Nigel writes:
In October last year the Australian Military gave women unrestricted access to combat roles. On a personal level do you think that women should have the choice of serving in the infantry or do you think that soldiering is specifically a male occupation?
I do not believe any occupation should be limited to males. If a woman is able to pass all the criteria for joining – emotional, intellectual, and physical – then I believe she should be considered for a role in combat.
Humans, for whatever reason, seem to have a need for many things to be exclusive. Women can’t do this, certain races can’t do that, and heaven forbid the homosexuals want to be included. There are logical reasons why certain individuals cannot do specific things, but to exclude an entire group “just because it’s always been that way” is completely illogical to me.
Another reader asks:
Do you ever hear from the Englishman? Are you sorry you sent him away?
No, I haven’t heard anything else from him. Of course I am sad that part of my life is at an end and I am sorry to see him hurting, but it was over when he left the first time. Just because something is painful doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing for us to do.
Another reader commented:
My wife wants a female led relationship. I am ok with this but she wants me to be only oral to her.
I can only guess at your question here, so if I assume incorrectly, feel free to let me know.
The key to any healthy relationship is communication. In my opinion there’s nothing about a female led relationship that suggests a man cannot tell his wife what he wants and needs. He does, however, need to do so without manipulation and during a time that is acceptable to her. Perhaps you could ask that she set aside a time when you may speak about some of your desires. If, after sharing your need for more than oral sex, she declines, then I can see only a few options: accept it, temporarily accept it and ask if you may revisit it at a later time, ask if she would consider a reward system, or end the female led dynamic. I realize some feel two of those options are “topping” but I don’t. Discussing the wants and needs of both on a regular basis – at a time of her choosing, mind you – seems necessary for the health of the relationship.
Others may have different suggestions. I trust they won’t be too shy to offer them :)
~ ~
Thank you for the questions :) If you would like to pose questions, you may do so anonymously here.
No related posts.
Relationships need to work for both people involved. Anything else is doomed to fail.
Women and men are different for many reasons. So is the way they react to each other. Men have evolved to feel protective of women. Most military commanders agree that if women are engaged in infantry battles the men will be more reluctant to commit to the risks necessary to defeat the enemy. The women may be fine as combatants, but the men will be uncomfortable to the point of being less efficient killers, and that, sadly, is what much of being an infantry combatant is all about. There have been exceptions throughout history, of course, but by and large women have been kept from ground combat for good reasons. Pilots and operators of other battle machinery are different because the immediacy of personal injury is distanced. “G.I. Jane” and “Xena” are fun to watch, but no man can easily adapt to the idea of going into a bloody fight with women by his side. Some things are meant to be different and it’s not always discrimination.
Arafin
While it may be true that some men in the military may be less efficient killers when working with women, they can be trained to do otherwise. There are female police and SWAT officers, sheriffs, FBI agents, ATF agents, etc.
At one point it was considered “disruptive” and “dangerous” to racially integrate the military. Yes, probably it was at first, but people adapted. Then there was the whole theory that homosexuals would do the same thing. We’re moving past that.
Do I want women to be in combat? No. But I don’t want my 26 year old male cousin there either.
Today we cannot even define combat zones. Iraq is a combat zone. Afghanistan is a combat zone. Women may not formally be in combat positions, but they are often *in* combat.
Monica Brown
Leigh Ann Hester
Lady,
I agree with all of what you said. However, women in combat whether on the ground or flying an aircraft face different issues from men if they are captured by the enemy. Take for example the females captured by the Iraquis in the first war. Some of our enemies are not as civilzed as we are. That is the only reason I would limit women’s exposure to the enemy. Sadly, even when behind the lines they will encounter the enemy, so they know the risks when they ask for an assignment.
My argument does not hold in law enforcement since the enemy there is usually outnumbered and controlled, and there is almost no chance of anyone being captured as in combat.
I am of two minds of women being in combat. The great science fiction writer Robert Heinlein was for it. He was a career navy man until he got tuberculosis. He was considered by many to be very conservative. He thought it could work.
Rear Admiral Grace Hopper was against it. She thought it would be disruptive.
Who was right? I don’t know.
If you can pass the physical requirements why not. I knew they had trouble with the LA fire department a while back because not enough women were passing the PT tests. There was talk of relaxing the tests for women. It was women fire fighters that fought to keep the tests the same. They women fire fighters said if they went into a burning building they wanted someone they could trust to do the job. Carrying somebody out of a burning building is no easy feat.
I think they would have the same issues with combat troops. Troops in Iraq where up to 70 pounds of ordinance in the dessert heat. That takes great physical conditioning. There are women who can do it. But on average how many?
Looking at it logically, I guess if the woman was physically qualified and wanted to they should be allowed.
As a father with two daughters I am against it. But I am thinking emotionally there.
Mike
A part of me wants to say that I would prefer that ALL combat roles be filled by women. I think we’d be a lot more careful about how we used military force in the world.
rumiboy,
I wish you well. You need it.
Females in combat are not there to satisfy your wishes, they are there, just as males, to kill the enemy.
Neither are they there to make the decision on the outcome of a skirmish, a battle, or a war.
In a civilian situation, females can be as vicious as any human. I have never had to kill one, but I was there when some fell. It was regrettable, just as it would have been if it had been a male.
Traditionally, there have been two reasons to keep women out of combat.
1) the ones that are willing/want to fight are too bloody minded by half. There are Rules of War; there are already toomany men who disregard those rules.
2)The society which puts its cohort of females of breeding age in harms way will suffer a sharp decline in fertility.
And Mike. Heinlein was against women in ground combat, until about the 1980’s, when political correctness in SF Fandom and at his beloved Naval Accademy caught up with him. I didn’t know him personally, so I don’t know if he really changed his mind, or just his tune. His reason was point #2, above.
That said, I have known women who I would rather have had in combat beside me than some of the men who actually were. Individuals differ. Some are better warriors than others, and modern warfare does not always require warriors to do the fighting; sometimes technicians will do.
Freemann
Re: The Guy whose Wife allowshim only oral sex.
I agree with FreeThiningWriter. There must be reciprosity and balence; both parties must get what they need, or, frankly, one of them will go elsewhere. I don’t think the marriage described is long for this world, unless there are some changes made.
Freemann
Was the question whether submissive men have to perform oral sex on dominant women who have been in combat? No, wait, that wasn’t it. ;-)
Seriously, I say if women want to be in combat, and they qualify, then recruit them. Yes, it would be horrible to think of what uncivilized enemies would do to captured women, but the women would know the risks beforehand and would have to accept them, as would everyone else. Just because people might do unspeakable things to women who are captured is not a all-trumping reason to not allow women into combat. It’s one factor to consider, just like everything else. But I don’t think it should be the most important factor. Besides, uncivilized men (and women) are doing unspeakable things all the time to women who aren’t even in the military. I don’t see how having women in combat is going to make that any worse. On the other hand, when people no longer accept that victimization of women should be tolerated, including milder victimization such as unncessary gender-based exclusion, perhaps the more horrific victimization such as domestic violence and commercial sex slavery will begin to wane.
Call me an idealist, but I can dream.
-Carl
I took Rumiboy’s comment to mean that if all combatants, (on both sides of a conflict), were women, then war might not be quite so horrific as it is now. Interesting concept, though I think it will never get past the hypothetical stage. However, since wars are not caused by soldiers but by leaders of nations, perhaps the best violence prevention technique of all would be to have all politicians be female. Women can indeed be just as vicious as men, but history shows us they do it far less often. Perhaps the biggest reason is that by giving birth it becomes more difficult to take life away.
Arafin
Freemann:
Actually the first draft of Starship Troopers had women as ground troops. That was written in the 50s I believe. He could not get it published that way. At the time it was a very controversial book. So he made them the Starship Captains and the ground troops took orders from them. He regretted not sticking to his guns. He talks extensively on women as leaders in Expanded Universe. Advocating that they be put in charge.
His estate did push to have women as combat troops when the movie was made.
Mike
Folks, we are anthropomorphizing human females into what we wish. Regardless of that, our wishes will not change reality. I have been supporting our governmen and constituion (USA) most of my adult life. In my case, the second in line for the presidency of the USA is a female. She has demonstrated aberrant behavior and illogical thinking. She is behaving as an elite, using resources as some empress, paid by us, the constituents. We resent it.
The point is, being female does no make a leader do the right thing. I admit that male leaders have failed as well. I just want to say that it is the person, not the gender, that makes the difference.
There are women who can do any job a man can do except donate sperm. I don’t want my daughters to be in a combat position but that isn’t an issue since they are too intelligent and educated to serve in combat positions.
Glad that Englishman is leaving you alone. You put him in his place and that was precisely what you needed to do.
Susan’s Pet, I think you missed rumiboy’s original point. He wasn’t saying that the women would be better / different. He was saying that the people making the decisions would be less likely to send women out to fight and thus we might use diplomacy instead.
I think it’s an interesting philosophical point.
Free Thinking Writer, I agree it is an interesting philosophical point. However, the same people who callously send our youth to war would rationalize sending women to war too. Some people value oil more than human life.
Mike
Mike,
Where dso you get your information on Heinlein? He made many public statements about his views, and in his speech to the graduating class at the Naval Academy specifically said that he had changed those views as far as women in combat roles.
As far as publishing a book with female soldiers in it, I have difficulty believing he would have had trouble. There were other contempory stories with sexually integrated military in them. I think RAH even had a story in which the hero’s sister belonged to an Amazon Corps.
And if Heinlein’s estate had anything to do with the movie version, they should be ashamed. The film missed *every single point* the book made.
Carl,
Our enemies do unspeakable things to the service men they capture anyway. Would it be worse that they did it to female POW’s?
finally, Georgianna,
I had an test score in the top 1 % of all enlistees, and a degree and a year of grad school. I still ended up as a ground pounder. It’s what the military needs at the moment, not what you think you (or your daughters) would be qualified for.
Freemann