That is to say, raped by fellow soldiers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jane-harman/rapists-in-the-ranks_b_94338.html)than killed by enemy fire.

Flack jackets, combat boots, RAID helmets...ya know they're just asking for it. /snark

This is doesn't seem to be anything new, sadly. I love our military, but they're not all angels. If it isn't this it's tossing puppies off of cliffs or hooking people's genitals up to car batteries. These pricks ruin the reputation of the 90%+ of the rest of the Army who bust their butts, risk their lives and do good work. It's a shame.

EDIT: 4,000 posts. Sweet Jesus, I'm lame.

Well, it is more likely for a soldier to die in a car accident in Iraq than by enemy fire as well so pretty much all the dangers that faces people everywhere are present in Iraq. The risk of getting killed in action isnt by far the greatest danger.

The chief reason why I'm against females in the army is rape. However, my concern has normally been rape by enemy soldiers after capture. It's also going to be hard on fellow soldiers of the male sex - sticking a gun to your mate's head so you tell them what they want to know is one thing, raping a woman from your platoon is another. Torture based on sexual exploitation is also much worse than typical beating.

Aren't female soldiers in the US army kept away from combat zones to a large extent? My knowledge on this is very limited but I remember reading a few articles saying that they were primarily involved in logistics etc. rather than in active combat. I certainly don't want to take away from the vileness of these incidents but I'm not sure the comparison to casualties is that surprising.

The chief reason why I'm against females in the army is rape.

This is a very poor excuse for limiting military service from women. First of all I think women are quite able to assess the situation themselves, secondly there are plenty of positions in the military that don't involve engagement in direct combat. The chances of someone operating a tank or better yet flying a bomber plane getting raped are quite minimal. Also as I think we have seen all sorts sexually degrading tortures and abuses are not limited to female victims only.

However I agree that limiting conscription laws from women would be justified, not only for this reason but also because the society does not run on the sick and elderly, the entire population can't be mobilized anyhow. If women however voulenteer for military service I see no reason for limiting it from them, in fact I'd consider such limits highy discriminatory and unjustified.

The military as a highly masculine institution is not a very easy enviorment for most women and I'd say that a woman in the army needs to be quite a lot tougher than your average male soldier.

Well, it is more likely for a soldier to die in a car accident in Iraq than by enemy fire as well so pretty much all the dangers that faces people everywhere are present in Iraq. The risk of getting killed in action isnt by far the greatest danger.

That's a little disingenious joacqin. While it's true that more US soldiers have died because their vehicles have been hit by RPGs or they drove over a landmine or other IED than have been shot and killed, I'd hardly call being hit by an RPG or running over a landmine a "car accident".

There have been over 4,000 US combat casaulties in Iraq since the war began about 5 years ago. There have not been 4,000 soldiers killed in traditional car accidents in Iraq (especially since soldiers don't drive cars in Iraq - they usually go in armored vehicles or Humvees). You couldn't even get to 4,000 if you count the number of soldiers here in the states that have died in car accidents in the last 5 years.

Aren't female soldiers in the US army kept away from combat zones to a large extent? My knowledge on this is very limited but I remember reading a few articles saying that they were primarily involved in logistics etc. rather than in active combat. I certainly don't want to take away from the vileness of these incidents but I'm not sure the comparison to casualties is that surprising.

You're basically correct. Women can be in combat areas (heck there are women in Iraq and that whole damn country is pretty much a combat area), but they generally are not on the front lines of combat. There aren't female GIs carrying assault weapons around Iraq, and if by chance one of them gets involved in combat (as in an actual ground battle) it usually is not by design. But other than being a foot soldier, just about any other military position can also be performed by a woman. There are women who fly military aircraft, and women who are officers on nuclear subs.

Well, it is more likely for a soldier to die in a car accident in Iraq than by enemy fire as well so pretty much all the dangers that faces people everywhere are present in Iraq. The risk of getting killed in action isnt by far the greatest danger.This seems remarkably...well, pulled out of your ass, if you'll forgive the expression. Is this from some quantified study, or just your observation? Also, are you lumping in roadside bombs and RPG attacks with fender benders? I think any veteran would tell that's just absurd, in any warzone - not just Iraq.

This seems remarkably...well, pulled out of your ass, if you'll forgive the expression.

Funny, I was kind of thinking the exact same thing about this entire thread

Actually Death Rabbit, it isnt pulled out of my ass but I cant give you proper statistics. I am sure I have seen numbers from several studies that showed that a lot more soldiers died in accidents of various kinds, the stuff that can happen anywhere, than of actual action. Iirc I even saw some stuff on 60 minutes but I can of course be wrong. The entire point of my thread was that all the dangers that face people back home do not go away just because they enter a warzone with added dangers and that includes rape.

The entire point of my thread was that all the dangers that face people back home do not go away just because they enter a warzone with added dangers and that includes rape. Right. On my drive into work today, I narrowly escaped death by dodging in IED on the roadside. Sorry joacqin, but your "explanation" doesn't do much justify or qualify your original statement. Yes, there are dangers everywhere. But there are a lot more of them - especially the deadly ones - in a war zone. Saying you're sure you remember something doesn't do anything to convince me - unless you can somehow prove your ability to recall information is infallible. I still think you're being naive to suggest more US soldiers have died in Iraq due to accidents than combat related deaths.

EDIT: Sorry if you are insulted by the naive comment, but the only other term I could come up with is grossly misinformed about world events, and given other posts I've seen from you, you are clearly not misinformed. So again, sorry.

Joacquin, you are mistaken (http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx).

IMHO it is a difficult, brutal thing to ask a young man to go out and lay his life on the line for his country. The last thing we should do is make it difficult on that young man to do his job. Men are given a whackload of mixed messages with regards to women. Women are the same as men, equal to men, and yet we are to treat them differently lest we be seen as slime. Hold a door for one woman, and you are a despicible, chauvinist fossil of an outdated patriarchal society. FAIL to hold the door for the next woman, and you are an ill mannered lout who clearly does not respect women and their contributions to our great society.

What's my point? A war zone is not the place for the battle of the sexes. I know many will call me sexist but I don't believe women should be on the front lines. This is primarily for the reasons I outlined above, but also to protect them from enemy soldiers and (sadly) from the 10% or so of allied soldiers who disgrace the military (as they were so ably described by Death Rabbit.)

There is still a huge and valid debate on the role of women in some segments of society, and until we have that debate cleared up, we shouldn't place more burdens than are already there on our soldiers. We don't know how we want young men to act on civil society, how on earth can we expect them to behave exactly as we wish on the battlefield when we don't know the answers to the simpler questions?

We don't know how we want young men to act on civil society, how on earth can we expect them to behave exactly as we wish on the battlefield when we don't know the answers to the simpler questions?

While I agree with most of what you said, this last statement is going a bit too far. While detailed behavior may not be outlined to the last letter, I think we can safely say we don't want soldiers raping people (regardless of whether or not they are wearing the same uniform). Also, as has already been pointed out, females are not right on the front lines, unless you consider all of Iraq to be the front line (and I concede that you could make that argument).

Either women need to be able to serve in all parts of the military or they need to be excluded from the military. When I first entered the military, women were not allowed on combatant ships. There were quotas to be met and women were recruited into professions required by all ships, but they could only serve on a small fraction of those ships.

Ultimately, such imbalance caused the men to be on a five year at sea commands, two years at shore commands rotation in most professions. In those same professions, women were serving nearly the opposite (five years shore to two years sea). To make the matter worse, some ships which rarely get underway (repair ships) were considered sea commands for women but shore commands for men (adding insult to injury, the women got additional pay than the men on those commands).

This imbalance in policy caused a lot of animosity. Today we would have the same inequity if the women are staying in the states doing the easy jobs while the men rotate into war zones. The military does not need to take such a giant step backwards.

The military, in spite of very biased policies, has been on the forefront of equal opportunity. They have the most extensive prevention of sexual harrassment and sexual discrimination program in the nation -- but it doesn't always work. Once again, there are policies in place that show favoritism. Some of the 'old guard' are still left and they spread very sexist beliefs (many new personnel come from very sexist backgrounds as well).

The article mentions nearly 41% of women veterans were sexually assaulted -- this is a number I can believe. The military has put a very strict definition of sexual assault in place (and I agree with it). Basically, any unwanted contact is considered sexual assault. Any unwanted contact. Think about a typical frat party and how much unwanted physical contact occurs -- this is the same age group as the majority of the military. Also mentioned is 29% of women veterans were raped -- once again I can believe this as well. Rape, in the military, is any direct contact with genitilia (with basically anything) -- what we considered heavy petting when I was a teenager is rape in the military.

I'm not saying these things to downplay how bad it is for women in the military. I actually support the way the military defines these things. But the average person is not aware of such details and so statistics like this can be a bit deceiving.

Equal opportunity has come a long way in the military. Sexist men (and women) are being forced out. There are excellent programs defining acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Unfortunately, as DR mentioned, some guys just don't get it. And some guys are simply criminals looking for victims.

I read in the paper and on the internet about physicians raping patients and bosses forcing themselves on their employees. The military isn't that much different than the rest of society.

Joacquin, you are mistaken (http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx).

I'm not sure what I feel about that. Displaying names for dead shoulders on the internet, with their name/home town and how they died? It's a bit dodgy to me.

Please don't get me wrong -- I think it's safe to say that under any circumstances anywhere rape is unacceptable. I hope I didn't come across in favor of rape in any way, shape or form. I was talking about lesser behaviours -- things like a punch on the shoulder or a playful shove. When you bring the gender issue in, it's a huge problem in these environments. It seems to me to be counterintuitive to say "Here is Barbara, treat her EXACTLY THE SAME as you treat the other members of the platoon. Here's a list of things you do to all the other members of the platoon that you cannot do to Barbara." WTF? I mean, so much for the EXACTLY the same comment.

Put another way, most decent young men are taught and told repeatedly "you don't hit women." I agree with this position. Then you put these guys to training and say that now, it's OK to hit a woman. I know in my case that prohibition was drilled into me quite effectively. Playing the equal rights card in this case is not only inappropriate but a recipe for disaster.

Then you put these guys to training and say that now, it's OK to hit a woman.

Sounds like a nice way of getting them used to the battlefield where they might meet a woman with a gun shooting at them.

I'm sorry LKD but your reasons are not overly convincing. It reeks of trying to protect women of something so horrible that they themselves can't understand it. I think they are quite capable of understanding it and quite capable of living up with it. As for the men, have you actually asked men if they mind working with women? Granted I haven't been in the battlefield but I have served in the military and I did not find the women there a slightest bit disturbing. As I said a woman who steps in the military will have to be somewhat tougher than the average guy doing their military service but those who want to try should be able to do so.

My problem lies with the fact that all women are different. What one woman classifies as abuse or assault another sees as being "part of the guys." The problem is as soon as there's even any allegation of wrongdoing they immediately crucify the guy accused. There is no presumption of innocence in cases like this. While one soldier here said there were very rigid policies in the military on this sort of behavior, I still think that if I were a soldier I'd want to be able to focus my mind on surviving, not whether or not the next off hand comment I may make might be twisted into evidence to make me into a sex offender.

I'm sure that women are fully capable of performing combat operations and I never thought for a minute that they're too stupid to do so. What I am saying is that in North America we are constantly told to respect women. Then we are told to treat them specially. Makes for a nightmare for a soldier. I would argue that women in combat operations might make the equality gurus happy but that in reality it makes things harder than they have to be for the grunts of both genders on the ground.

You're basically correct. Women can be in combat areas (heck there are women in Iraq and that whole damn country is pretty much a combat area), but they generally are not on the front lines of combat. There aren't female GIs carrying assault weapons around Iraq, and if by chance one of them gets involved in combat (as in an actual ground battle) it usually is not by design. But other than being a foot soldier, just about any other military position can also be performed by a woman. There are women who fly military aircraft, and women who are officers on nuclear subs.

Cheers. That was roughly my understanding of it.

The article mentions nearly 41% of women veterans were sexually assaulted -- this is a number I can believe. The military has put a very strict definition of sexual assault in place (and I agree with it). Basically, any unwanted contact is considered sexual assault. Any unwanted contact. Think about a typical frat party and how much unwanted physical contact occurs -- this is the same age group as the majority of the military. Also mentioned is 29% of women veterans were raped -- once again I can believe this as well. Rape, in the military, is any direct contact with genitilia (with basically anything) -- what we considered heavy petting when I was a teenager is rape in the military.

I'm not saying these things to downplay how bad it is for women in the military. I actually support the way the military defines these things. But the average person is not aware of such details and so statistics like this can be a bit deceiving.

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with these definitions. Certainly, I would not have any issue with taking action against a person who committed such acts, including dismissing them. But it just seems to me that when the statistics are so out of line with what people would consider reality that people tend to be dismissive of them. And I think it's grossly insensitive to 'real' victims to say that what they suffered was equivalent to people who experienced heavy petting. I'm sure the sentencing would reflect the reality but the offence seems to be the same for the two.

I'm not trying to criticise how the US military responds to such incidents, indeed it seems they should, generally, be applauded for it. I just don't think their reporting of it is ideal. As you say yourself, they can be deceiving to the average person.

Unfortunately , those are some of the definitions we are stuck with at the moment. It's even worse in some of the states, take north carolina for example the law now is that even if you have already started engaging in intercourse if the woman than says no, you have to pull out & stop or it is rape. :nono:
Thats just wrong, she gets hers & thats it off you go, no home run for you.:jawdrop::bang::outta:

It's even worse in some of the states, take north carolina for example the law now is that even if you have already started engaging in intercourse if the woman than says no, you have to pull out & stop or it is rape. Thats just wrong, she gets hers & thats it off you go, no home run for you.

Wait, wait, wait. So if your partner says 'uh, stop' and you don't stop, that shouldn't be considered rape? Or assault? Or something?

After someone consents to sex, you don't own them until you're finished.

how many women do you know that after you get it stuck in(pardon the crudeness) say stop ?
seriously all the foreplay,all the buildup of momentum, you are almost there & suddenly stop!?!? oh come on.

There was at least one case in the UK a while back where a girl decided to change her mind 'mid-thrust' and because the guy didn't instantly stop, he was arrested for rape.

Can't remember further details or whether the guy was actually sent down for it.

Martaug,
Intercourse doesn't work out every time for any number of reasons. If she asks you to stop there is absolutely no conceivable reason that you should not stop.

I'll assume for now that you are inexpereinced rather than a world class jerk.

haha!, sorry nunsbane 40ish & married(twice) . if you get the chance look up the statute and read it.

heh, been called much worse things by much better people, just look at some of the things taluntain has called me. However, if you look back at the posts in the saudi rape post you see that i personally think rapists should be taken out & whipped within an inch of their life(& thats on a good day. bad days are 2 16d nails,rusty butter-knife & a wooden table with one end soaked in gasoline. you figure it out)
what i was pointing out was the pc nonsense that has gotten on the lawbooks. just read the news they just had the police called on a 6year old at school for sexual assault because he slapped another classmate on the butt!! he's 6! hge has no sexual urges, just the pc rules trying to look at everything from a paranoid adult viewpoint

Hmmm, and I was really leaning toward inexperience.

The 6 year old has nothing to do with this, that whole situation is too silly for me to even waste my time with further comment.

I am responding solely to your belief that it is o.k. to continue to force intercourse on a partner who has asked you to stop. As Amaster pointed out, you do not own a consenting partner until you are finished. I would be interested as to your response to Amaster's point.

well, if you read my post i never said it was ok to force intercourse on a partner that has asked you to stop, i was merely explaining the statute. maybe if i had put a smiley at the end of the first post you would have understood better, you know, a bit of sarcasm & irony. But please feel free to be insulted to your hearts content

i was merely explaining the statute.

Wow! I know that made my day. :) (note: I did not forget the smiley).

Martaug, Your comments couldn't be fixed with a smiley....nor do I believe that you meant it sarcastically. However, your recantation is sufficient.

Déise: You hit it right on the head. The rules are so tight that the military courts throw out far too many of these cases. Most of the cases are "he said, she said" type of cases anyway. The real harm here is exactly as you pointed out -- real victims of rape (by the most common definition) are simply not taken seriously unless it was a brutal rape. Basically, if there's not physical damage, there's not a crime -- and that's wrong.

murtaug: I for one fully agree with the North Carolina law. If your partner asks you to stop, you MUST stop. I don't care if there has been previous consentual intercourse, or even if the request comes during intercourse where consent has been given you MUST stop. Once consent has been revoked, it is rape. Period.

I am also in my forties and have been married twice. And I have never continued intercourse if my partner has said stop. Doesn't matter the reason, or the timing.

T2Bruno, please see my post 3 above this one.
I agree with the part you posted to deise but it's not always that way. A local highway patrol officer a few years back was accused of & had to go trail because his ex-girlfriend claimed he raped her. Even though her best friend came forward & told the court that she had told her she was doing this to get back at him for dumping her & the HP officer having his answering tape where she says she will make his life a living nightmare for leaving her. he got nifonged until they got to court and the judge saw what the prosecution had for "evidence", he threw the case out & referred the case to the (ummm, what do you call it, the board that looks into improper behavior by lawyers?)
what the heck was the officers name?....nate something, crap! cant remember right now

murtaug: I for one fully agree with the North Carolina law. If your partner asks you to stop, you MUST stop. I don't care if there has been previous consentual intercourse, or even if the request comes during intercourse where consent has been given you MUST stop. Once consent has been revoked, it is rape. Period.

Not that I'm pro-rape or anything, but how is this enforceable. How could there be any evidence other than the word of the victim. Does the statute say that women are "incapable of lying"? I just don't see how any jury could ever convict and send a man to prison based on this statute.

I'm sure that women are fully capable of performing combat operations and I never thought for a minute that they're too stupid to do so. What I am saying is that in North America we are constantly told to respect women. Then we are told to treat them specially. Makes for a nightmare for a soldier. I would argue that women in combat operations might make the equality gurus happy but that in reality it makes things harder than they have to be for the grunts of both genders on the ground.

Again it's very possible to have to deal with female combatants on the other side so it's just best getting used to it. Also if you don't behave indecently you have nothing to fear from any sexual charges. You are not crucified for not doing anything.

I already read that murtaug -- and your explanation does not mesh with your original statement (the sarcasm bit just doesn't fly). You're backpedalling after saying something offensive and I'm not buying the lame excuse. I'm with nunsbane on that.

TGS: You're right. That's a significant problem and one the military has difficulties with as well (look at the conviction rates in the original article).

You are not crucified for not doing anything.

Not around here! If a man dares to voice any opinion that does not perfectly dovetail with the present PC line -- or even worse, fails to trumpet that PC line loudly enough, he gets nailed to the cross with big honking spikes. Falsified or distorted claims of "sexual abuse" are a perfect tool in the arsenal of unscrupulous women when they want to avenge themselves on innocent men. What pisses me off is that such false accusations make it difficult for the real victims to have their cases taken seriously by the public when they occur.

If a man dares to voice any opinion that does not perfectly dovetail with the present PC line -- or even worse, fails to trumpet that PC line loudly enough, he gets nailed to the cross with big honking spikes.

That is in a way true. In here if a candidate answers "no" to the question "Are you a feminist?" he has just signed his political deathwish. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing though.

And yes I'm sure there are women who abuse the sexual harrasment card but then I'm not convinced there are more of those than actual real cases. There are allways deceptive individuals around willing to use whatever methods to manipulate themselves to a better position or undermine others.

well T2Bruno, like i told nunsbane fell free to be offended. doesn't bother me a bit if you can't deal with it.

P.S. i also have to assume that you have never done any RPing in you sex life as "no" is not what most people set up as a safe word. Hell, most women into RPing get off on you ignoring there pleas of no. As long as there are appropriate safe words & conditions set up anything else goes! A little S&M never hurt anybody(& most of them enjoyed the he!! out of it)

I guess that my point here is that no matter what solution men come up with there's some women who are going to complain about it. Personally, I think that if there is a place or situation with a high risk of rape occuring, the best solution is to get the women at risk out of there -- the same reason I drive my step-daughter to school rather than have her take the bus. Feminazis scream that I don't respect women and am trying to keep them out of somewhere they deserve to be. They're entitled to their opinion, I guess, but I know I do respect women.

Let's say we take another step. We give the male soldiers sensitivity training. THAT'LL solve all the problems, right? :rolleyes: Such training, IMHO, is much more likely to aggravate the males and make them resentful toward the females they feel they are "forced" to work with. In any event, one incident and the women are screaming that the military isn't doing enough to protect them, even though they knew they were going into a high risk situation. The fact is that there is no way any authority can guarantee the safety of anyone -- neither the military or the civil police are psychic. Plus, all the men in the military get painted with the same brush when this happens, which leads to more feelings of resentment.

Bottome line, I respect women (though not feminazis) and do not believe ANYONE should have to suffer through rape. I'm willing to kick against the feminazi line to protect women from rape. If that makes me a sexist bigot, I'll gladly wear that label if it protects just one fellow human being from being raped.

Let's say we take another step. We give the male soldiers sensitivity training. THAT'LL solve all the problems, right?

Most decent men know how to treat women, there are some scumbags that don't but these are fairly well represented outside the military as well. No need for sensitivity training. I know how to treat women I work with, and the military is no different. A proffessional attitude is required and I'm sure men are quite capable of that. If you are able to work with women in civillian duties there are no reasons why you shouldn't be able to work with them in military duties.

Plus, all the men in the military get painted with the same brush when this happens, which leads to more feelings of resentment.

From what I've heard the soldiers be they male or female and the military in the US is held in very high regard by men and women alike, might be different in Canada but since all these statistics come from the US I'd say it's better to talk about them.

If that makes me a sexist bigot, I'll gladly wear that label if it protects just one fellow human being from being raped.

Yes...because like children women need to be protected from the evils of the world by men since they are completely incapable of making their own choices it's much better that we make it for them. :rolleyes:

Women are adults, they might even want to protect themselves and at the same time protect their country. I'm sure they are aware of the risks and if they aren't the military should make those risks clear and I'm sure they don't give a rats ass about your offer for "protection".

There is no need to beat about the bush really just go ahead and say that women are not capable of protecting themselves and need men doing it because obviously they lack the better judgement, because that seems to be pretty much what you think.

I myself could easily work with women in military duties. The fact is that some statistics show that a lot of military men cannot. If it were a case of the military saying:

"Here's the facts, the military does not condone rape, but we cannot guarantee it won't happen. We will take legal action against someone who rapes you, but be aware there is a risk that we cannot completely control."

and then a woman going into that situation knowing full well the dangers, then I can see your point. However, I think the military whitewashes the data. Even if they don't, once a rape occurs the women scream that it is a systemic problem and blame ALL men for the rape. Fact is, I don't trust the military to adequately punish the few rotten apples who do commit rape, and I don't trust the feminists to take a rational approach that focusses on catching and stopping the real offender.

I most certainly do not think women are too stupid or weak to protect themselves. However, in general men are bigger and stronger, physically, and I think it would be irresponsible in the extreme to place ANYONE in harms way when you know protective data.

You're twisting my words -- it would be as logical for me to say that based on your comments you believe that all female rape victims are all weak and stupid. I know you don't believe that, and neither do I.

I don't know about Finland, but here many businesses have a policy that says if a woman works a late shift at a store or restaurant, her supervisor or another worker must walk her to her car. I say that's common sense. A radical feminist says it's repressive. I say safety first and feminists who don't care if a woman gets raped as long as they can insult men second.

Fact is, I don't trust the military to adequately punish the few rotten apples who do commit rape, and I don't trust the feminists to take a rational approach that focusses on catching and stopping the real offender.

I do trust our military to do so, and the past has shown that they do take sexual offences in military very seriously. If they don't there is something systematically wrong with the system that needs to be fixed. As for the radical feminists I don't give a penny what they think. Let them scream and howl for all I care.

I don't know about Finland, but here many businesses have a policy that says if a woman works a late shift at a store or restaurant, her supervisor or another worker must walk her to her car.

Nope, never heard of such policy. I don't think such policies are necessary but neither do I think they are overly repressive. I figure it might have something to do with the employer being partially responsible for any damages that occurs to their workers on their way home and therefore might be responsible in making reparations in cases of rape (I think in here that would be the case but I'm no lawyer so don't bet on my word on that one) and those reparations might be quite steep.

This is a very poor excuse for limiting military service from women. First of all I think women are quite able to assess the situation themselves,

Assessment is a matter of perception and does not directly affect fats.


secondly there are plenty of positions in the military that don't involve engagement in direct combat.

Which takes weight away from, "in the army."


The chances of someone operating a tank or better yet flying a bomber plane getting raped are quite minimal.

Everyone's chance is equal when captured.

Also as I think we have seen all sorts sexually degrading tortures and abuses are not limited to female victims only.

With a man it's rare, with a woman it's practically a given.

in fact I'd consider such limits highy discriminatory and unjustified

Sufficiently justified by practical reasons. If it's discriminatory, tough life. Isn't it unjust and discriminatory that the average woman is shorter and lighter than the average man? And that's not something a lawsuit or legislation could fix.

The military as a highly masculine institution is not a very easy enviorment for most women and I'd say that a woman in the army needs to be quite a lot tougher than your average male soldier.

Another reason to keep idealistic girls away from it.

Assessment is a matter of perception and does not directly affect fats.
What facts? The fact that women are more likely to get raped than men? The fact that those rapes happen? Blocking women from the military is like sweeping the problem under the carpet, the women are not the ones doing anything criminal, it's the men. What happens to women if they are captured is irrelevant since when you are captured you are at the mercy of your captor no matter what gender you have. Women more likely to get raped? So what? The chances of getting killed are also quite high and in my book while raped is certainly a very bad and notorious thing, getting killed is a step worse.

Which takes weight away from, "in the army."

Army is not all about field duty.

Everyone's chance is equal when captured.

Some are just a lot less likely to be captured. When getting captured is more hypothetical than an actual likelyhood it gets increasingly irrelevant.

With a man it's rare, with a woman it's practically a given.

Nope. The soviets often used female soldiers, we did not rape everyone we captured during the winter war. The likelyhood of being raped might be higher than with men but it's not given.

Sufficiently justified by practical reasons.

The only practical reason given is the possibilty of getting rape which in itself is a very weak reason, you might as well argue that we should not use men in the military because they might get killed. Then there's of course the mild inconvenience of providing two set of showers for both genders which hardly constitutes a great impracticality. Nothing that constitutes enough of justify discriminatory actions.

Another reason to keep idealistic girls away from it.

There are "idealistic girls" who are able to handle the military and the army. Before you start lashing out judgements I suggest you try and meet some, you might actually learn something from how they view things.

If women could not handle miltiary enviorment there would not be women in the military. Why are there women there then? Are they idealistic or stupid or don't they just see the greater wisdom that you wish to impose upon them by keeping them away from the institution? I don't get it. What gives you such a greater prespective on things than them? What gives you any right to choose what career path they choose?

Every soldier knows the risks going into battle. I'm not saying that women soldiers are too dumb to understand the risks of combat operations. What was pointed out at the beginning of this thread was that there is an added risk -- a high likelihood of being assaulted by their OWN comrades. Now whether or not they are aware of that risk and willing to take it, the military commanders have a responsibility to their soldiers to keep them safe, regardless of how willing those soldiers are to take risks. If the Military command feels a particular situation is too risky for a particular soldier, then I think they are within their rights to take steps.

An analogous scenario would be placing a black soldier in with a troop from the Southern USA in the 1950s. No one is denigrating the black soldier or his skills or his right to pursue his career. Sadly, a number of his fellow soldiers are not enlightened as to the benefits of a multicultural armed service, and will almost certainly lynch him. It is not fair, it is not right, and if the brass knew exactly which soldiers would do the lynching they could take steps, but if they put the black soldier in all they will do is be able to punish the offenders -- it'll be too late for the black soldier. THEN the brass has to deal with the horrendous publicity such an event would engender. Rather than feel responsible for a man's death and deal with its fallout, they choose the lesser of two evils and keep the soldier on different duty.

It is unjust, unfair, and a result of a racist (or in the present thread) sexist society. Hopefully one day it will be fixed, just as the idea of a racially integrated military eventually caught on, but in the meantime I think vilifying people who just want to keep fellow humans safe is a bit over the top and unfair in and of itself.

What was pointed out at the beginning of this thread was that there is an added risk -- a high likelihood of being assaulted by their OWN comrades

The correct way to deal with the problem is naturally to weed out the rapists and not the women. Also T2Bruno kindly told us about the tight definitions the military has on rape and made the comparison to college parties. Are we to ban women from entering these parties too since inappropriate behaviour by overly eager men might follow?

Rather than feel responsible for a man's death and deal with its fallout, they choose the lesser of two evils and keep the soldier on different duty.

I'm not against putting them on different kind of military duty and trying to minimize the potential rapes. What I am strongy against is effectively banning half the population from national defence and combat training because of their gender. Also I'd be interested to know how many of these assaults actually happen on active duty and how many are during nights at the mass etc. where such behaviour at that age is unfortunately very common outside the military too.

Interesting debate. By the way, do the surveys also have any data on male-on-male sexual harassment, so we can have a better ground for comparison? I've heard anecdotal stories from people who had served a while ago that could be defined as harassment if the rules are tight enough.

The correct way to deal with the problem is naturally to weed out the rapists and not the women.
This is the best point made in the entire thread.

And before you go and "it's impossible to do it" then I can say no, it isn't. Neither Sweden or Israel have had a single documented case of rape within their armed forces and both have aplenty of women serving, both on the field and in support. Denying women the right to become a soldier is dumb, deal with the rapists instead.