Atkins wrote:Let's send FoxFyre to Iraq. People would lay down their arms just to have her shut up.
You're close to a violation of the A2K Terms of Service. Your post consists solely of a personal insult, not accompanied by an argument, and not even an insult that asserts a pertinent fact. I would consider apologizing.
Brandon9000 wrote:Traditionally, the majority of people have made a cultural decision that women should be protected rather than asked to share the protecting.
When this is an argument than women should stay at home, rise children, cook and do the household ... as traditionally the majority of people had made this cultural decision.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Traditionally, the majority of people have made a cultural decision that women should be protected rather than asked to share the protecting.
When this is an argument than women should stay at home, rise children, cook and do the household ... as traditionally the majority of people had made this cultural decision.
So, you're asserting that the people may not vote to express any cultural preference about anything at any time? Do you favor majority rule at all?
Brandon9000 wrote:Atkins wrote:Let's send FoxFyre to Iraq. People would lay down their arms just to have her shut up.
You're close to a violation of the A2K Terms of Service. Your post consists solely of a personal insult, not accompanied by an argument, and not even an insult that asserts a pertinent fact. I would consider apologizing.
There is no insult there. Would you like to spend an evening across the table from a woman who talks constantly and uses language poorly? I wouldn't.
Atkins wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Atkins wrote:Let's send FoxFyre to Iraq. People would lay down their arms just to have her shut up.
You're close to a violation of the A2K Terms of Service. Your post consists solely of a personal insult, not accompanied by an argument, and not even an insult that asserts a pertinent fact. I would consider apologizing.
There is no insult there. Would you like to spend an evening across the table from a woman who talks constantly and uses language poorly? I wouldn't.
It would depend on the woman, however, even if I did not enjoy it, I wouldn't tell her that she should be sent into a combat zone because people would lay down their arms to have her shut up. You are no gentleman. But then, perhaps you don't claim to be.
Brandon9000 wrote:So, you're asserting that the people may not vote to express any cultural preference about anything at any time? Do you favor majority rule at all?
You are mixing up things here a bit, I think.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Traditionally, the majority of people have made a cultural decision that women should be protected rather than asked to share the protecting.
When this is an argument than women should stay at home, rise children, cook and do the household ... as traditionally the majority of people had made this cultural decision.
That and keep their faces covered, stay indoors unless accompanied by a man and a wide assortment of other limitations... that is if you are living in a fundamentalist muslim country.
Having read all of the reply's,may I interject something?
Several years ago,there was a US congresswoman from Colorado that suggested that women be allowed the right to choose for themselves about going into combat or not.
Her name was Rep. Patricia S. Schroeder (D),and she suggested that for women to be considered "equal" to the men,they had to be allowed that right.
Now,when I enlisted,I was not given that choice.If the situation called for it,I went.
Having served in combat,I would not place women in front line combat units,for many of the reason Lusatian mentioned.
I would however,allow them to serve in combat support units,in artillery units,or in any other unit not on the front lines.
This would include transportation,medical (MASH) units,artillery,fighter pilots,or any other "rear area" job.
All women in the USMC are taught to use a rifle,and I imagine its the same for the army.
The reason for that is that in todays wars,there is no clear "front line",and it is possible that women will come under fire or be taken POW.
We have seen that in Iraq.
Artillery units are far enough back that they are not in DIRECT danger from enemy fire,medical units are protected by the Geneva Convention and are usually safe,transportation units dont usually get into firefights,and fighter pilots either die in combat or live to a ripe old age.
Also,having actually SEEN and worked with women in combat situations,while I personally dont think its a good idea,I will admit that there are some women that thrive in that environment.
I believe that it should be decided on an individual basis,not as a general role for women.
Shouldn't an equally qualified woman face the same risks as an equally qualified man in our military? Doesn't the fact that she doesn't effectively mean that as a culture we value the lives of men less than we do those of women? Having evolved culturally past a lot of other such inequities of the past, isn't it time to move past this one? The issue in question here shouldn't be whether allowing only men to serve in combat infringes on the rights of women, but whether it devalues the lives of men.
In my opinion, every military person who is qualified and fit to do so ought to face the same odds of being ordered into combat as any other person so qualified.
Geez, talk about blowing in from left field...
How have you been Scrat? Missed ya.
Scrat wrote:Shouldn't an equally qualified woman face the same risks as an equally qualified man in our military? Doesn't the fact that she doesn't effectively mean that as a culture we value the lives of men less than we do those of women? Having evolved culturally past a lot of other such inequities of the past, isn't it time to move past this one? The issue in question here shouldn't be whether allowing only men to serve in combat infringes on the rights of women, but whether it devalues the lives of men.
In my opinion, every military person who is qualified and fit to do so ought to face the same odds of being ordered into combat as any other person so qualified.
If you were in the company of a woman when attacked by a mugger, and even total cooperation with the mugger wasn't going to stop him from attempting violence, what would you do? Would you expect her to protect you? Would you expect her to risk herself in the fight to the same degree that you did?
Welcome back Scrat
Scrat wrote:Shouldn't an equally qualified woman face the same risks as an equally qualified man in our military?
I have a sister who was in the Navy, she was in command of intelligence gathering missions that flew in harms way, both she and the men and women she commanded shared the same risks. There are many other women in navy both afloat and in the air that are in similar positions. I think the problem, such as it is is with the army and other ground combat organizations and the reasons here may be both cultural and physical.
Eorl wrote:I'm not so sure he did.
I'm not really committed one way or the other but I see holes in the argument.
Lets pretend: I'm a very large, very strong weightlifting woman. I have a hormonal imbalance due to a hysterectomy in my mid-teens. I don't menstruate. My prospects for living a "normal" womans life are slim...but I love combat, because hey, I'm good at it. I can beat the crap out of any man I've ever met and I can pass all of Lusatian's tests no problem. On what grounds should I be prevented from following the career I have chosen?
The problem with generalization is that it ignores the outer limits of the bell curve.
Please, Eorl, read the whole idea ... :
Quote:- if you concede that we don't need the women to fill the slots based on some perceived populational shortage, than the only reason to allow women in combat is sociological. This eliminates, completely, the combat effectiveness arguement from the equation. Now we're talking about politics. A good military is one where the policies, strategies, and tactics, are not derived from the political waverings of the moment. Basically, the only reason that can be offered is "I'm a liberal and I think it imperative that women be allowed every single opportunity that a man is, even when it is in detriment to the overall combative power of the military, most women in the military have no wish to participate, and the physical requirements can only be met by a very small percentage of the available female workpool." Simply put, it's a complete triviality.
How is that a hole? I am explicitly talking about your exact opinion. Is there women who could hang - certainly (a very low number, but certainly). Is the mere existance of such women legitimate, rational, tactical reason to allow them to participate in combat - CERTAINLY NOT. There is a chance that I could find a chimp or a mountain gorilla to fill the same specifications, does that mean we should allow primates into our combat positions? What I'm saying is: Why make such a sweeping change, just to make the sweeping change? That is one of the pitfalls that liberals allow themselves to tumble into. They advocate changes, merely for the sake of changes. We DON'T
need women in the positions, why make such a fuss over the very select few who could hang, and would want to (more of a rarity than you would imagine or admit).
Why are some people so infatuated with the trivial and frivolous?
McGentrix wrote:Geez, talk about blowing in from left field...
I hope you didn't get any in your eyes. :wink:
McGentrix wrote:How have you been Scrat? Missed ya.
Fair to partly cloudy. Been busy with life and such... you know the drill. How 'bout yerself? Still fighting the good fight, I hope?
Acquiunk wrote:Welcome back Scrat
Thanks.
Acquiunk wrote:I think the problem, such as it is is with the army and other ground combat organizations and the reasons here may be both cultural and physical.
I believe it's past time we overcame the
cultural reasons. The physical reasons go to my requirement that we be comparing equally
qualified persons. A woman who cannot meet the physical requirements doesn't belong in a combat situation, but then neither does a man who can't.
Brandon9000 wrote:If you were in the company of a woman when attacked by a mugger, and even total cooperation with the mugger wasn't going to stop him from attempting violence, what would you do? Would you expect her to protect you? Would you expect her to risk herself in the fight to the same degree that you did?
I'm not sure your analogy fits, but given your scenario I would hope that we would both offer whatever resistance we each were capable of. If she were incapacitated, I would try to help her. Were I the one incapable of saving myself, I would certainly find no shame in being saved by a woman, if that's what it took.
But the question here isn't whether I ought to be comfortable with a woman saving me if I'm in trouble. The question (to me, at least) is whether we ought to have a standard that ranks the value of human life and says that men's lives are lower on that scale than women, absent any other consideration. I understand the historical reasons for having such a standard in the past, but I do not believe they hold up today anymore than so many other historical mores that prevented people from realizing both the same freedoms and the same responsibilities as others.
Scrat wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:If you were in the company of a woman when attacked by a mugger, and even total cooperation with the mugger wasn't going to stop him from attempting violence, what would you do? Would you expect her to protect you? Would you expect her to risk herself in the fight to the same degree that you did?
I'm not sure your analogy fits, but given your scenario I would hope that we would both offer whatever resistance we each were capable of. If she were incapacitated, I would try to help her. Were I the one incapable of saving myself, I would certainly find no shame in being saved by a woman, if that's what it took.
But the question here isn't whether I ought to be comfortable with a woman saving me if I'm in trouble. The question (to me, at least) is whether we ought to have a standard that ranks the value of human life and says that men's lives are lower on that scale than women, absent any other consideration. I understand the historical reasons for having such a standard in the past, but I do not believe they hold up today anymore than so many other historical mores that prevented people from realizing both the same freedoms and the same responsibilities as others.
Actually, that's not the question either. Since you appear unfamiliar with the concept, I will tell you, and perhaps you will find it of interest, that many men feel it their particular duty to protect women, when the need arises, even above and beyond the degree to which all good people should protect each other. These men feel that it is tied in with the fact of being male and female. I suppose you could think of it as a division of labor. I see that you do not subscribe to this tradition. If you wish to rely on the female to protect you to precisely the same degree that she relies on you to protect her, then may you be happy with your chosen interpretation of manhood, but there are many people - many voters - who choose a different lifestyle, as is their right.
Brandon - I don't think I've failed to understand anything you've written, but your decision to write it suggests to me that you may have failed to understand what I wrote. I understand your point of view, and if I had to tailor my argument to rebut yours, I'd offer that I am hard-pressed to accept the notion that we ought to constrain the liberty of any individuals (women) in this country based solely on the desire by other individuals (men) to protect them.
(Of course, I intended my argument to be less about the rights of women and more... well, I've written what I meant it to be about already.)
Scrat wrote:I understand your point of view, and if I had to tailor my argument to rebut yours, I'd offer that I am hard-pressed to accept the notion that we ought to constrain the liberty of any individuals (women) in this country based solely on the desire by other individuals (men) to protect them.
Well, first of all I need to point out that my position is not the absurd concept you are making it out to be. It's been the norm for millenia, so it's not really that peculiar an idea. But, yes, I do understand that the idea of any kind of special protective feeling for women is not part of your makeup. I did get that from your earlier remarks.
Women should not be in management roles because they get pregnant and then it's difficult to replace them. Also they will cause conflict due to sexual tension with other executives. It's more costly for the company because extra toilets need to be built just to accomodate them. Traditionally we've valued men in management roles. More men would be employed if women stayed home anyway.
These are all good practical reasons to deny women management roles, yet we NOW realise that there are benefits that make these considerations worth working around, not the least of which is the right of women to decide for themselves what they can and can't do. Why is the military different?
