|
It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2025 6:02 am
|
Author |
Message |
Rinox
Minor Diety
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:23 am Posts: 14892 Location: behind a good glass of Duvel
|
 Question
More random than for any real reason: do women get assigned to fighting units in the US Army, Satis? Are they limited to support functions? Or do they have a choice and and is there just rarely a woman that does?
I have no idea how it is in the Belgian army. Anyone who knows for sure about another army is welcome to talk about that too.
Found this on the Israelian army:
 |  |  |  | Quote: Israel has female conscription, but about a third of female conscripts (more than double the figure for men) are exempted, mainly for religious and nuptial reasons.
Following their active service, women, like men, are in theory required to serve up to one month annually in reserve duty. However, in practice only some women in combat roles get called for active reserve duty, and only for a few years following their active service, with many exit points (e.g., pregnancy).
Apart from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, when manpower shortages saw many of them taking active part in battles on the ground, women were historically barred from battle in the IDF, serving in a variety of technical and administrative support roles. During this period the IDF utilized female instructors for training male soldiers in certain roles, particularly tank crews.
After a landmark 1994 High Court appeal by Alice Miller, a Jewish immigrant from South Africa, the Air Force was instructed to open its pilots course to women. Miller failed the entrance exams, but since her initiative, many additional combat roles were opened.[8] As of 2005, women are allowed to serve in 83% of all positions in the military, including Shipboard Navy Service (except submarines), and Artillery. Combat roles are voluntary for women.
As of 2002, 33% of lower rank officers are women, 21% of Captains and Majors, and 3% of the most senior ranks.
450 women currently serve in combat units of Israel's security forces, primarily in the Border Police. Yael Rom, the first female pilot in the Israeli Air Force earned her wings in 1951.[9] The first female jet fighter pilot, Roni Zuckerman, received her wings in 2001.[9] In November 2007 the first woman was appointed to the rank of deputy squadron commander.[10]
Women serve in combat support and light combat roles in the Artillery Corps, infantry units and armored divisions. A few platoons, named Karakal, were formed, in which men and women serve together in light infantry on the borders with Egypt and Jordan. Karakal became a battalion in 2004.[8]
The IDF abolished its "Women's Corps" command in 2001, with a view that it had become an anachronism and a stumbling block towards integration of women in the army as regular soldiers with no special status. However, after pressures from feminist lobbies, The Chief of Staff was persuaded to keep an "adviser for women's affairs". Female soldiers now fall under the authority of individual units based on jobs and not on gender. The 2006 Lebanon War was the first time since 1948 that women were involved in field operations alongside men. Airborne helicopter engineer Sergeant-Major (res.) Keren Tendler became the first female combat soldier to be killed in action.[8] |  |  |  |  |
I had a slight lol @ the line I put in bold. You gain entrance to the exams for men and women alike, and then you fail the entrance exams.  Bummer.
_________________ "I find a Burger Tank in this place? I'm-a be a one-man cheeseburger apocalypse."
- Coach
|
Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:56 am |
|
 |
Satis
Felix Rex
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm Posts: 16701 Location: On a slope
|
Women aren't allowed in combat roles in the US military. They have their reasons, some of which make sense, some of which don't. Women are allowed in support roles and pretty much any non-combat role.
Of course, with stuff like Iraq and Afghanistan, women are in a combat zone pretty regularly nowadays. I don't think it'll be long before women can fight in a combat unit along with men. From my experience in the military, I 'd rather fight alongside some women then some men.
_________________ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
|
Thu Jan 08, 2009 8:50 am |
|
 |
Peltz
Stranger
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:14 pm Posts: 6420 Location: Estonia
|
Its the natural order of things so i wouldnt put too much time in thinking over this.
_________________ When someone asks how rich you are, quote Rinox " I don't even have a rusty nail to scratch my butt with...!"
Be well or Get Help!!
|
Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:10 am |
|
 |
Satis
Felix Rex
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm Posts: 16701 Location: On a slope
|
hehe... oh well, to each their own. I'm totally cool with women in combat. The military better be prepared for a lot of trench sex. Nothing like imminent death to get people feeling sexy.
_________________ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
|
Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:17 am |
|
 |
Arathorn
Minor Diety
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 10:23 am Posts: 3956 Location: Amsterdam
|
Both the Dutch and Belgian armies are open to women in all divisions. Since they're both professional armies (no conscription), every recruit knows what he / she might expect and if they complete the training, why not use them?
_________________ Melchett: As private parts to the gods are we: they play with us for their sport!
|
Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:50 am |
|
 |
derf
Minor Diety
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:17 pm Posts: 7737 Location: Centre of the sun
|
9% of UK's combined forces are female. I think there are women fighter pilots and chopper pilots which probably means they should be allowed to ground and pound too.
|
Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:12 pm |
|
 |
Rinox
Minor Diety
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:23 am Posts: 14892 Location: behind a good glass of Duvel
|

I found this on wikipedia Derf:
 |  |  |  | Quote: Specific initiatives to develop female and ethnic minority representation in the Armed Forces has yielded percentage increases of 3.4 and 4.5 since 1997.[81][82][83][18] In 1997, there were 14,830 (5.7%) women and 2.184 (1.0%) personnel who identified as an ethnic minority.[18] This had increased to 17,870 (9.1%) and 10,180 (5.5%) in 2006. A higher percentage of personnel have attained higher-rank since 2000. Notably included among these officers are Rear-Admiral Amjad Hussain, Air Commodore David Case, Commodore Carolyn Stait, and Squadron Leader Nicky Smith.[84][85] Women have been fully integrated into the British Armed Forces since the early 1990s; however, they remain excluded from primarily combat units in the Army, Royal Marines, Royal Air Force Regiment, and the submarine service. |  |  |  |  |
If I were a woman, I wouldn't want to be stuck on a freaking submarine with a crew of men either.
Thanks for the input already everyone. I also found out that the US Army apparently still bars gays from entering.  That's pretty lame. I mean, not that they can 'scan' candidates for it or anything, but I assume it's a ground for dismissal if found out during your service. Does it happen? Or is just an official ruling that no one ever follows anymore? Kinda like London cabs having to carry a bale of hay at all times.
EDIT: apparently it happens - and not only in combat units:
http://illinois.edu/blog/view?topicId=792
[quote]According to the Houston Chronicle, the U.S. army has kicked out as many as 58 Arabic translators recently because they were gay. 40 members of the House of Representatives want to know why, when the army is so short on troops that it’s issuing what it calls “moral waiversâ€
_________________ "I find a Burger Tank in this place? I'm-a be a one-man cheeseburger apocalypse."
- Coach
|
Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:30 am |
|
 |
RB
Emperor
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 1:25 am Posts: 2560
|
Oh yeah, I guess I can always claim I was a gay, trans or whatever and get rid of the obligatory army service.  Not that I don't want to serve in the army but I really don't want to serve in THIS what our army has become.
Yes, since the regime of our pro-US and anti-Serbian government, every last soldier and officer and general that was capable of doing the job properly was sent in pension (including my father). Now they're just bunch of retards and morons. Bold on words, pussies on deeds. Well, that really sucks. I hope our president will hang with all his gang sooner or later.
p.s.
To be a straight man on a gay-crowded submarine wouldn't be that nice either.  And imagine even a gay on a woman-crowded submarine. No good.
_________________ ++
|
Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:42 am |
|
 |
Satis
Felix Rex
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm Posts: 16701 Location: On a slope
|
Minority representation in the US military is pretty high, I think. I had a great number of black people in my units, many in command positions (NCOs mainly, up to brigade sergeant majors. Not to mention the sergeant major of the army was black, at least when I was in). Homosexuality is still frowned upon, but it's the whole 'don't ask, don't tell thing'. Basically, they can't ask you about your sexual beliefs and you can't tell. But if they find you in a homosexual position, you'll get kicked out of the military on an article 13 or whatever.
Once again, I don't care. As long as the guy or gal is capable of doing their job, it doesn't matter to me. But whatever, that's what it is.
_________________ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
|
Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:54 pm |
|
 |
Rinox
Minor Diety
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:23 am Posts: 14892 Location: behind a good glass of Duvel
|

Isn't the minority representation linked more to the socio-economic factors than anything else, in the army? Seeing as the US military hands out scholarships and all sorts of benefits for veterans that are pretty outlandish in the ultracapitalist market that the US is. Of course, putting yourself (potentially) in danger for a few years isn't exactly an ideal situation, but y'know. It's still a shortcut for many lower-class people that they would have trouble taking any other way.
It's different with gays, I think. Afaik (can't say I have any studies at hand) they are more often part of the higher social strata and tend to gravitate towards cities , where the army recruits mostly in the countryside.
Obviously, I don't give a rat's ass about who is in the army with me or works the same job or what my friends do in their lovelives. BUT I do sometimes wonder about the implications of gay men and women in some specific situations - the army, sports teams, even fitness clubs. Silly things like dressing rooms. In se, having them change and shower with people of their sex is the equivalent of having me shower with women. There are nuances here, of course, and I'm not saying that they should relocate to the other sex' locker rooms or sleeping bunks; and/or that they should get their own facilities. But I can also understand that some of their straight counterparts wouldn't be too happy to share a shower with someone who they know is gay - for whatever reason.
It doesn't even have to be homophobia...I know quite a few women who wouldn't want a male friend whom they know is definitely gay to see them naked in any such situation. They usually say that even though they know he isn't sexually interested in them and appreciate his presence, he still is a man. Which is all it takes, sometimes. So the opposite - a man not feeling comfortable about a man who is -generally- attracted to men being around him in such situations- isn't hard to grasp either.
It's all pretty interesting really, and raises questions about the position of gay men and women in our society. They often fall between two chairs. And I can't say I have a ready-made solution for it.
_________________ "I find a Burger Tank in this place? I'm-a be a one-man cheeseburger apocalypse."
- Coach
|
Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:35 am |
|
 |
Satis
Felix Rex
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm Posts: 16701 Location: On a slope
|

@socio-economic reasons for joining the military, yes, the reason there are so many minorities is because most people that join the military are poor. It allows someone to pull themselves out of their hood and circular crime environment and receive training, college, and other benefits to move themselves into a higher social plateau. Personally I think this is excellent. The military is a guaranteed way for a person (who isn't physically handicapped) to elevate themselves. Yay for social mobility. So all the people that cry about how bad their lives are, I feel no sympathy. That's the reason I joined... I needed a way to get out into the world on my own two feet. Anyone can do what I did, or even stay in the military and make a career of it. The pay isn't that great, but they pay for everything that matters... housing, food, clothes, medical, dental.
re mixed sex showering... I have no problem showering with women. I think it's just a social phobia that will eventually be overcome. Guys don't throw down and rape women in a hallway... why would they do so in a shower? The same deterrent exists there. It just a matter of getting people used to the idea.
On the other hand, that's not the real problem. What kind of showers you think people get in combat? None, really, except what people might be able to throw together out of water cans. I spent two weeks in the desert with 1 shower about half way through. Women can't survive that... in a real combat situation that time frame could be expanded to many weeks without a shower. A woman is likely to experience toxic shock and die if exposed to that.
_________________ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
|
Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:06 am |
|
 |
RB
Emperor
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 1:25 am Posts: 2560
|
That for women is... weird, but true is that men are more capable of being pigs than women (oinkey!), with causal exceptions.  That's the way it always was. I would rather skip the part how often I had shower while spending my time in the mountains:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UT ... 5&t=h&z=16
I actually believed Satis didn't have choice about the army and that he has spent some time in a kind of war or something. Prove me wrong.
_________________ ++
|
Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:13 am |
|
 |
Shiny
Count
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:30 pm Posts: 810
|

Satis did not HAVE to join the Army. He did so because he didn't want to live with/off his parents. He decided that by joining the military he would be his own person and not take a damn thing from his parents. Might I add that his sister was my best friend and I think his parents are still helping her pay for things. His parents were willing and to this day tell us if we need help they will help - but the thing is neither of us need that, nor likely ever will need that.
I respect him for that. He is by far more responsible than I am. I had my parents buy me a nice car, I live in an old house that was my fathers, and my dad paid for the first couple years of college for me. So... I respect what Satis did. That doesn't mean that I was not worried for him when he told me he had joined the army. And I still mourn the loos of that hair (although it has been regrown).
As for War... He served in Korea, which I guess is kinda still like a war or whatever, but not like Bosnia or something like that. But I am sure he will tell you more on that.
_________________ I LUV everybody until they piss me off.
|
Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:01 pm |
|
 |
Satis
Felix Rex
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:01 pm Posts: 16701 Location: On a slope
|
heh, wasn't really planning on it. I didn't serve in a war, but I don't see why I should have to prove it.
I was stationed in Korea which is technically at war, but never fired a shot (or missile) in anger. I was also on rapid deployment status to Saudi Arabia, but never went. Then when I was in the national guard my unit got deployed to Bosnia, but I didn't go. I happened to serve in a fairly quiet piece of history (1996-1999 active, 1999-2000 national guard).
_________________ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
|
Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:55 pm |
|
 |
RB
Emperor
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 1:25 am Posts: 2560
|
Al-right. I just asked about what remained in memory.  So there WAS something about warring. Btw, military service was and is still obligatory in RS. The term is just shorter and professional personnel lots suckier. (new anti-Serbian government since year 2000. etc.)
The things in US are different as it seems. (of course, they don't have anti-US government... yet  )
_________________ ++
|
Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:11 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|