘d be foolhardy to only draw from half the potential talent pool.
All these points you make about waste after the draft is over would be "concerns" even if they only drafted men. Are you aware that at the end of WW II, the Canadian Navy was the third largest in the world? How long do you think it stayed that way? There would have been all kinds of surplus involved after WW II, and not a single woman was drafted. Let‘s not forget the fact that Canada would never, EVER implement a draft unless it was a military neccessity, i.e. the **** had well and truly hit the fan, and we needed troops NOW. In that case, I doubt that future "waste" would be too much of a pressing concern. Furthermore, it‘s been proven that women can be effective members of the forces, in all capacities, and if we ever needed troops badly enough to implement a draft, we‘d be foolhardy to only draw from half the potential talent pool.
Y
Yes Man
Guest
Its not that they could not use the new buildings, its that they would have to build two. Two different showers cost more than one big one. Also about the uniforms I have said this a few times, it would not that big of a deal, its just a small factor.
Also to my knowledge it has never been proven that a drafted army of 50/50 men and women has worked. Im not saying that it wont, I‘m just giving a few points to consider.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I can‘t speak for the rest of the CF, but at Dundurn, we just took turns using the showers on my basic, and in the Shilo ‘dorms‘ the 2 washrooms/shower rooms on each floor have switchable male/female signs. You just adjust your schedule to compensate.
Ex Ranger Instructor
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 48
- Points
- 330
They wouldn‘t neccessarily have to build two. They‘d have to build MORE, to accomodate the extra troops, but there are very few unisex barracks in the CF right now, and I can‘t imagine that they would be assinine enough to insist on creating more in the midst of a panic that neccessitated conscription. More barracks is more barracks, the cost is the same, and sex has nothing to do with it. Moreover, the cost of building barracks and such would be a drop in the bucket when compared to the costs associated with raising, equipping, and running an army in a time of such desparation as to require conscription. And what do you say about the fact that there would be surplus anyway, as there was after WW II?
Who cares if it hasn‘t been officially proven that female conscription would work? It‘s been proven that women can do the job, as can men, so what‘s the concern? It isn‘t like you‘re going to keep up current standards of professionalism in a conscript army anyway: the point is that you conscript not for quality, but for quantity.
Who cares if it hasn‘t been officially proven that female conscription would work? It‘s been proven that women can do the job, as can men, so what‘s the concern? It isn‘t like you‘re going to keep up current standards of professionalism in a conscript army anyway: the point is that you conscript not for quality, but for quantity.
Y
Yes Man
Guest
Sorry, I dont start with the army untill June. I was going by combat_medic post that they do have different facilities for males and females.
Now in regards to proof that women can do the same job of men, from what the DND website tells me there are only 252 women in combat arms and only about 20% of the force is female. Going by these numbers why would you not want a 20/80 draft rather than a 50/50? I know that its true that there are women as good are better soldiers than men but I don‘t know think that it would be equal. I understand its quantity over quality during a draft, but i would still think if you could get more quality you would.
Now in regards to proof that women can do the same job of men, from what the DND website tells me there are only 252 women in combat arms and only about 20% of the force is female. Going by these numbers why would you not want a 20/80 draft rather than a 50/50? I know that its true that there are women as good are better soldiers than men but I don‘t know think that it would be equal. I understand its quantity over quality during a draft, but i would still think if you could get more quality you would.
Ex Ranger Instructor
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 48
- Points
- 330
I imagine that the 20/80 split is due to the fact that more men than women WANT to join the army. If we are talking about a draft, that‘s hardly relevant, is it? Not exactly a matter of choice at that point.
Y
Yes Man
Guest
Would you say its want, or ablity. I‘m only saying this because when I went to do my PT test there were about 15 of us including 2 women. All of the guys that were there passed, but the 2 women were not able to do the 13 pushups needed. I belive that the 20/80 split has alot to do with the average ablity between males and females.
Ex Ranger Instructor
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 48
- Points
- 330
Well, first off, females under 35 only have to do 9 pushups. Whether I agree with the lesser requirement or not is a separate issue, the point is that it has been put in place so that women can more easily join. Secondly, making generalizations based on 2 individual cases is a pretty poor application of statistics. So I disagree that ability is the key factor here. It has everything to do with the fact that boys play with GI Joe action figures, and girls play with Barbie dolls when they are growing up.
Look, the point is that there are already women in the army. That‘s a fact. They are in every branch of service. Some female soldiers are crap. So are some males. If we ever get to a point when we are in such dire straits as to need conscription, we would be stupid not to apply it on a gender neutral basis. I don‘t see a single valid reason not to.
Look, the point is that there are already women in the army. That‘s a fact. They are in every branch of service. Some female soldiers are crap. So are some males. If we ever get to a point when we are in such dire straits as to need conscription, we would be stupid not to apply it on a gender neutral basis. I don‘t see a single valid reason not to.
Y
Yes Man
Guest
I know using 2 cases is poor statistics, but there are many other examples that can be used. Just look at any sport. If you watch a marathon, or a triathlon or any other sport were they race guys and girls at the same time, you will always see a bunch of guys at the front of the pact. If you were to take the top 100 finishers it would probably be about 70-80 men in the top 100 and 20-30 women.
Well I think you are pretty fixed on your position, but one last question. If you could only field 10,000 random soldiers and it would be those soldiers who determined the fate of not just your life but the life of everyone in the country, would you go for a 50/50 split or would you make them all men?
Well I think you are pretty fixed on your position, but one last question. If you could only field 10,000 random soldiers and it would be those soldiers who determined the fate of not just your life but the life of everyone in the country, would you go for a 50/50 split or would you make them all men?
Y
Yes Man
Guest
Because its a draft you would be doing it at random, so you would nto get to select all the ‘crack shots‘
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
maybe not, but how does gender choose who is the better shot?
I mean, if this were WW1, I would say men, because the tech wasn‘t as good as it is now, and it did sometimes get down to hand to hand combat.
With todays tech, though, it rarely gets to that point (ideally).
I mean, if this were WW1, I would say men, because the tech wasn‘t as good as it is now, and it did sometimes get down to hand to hand combat.
With todays tech, though, it rarely gets to that point (ideally).
Y
Yes Man
Guest
I wish it was just shooting that made a soldier...That would make for one fun BMQ/SQ/MOC
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Even if all things were equal in the world in terms of gender, you wouldn‘t get a 50/50 spilt in the military, just as you wouldn‘t get a 50/50 split in careers like nursing and child care. There are some careers that just don‘t appeal as much to men, and some that don‘e appeal as much to women, but that shouldn‘t prevent anyone who is capable of doing the job.
Even if there were conscription, a lot more women would be exempted because they‘re pregnant or are mothers of young children. Also, since someone asked about conscientious objectors. In WWI, for the short period of time that conscription in Canada was in place, only a handful of soldiers ever made it overseas because everyone else claimed an objection of some kind. The vast majority were French Canadians who opposed the war.
Even if there were conscription, a lot more women would be exempted because they‘re pregnant or are mothers of young children. Also, since someone asked about conscientious objectors. In WWI, for the short period of time that conscription in Canada was in place, only a handful of soldiers ever made it overseas because everyone else claimed an objection of some kind. The vast majority were French Canadians who opposed the war.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Too me, if woman can do the job just as good as a man by the same standards, then i have no problem with them being in combat Arms, But in my opinion if they cant do the exact same job useing the same standards as men, then i dont believe they should be in combat arms.
This is in no way ment to be sexist, i am just saying that equal rights and equal opportunities should mean equal standards also.
This is in no way ment to be sexist, i am just saying that equal rights and equal opportunities should mean equal standards also.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
A woman would still have to succeed at basic training, even if she was drafted. It‘s not like you‘re going to have 5000 clueless cheerleader types, who freak out and can‘t handle shooting at someone running around screaming or something.
They will have been through the same training as the men, they will have the same conditioning, and they would be a soldier.
The argument about strength would be more valid if this was 1000 years ago and we were talking about swinging swords and axes, but the tools of war today do not require brute strength to operate that melee weapons did.
Just to get to a point where she may find herself in a combat situation she will already have demonstrated the ability to carry her own gear, assist in carrying wounded, and proficiency with her weapon. What more do you want?
I‘d take the 50/50 split or any other ratio you could throw at me. Basically, whoever has passed their training.
Did anyone here see the movie Glory?
Thats what the whole debate about women in combat roles reminds me of.
People back in those days had all kinds of pseudo-scientific reasons why black people were inferior, and incapable of fighting.
The day will come when insinuating that women shouldn‘t be allowed to fight, will be the same as making the same insinuation based on a persons race.
It‘s totally unfounded and will only become moreso as time goes by. If you‘re holding your breath waiting for some great social experiment to happen and prove that women are not as efficient as men in combat, then you‘ve got a long wait ahead of you I‘d wager.
Even if some "valid" flaw was found with women serving in combat, our technology is advancing at such a rate that we could eliminate the problem rapidly, either with equpiment innovations or psychological/physical conditioning.
