what confused me about the original research was that one report i read explained that the study participants were also given condoms at the outset. however, when the results were presented, there was no mention of how many participants used the condoms and how much that use might've contributed to that person not contracting HIV... which also would have nothing to do with the vaccine.
'Many also argue that women in combat pose a security risk to their nation's mission because as hostages, they are potentially more vulnerable to rape and torture than their male counterparts.'
Not according to my friends in the foreign service. Apparently as a kidnap victim a male government worker is about as likely to get raped as a female one.
However, the women are still more vulnerable to rape when it comes to their fellow soldiers. I guess they're just more selective than terrorist cells and thugs?
I had no idea my country did allow women to serve on the frontlines. I'm glad, though. Although, let's be honest, how likely is it that *any* NZ soldier will ever be involved in direct combat (other than the ones they're sacrificing to Afghanistan to appease the US, that is)?
There are loads of women already on the front lines in Afghanistan, from the Australian forces at least anyway. Just because they don't have official combat positions doesn't mean they don't see combat. So it's the usual situation: the ladies are already doing "male" jobs, they just aren't getting credit for it.
Don't even get me started on this... You train me the same as the men, you train me with the men and then you tell me I can't serve my country to the fullest because I have boobs. I took the same damn oath to serve, I know the risks and I know how to to my job so let me do it!
You know, it's funny how they always ignore sexual assault in the ranks and never want to protect us from that.
They also never mention this teensy little fact: the Army PT test changes as you get older. If recognizing that women are different from men is so bad they better get rid of the age categories and require everybody to pass the eighteen-year-old male standard, then.
Soldiers get tortured to make other soldiers break. The idea that male soldiers are particularly susceptible to seeing this happen to females is bullshit, considering the amount of shit some males dish out. AS a matter of fact, the guy who dish out that kind of crap tend to buy this kind of crap.
@Ginmar Rienne: Don't know what army you're serving in. Every base I've been to has a civilian Victim's Advocate, by Army policy. Every unit I've served in, by Army policy, has an EO rep, whose job is to be the initial contact for sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and religious discrimination complaints. Every AFN show I've watched has had multiple commercials lecturing troops on how to prevent sexual assault, and many of these commercials are aimed at men, and their responsibility to speak up.
There are a few, horrible cases where it's covered up. The vast majority of cases get handled appropriately.
As for the PT test, I can speak from experience that older men are encouraged to not go into combat arms specialties. When younger men rise in ranks and grow older in these MOS's, they are moved to more administrative roles. An infantry 1SG has a much different role than an infantry PV2. For males, the PT test in fact gets harder in the physical strength categories until you're about 30 or so, BTW, with increases in the required amounts of push ups and sit ups.
Also, with combat arms units, they hold their soldiers to an even higher PT standard than most of the Army. Combat arms units often won't promote soldiers unless they have a 90-90-90, as opposed to the Army standard of 60-60-60 (scores are in percentiles for push ups, sit ups, and running). While I'd argue that plenty of women can meet a male 60-60-60, very, very few women can meet a 90-90-90.
I'm against women serving in combat arms units, if only because I think it would be a bad idea to put one or two women on a 20-50 person outpost in the middle of Afghanistan, miles away from the nearest base, with very little ready help if something went wrong and they were sexually assaulted.
@Adah: So, you think that since the Army has an EO, and a victim's advocate, and some commercials discouraging sexual assault, that covers the bases. You honestly believe that women in the military are not singled out to be harassed? I wish I lived in your fantasy world. You also think that women should not be allowed to be in the infantry because the could be sexually assaulted? Right, because if there is only a few of us in a unit, it's all the more reason we could be assaulted... because men can't help themselves.
@GirlFailer: I'd say that men are harassed as well. On my military base we saw a rise in male-on-male rape as well as heterosexual rape upon redeployment. In fact, I'd argue that seemingly feminine men, new soldiers to a unit, and out of shape soldiers are harassed much more than females are in the military.
My main point is that the Army is a lot more pro-active towards sexual assault prevention than Jezebel gives credit for.
As for the infantry... what I'm saying is that the risks are substantially different. In our current situation, women are mostly on larger bases, and have access to quick medical help, emergency contraception if it's needed, and police like authorities. On many combat out posts you're dealing with a small male population in the beginning stages of PTSD, few medical resources beyond combat life support, and no prison facilities to speak of.
It's been well documented that many of these men undergo a violent period upon coming back to the states, and there's been a marked increase in sexual violence among this population upon redeployment. You think we wouldn't see the same statistics while they're in the middle of combat?
People who are torturing prisoners often already create very credible seeming threats to seek out and torture or kill female family members, including children and wives. Hell, WE did that to some prisoners in the past few years. And watching your comrade of any gender suffer isn't pleasant and happens as well.
I highly doubt the attitude of men being tortured is "suck it up and welcome to captivity." No one would bother torturing in the first place if that was such a widespread and effective attitude....John McCain, for example, "confessed" to all sorts of things when he was a POW.
Soooooo... Israel, anyone? People seem to forget that in Israel, the women seem to handle all this just fine. And from what I understand, they aren't getting raped left and right either.
@Gavagirl: And they also seem to have forgotten WWII. I do believe women were trained for civilian defense in America and the UK in case combat reached the Motherland. They didn't seem to think we were too weak to defend our nation on our own shores back then.
@LaComtesse: Pepsi-stan has allowed women in the frontline since 1963, when they launched an attack on the Republic of Coca-Cola with Ann Margret look-alikes screeching "Bye bye suuuuuuuugaaaaaaaar! Hello Patioooooooooooooooooooo!"
Women may in fact be physically weaker, but physical strength is a very small factor in ones ability to perform on the front line. There are a plethora of positions, from medic to evac pilot, to com tech, that exist on the front line that don't have physical strength as the hallmark of the position.
In fact I would argue that the single most important factor in what makes a good soldier (man or woman) is the ability handle extreme fatigue.
As to the charge that men will reveal secrets when seeing women tortured, I would counter that all POWs give out what they know. They are being tortured daily, no man or woman, can withstand that kind of psychological and physical strain. The thing is, no individual really knows that much.
@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: In fact I would argue that the single most important factor in what makes a good soldier (man or woman) is the ability handle extreme fatigue.
God yes. I always chuckle when the argument of women being weaker than men is used to defend the fact that women still cannot serve in the infantry. Do people think that the guys in the infantry go around picking up huge boulders and chucking them at the enemy? Some jobs might require *some* physical strength, like a mortarman, but still there are women out there who can hump that. Like you said it's the ability to withstand fatigue also, that's why they train the infantry the way that they do. That's how they weed out the people that can't hack it. If a woman can hack it, what is the problem?
@GirlFailer: Great points. I would add that women aren't intrinsically weaker than men, they just tend to be smaller on average. Lots of physiological research has shown that female human muscle is pound for pound, every bit as strong as male muscle. So, if you've got a big, muscular women, there's no reason think she can't perform at the same level as a man with the same lean body mass. Granted, only a small percentage of the female population has that much muscle, but then again, only an even smaller percentage of women wants to be in the infantry. So, if women could compete on a level playing field, this would all sort itself out.
I'd like to add also that the amount of lean, yet strong men in the infantry would most certainly outnumber the bulky, power clean-types. People seem to think that the infantry is a bunch of hulking muscle masses overpowering the enemy. Not true. I've seen more bulky types in MOS's outside of infantry, because they have the time to train their bodies that the infantrymen do not. Their bodies are tuned to the work they do daily. Hike. Shoot. Go out in the field. Low calories, high cardio.
I know the number of women wanting to go infantry would be low. They deserve the chance as much as any other person, though.
Surely these men who wouldn't be able to bear to see a woman tortured could not be some of the same men who are silent when they know a woman has been sexually assaulted by one of her fellow soldiers?
Abra promoted this comment
Lizard in the Wires - synthesizer signals suspense! was starred
Lizard in the Wires - synthesizer signals suspense! was unstarred
@Lizard in the Wires is on Rails: You are right about the nature of the conflicts Australia/US/Canada etc. are involved in these days: there aren't specific front lines - they can be shot at or bombed ANYWHERE. So this is probably in part more of a way to openly recognize women's experiences of conflict --- Any women serving in Afghanistan or Iraq right now ARE essentially serving on the "front lines" but not recognized as such. But from what I understand that sort of recognition of front line experience factors in significantly with regards to opportunities for promotion in the military. Therefore, it's only fair that these nations stop pretending that female soldiers are somehow taking it easy compared to their male counterparts.
10/13/09
(Kidding, obviously. I am bummed about these results.)
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/02/09
Not according to my friends in the foreign service. Apparently as a kidnap victim a male government worker is about as likely to get raped as a female one.
However, the women are still more vulnerable to rape when it comes to their fellow soldiers. I guess they're just more selective than terrorist cells and thugs?
10/02/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
They also never mention this teensy little fact: the Army PT test changes as you get older. If recognizing that women are different from men is so bad they better get rid of the age categories and require everybody to pass the eighteen-year-old male standard, then.
Soldiers get tortured to make other soldiers break. The idea that male soldiers are particularly susceptible to seeing this happen to females is bullshit, considering the amount of shit some males dish out. AS a matter of fact, the guy who dish out that kind of crap tend to buy this kind of crap.
10/01/09
There are a few, horrible cases where it's covered up. The vast majority of cases get handled appropriately.
As for the PT test, I can speak from experience that older men are encouraged to not go into combat arms specialties. When younger men rise in ranks and grow older in these MOS's, they are moved to more administrative roles. An infantry 1SG has a much different role than an infantry PV2. For males, the PT test in fact gets harder in the physical strength categories until you're about 30 or so, BTW, with increases in the required amounts of push ups and sit ups.
Also, with combat arms units, they hold their soldiers to an even higher PT standard than most of the Army. Combat arms units often won't promote soldiers unless they have a 90-90-90, as opposed to the Army standard of 60-60-60 (scores are in percentiles for push ups, sit ups, and running). While I'd argue that plenty of women can meet a male 60-60-60, very, very few women can meet a 90-90-90.
I'm against women serving in combat arms units, if only because I think it would be a bad idea to put one or two women on a 20-50 person outpost in the middle of Afghanistan, miles away from the nearest base, with very little ready help if something went wrong and they were sexually assaulted.
10/01/09
10/02/09
My main point is that the Army is a lot more pro-active towards sexual assault prevention than Jezebel gives credit for.
As for the infantry... what I'm saying is that the risks are substantially different. In our current situation, women are mostly on larger bases, and have access to quick medical help, emergency contraception if it's needed, and police like authorities. On many combat out posts you're dealing with a small male population in the beginning stages of PTSD, few medical resources beyond combat life support, and no prison facilities to speak of.
It's been well documented that many of these men undergo a violent period upon coming back to the states, and there's been a marked increase in sexual violence among this population upon redeployment. You think we wouldn't see the same statistics while they're in the middle of combat?
10/01/09
I highly doubt the attitude of men being tortured is "suck it up and welcome to captivity." No one would bother torturing in the first place if that was such a widespread and effective attitude....John McCain, for example, "confessed" to all sorts of things when he was a POW.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
In fact I would argue that the single most important factor in what makes a good soldier (man or woman) is the ability handle extreme fatigue.
As to the charge that men will reveal secrets when seeing women tortured, I would counter that all POWs give out what they know. They are being tortured daily, no man or woman, can withstand that kind of psychological and physical strain. The thing is, no individual really knows that much.
10/01/09
God yes. I always chuckle when the argument of women being weaker than men is used to defend the fact that women still cannot serve in the infantry. Do people think that the guys in the infantry go around picking up huge boulders and chucking them at the enemy? Some jobs might require *some* physical strength, like a mortarman, but still there are women out there who can hump that. Like you said it's the ability to withstand fatigue also, that's why they train the infantry the way that they do. That's how they weed out the people that can't hack it. If a woman can hack it, what is the problem?
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
I'd like to add also that the amount of lean, yet strong men in the infantry would most certainly outnumber the bulky, power clean-types. People seem to think that the infantry is a bunch of hulking muscle masses overpowering the enemy. Not true. I've seen more bulky types in MOS's outside of infantry, because they have the time to train their bodies that the infantrymen do not. Their bodies are tuned to the work they do daily. Hike. Shoot. Go out in the field. Low calories, high cardio.
I know the number of women wanting to go infantry would be low. They deserve the chance as much as any other person, though.
10/01/09
10/01/09
They're not exactly meeting on a field at dawn. Does it matter if you let women on the front lines when there aren't front lines?
It seems kind of odd to me. Am I missing something?
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
Is he just doing an impression of Viggo Mortensen's character in GI Jane?