Reply
Sat 3 Jan, 2004 08:57 am
Women in combat not 'a big deal'
Friday, January 2, 2004 Posted: 8:13 PM EST (0113 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Female American troops in Iraq have killed Iraqis with bombs and bullets. They've won medals for valor and Purple Hearts for combat wounds. They've been captured as prisoners of war, killed by enemy fire and buried as heroes in Arlington National Cemetery.
What your opinion regarding the present role of women in our armed forces?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/02/sprj.irq.military.women.ap/index.html
I just had a thought, about women's role in combat in previous times. Maybe the historians hereabout's know something about it. I'm sure that women in combat can't be a new phenomenon.
Historically and biologically speaking it has always made sense to let the men to the fighting and other dangerous tasks.
Women are just too valuable for procreation. If the men of two fighting groups kill most of each other off, the women can still be very productive at producing offspring. One man can impregnate many women with no cost (biologically speaking). A woman can only reproduce one time a year at most with a great cost in mobility and efficiency during this time.
If the women in a society get killed off in a large number, the chances for reproduction and ultimate survival are in grave doubt.
It is clear that we evolved this way. Most cultures have developed mores to protect their women and many have provisions for one male to have several wives.
Historically this made a lot of sense. Maybe in the "enlightened" times we can change this trend in nature.
... or maybe these times aren't so enlightened after all.
kjvtrue wrote:Quote:Posted by EPBrown:It is clear that we evolved this way.
This is not a topic for Evolution, would please keep it in that specific forum.
Just be aware, kj, that is your personal opinion, not a statement of fact.
kjvtrue wrote:Quote:Posted by EPBrown:It is clear that we evolved this way.
This is not a topic for Evolution, would please keep it in that specific forum.
I see Non-Mothers fighting in combat of value, not mothers. The children are more important, than getting more solders to fight for their Nation's. We need mothers spending time with their children, not fighting wars. It's a shame to see Mothers abandoning their children, and for them to say that protecting their Nation is more important.
No. It is the
uterus that is imporant.
Historically any community that did not protect their uterus's (uteri?) did not survive. This is why all cultures we know about left the fighting to the men, and why men are more fit for fighting biologically.
The most important role of a woman is to bear children. This is something that a man simply can not do.
A man can spend time with his children as well as a woman can.
(PS why are we so sensitive about evolution. It is impossible to talk about biology without it.)
It is indeed obvious that you are "against evolution".
There is nothing in my threads that says I dont care about children. Quite the contrary, I am saying that we [developed physically and socially due to some unmentioned mechanism of nature] to protect women for the very purpose of having more children.
------
"One Nation Over God!"
I hate the idea of anyone fighting, but, although I agree that predominantly male warriors evolved to allow the group to continue if lots of warriors were killed, I do not see that we are a threatened species numerically any more (!!!!!!) so, assuming fighting is gonna occur - I see no reason for gender bias in choosing the poor bastards that are gonna do the fighting. (Or limit women's career choices, to look at it the other way!)
Anyway, seeing the huge civilian casualties that now litter wars, it seems most illogical to say that women can die in any numbers as civilians, but not as soldiers.
Losing daddies sucks, too, by the way....
Kjvtrue said: "As you can see I'm against Evolution, but anybody who uses it to explain another Subject, Topic, or Issue, has no value to me. Which means anything you explained about this topic, because anything of Evolution is just Hogwash to me. It's no suprise that the Darwinest don't care about the children."
Allow me, since you have expressed your opinion (to which you have, of course, a perfect right) so rudely and with such lack of rational argument, to call your hogwash, and raise you a balderdash.
dlowan---roflmao....
thanks for that! I am also tired of being seen as only a container for sperm... but i suppose that is another thread...I see no harm in letting women fight for their country...:-)
Given that most westernised armies are volunteer forces and only a fraction of the population, I can't see that protecting the "uterus" is that much of a problem.
BTW, does anyone know what creationists evolved from?
:-)
S'ok, I'll get me coat
ebrown_p- I can appreciate your "saving the uterus" argument, as an explanation for primitive cultures, where one tribe fought another. In those societies, it WAS important that the women remain to procreate.
I do not believe that the uterus argument would hold much water these days. That is, unless a person still perceives a woman as simply a baby making machine.
I don't approve of any gender going to war. We did not evolve this far just to slaughter each other.
Edgar,
As a scientist I must disagree. Evolution does not imply a grand plan or continual "advancement". A species evolves at random and only favors changes that help it have more viable offspring. Evolution does not "care" about such moral questions.
It is clear that we *did* evolve to slaughter each other.
There is without question a built in human urge to commit acts of violence against people outside of a "group". Ending violence is extremely difficult beacause violence is part of human nature.
I am not making any comment about morality.
I am just pointing out that the current societal trends to end war and to perceive women as more than baby making machines are ... from a biological perspective ... unnatural.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace