Should Women Fight in Combat?

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

I did not mean to represent your position as absurd (I don't believe I did, in fact, do so), nor did I miss the fact that things have been as you describe them for a long time. Of course, the fact that we have done something in the past is not, in and of itself, a justification for continuing to do so. FWIW, nowhere did I claim to lack either the protective urge of which you wrote or a comprehension of same. My point is that my personal feelings toward women are neither a reason to deny women the same liberties and responsibilities as I expect for myself, nor reason for valuing the lives of men below the value we attribute to the lives of women.

If you need to see me as somehow defective as a man for seeing this issue as I do, I'm happy to allow you your opinion of me.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
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.

I did not mean to represent your position as absurd (I don't believe I did, in fact, do so), nor did I miss the fact that things have been as you describe them for a long time. Of course, the fact that we have done something in the past is not, in and of itself, a justification for continuing to do so. FWIW, nowhere did I claim to lack either the protective urge of which you wrote or a comprehension of same. My point is that my personal feelings toward women are neither a reason to deny women the same liberties and responsibilities as I expect for myself, nor reason for valuing the lives of men below the value we attribute to the lives of women.

If you need to see me as somehow defective as a man for seeing this issue as I do, I'm happy to allow you your opinion of me.

So you do have such a protective urge, but attribute no legitimacy to it, and will not take it into account in a tangible way. Okay.

I am very interested in your viewpoint, actually. I'd like to give you one hypothetical, just to understand your position better. You are on a cruise ship in a very remote area of the ocean. Your ship experiences a serious difficulty and is going to sink. For whatever reason, the number of lifeboats is not adequate. The captain orders that all women and children will be given places in the lifeboat before any adult man. Do you complain to him that the men have just as much right to seats as the adult women?

If you find this exploration of your position embarassing, I will understand, but I am quite curious how you fit this scenario into your world view.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

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?

Pretty lame. But I'll humor you. Why? Rather simple. Pretty much about the hardest thing you are going to do in "management" is carry a stack of files, perhaps, reposition a photocopy machine, or maybe conference call. Typing can take it out of you, but I'm pretty sure that that is a gender neutral skill. To say "apples to oranges" here doesn't even come close to describing the naivete, or the simple irrationality, of your point. Try forced-marching 15 miles with 60 pounds, with a destination time of 4 hours, or stewing in your own funk for 14 days or more while out in triple-canopy jungle, and I think the subtle differences between management and the military may just come to light.

P.S. None of the innumerable liberals here have been able to come up with a worthy reason for advocating women in combat aside from their trademark - Entity A (in this case women) should be able to do just about whatever entity B does, even if their inclusion is unsound, untactical, unreliable (in volume, as most women wouldn't be able to adhere to the standards), and un-needed.

Same rationale behind the misguided, patronizing, ineffectual, and inflammatory affirmative action concept, where preferential treatment is given to individuals on a basis of political correctness instead of merit, acheivement, and maturity.

0 Replies

Showing "merit, acheivement, and maturity" and whatnot usually requires the opportunity to do so.

In your partisan indictments you fail to note that many times "liberals" created programs that were aimed at opening the opportunity, not creating entitlement.

Lusatian wrote:

P.S. None of the innumerable liberals here have been able to come up with a worthy reason for advocating women in combat aside from their trademark - Entity A (in this case women) should be able to do just about whatever entity B does, even if their inclusion is unsound, untactical, unreliable (in volume, as most women wouldn't be able to adhere to the standards), and un-needed.

I don't speak for liberals but....

If a woman can hack it then the onus is on those (you can insert some partisan epithet here if it makes you more comfortable) who would seek to exclude her, not those who seek to include her.

If she can't hack it, then she can't hack it and should not be there.

If she can, why not?

0 Replies

Lusatian wrote:

Entity A (in this case women) should be able to do just about whatever entity B does, even if their inclusion is unsound, untactical, unreliable (in volume, as most women wouldn't be able to adhere to the standards), and un-needed.

I'm not suggesting any preferential treatment.

What you are saying is: If entity A is faster, stronger, more reliable, more capable in every way than entity B then they should be given priority to serve on the front line...if they have a penis. No penis? Then it doesn't matter how good you are, because I DO have a penis and I say you can't do it....and besides we don't need anybody without a penis because we have more than enough folks who do.

0 Replies

Lusatian wrote:

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.

Given that the only legitimate argument against allowing women is a question of their abilities, then the existence of a woman with said abilities certainly is a reason to allow participation in combat.

<parody>
X shouldn't be allowed to do Y because X does not have the ability to do Y. Furthermore, is the mere ability to do Y something that should justify allowing X to do Y? CERTAINLY NOT!
</parody>

Make ability the litmus test, not gender and the issue of ability is moot.

If women really can't do it, then they can be excluded on the basis of ability, and the question of gender is irrelevant.

Quote:

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?

Yes. If primates are capable and willing (you said allow, not force and this eliminates the arguments used against the use of combat dolphins and sea lions that the military currently uses).

"We look at the capabilities of each animal and choose the one who works best for the particular mission you have in mind," Tom LaPuzza, a spokesman for the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Centre in San Diego.

Quote:

What I'm saying is: Why make such a sweeping change, just to make the sweeping change?

Of course not. This is a straw man. Those who argue for the change believe it is an improvement, not just a change. But pretend for a moment that this isn't, then all you have is an appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitam).

The converse is as relevant a question, why keep things the same just to keep things the same? It's also just as fallacious of one. I know that you see benefits to doing so, and am not so cavalier with opposing positions to try to write them off this way.

Quote:

That is one of the pitfalls that liberals allow themselves to tumble into. They advocate changes, merely for the sake of changes.

Alternately this is just another straw man in a string of partisan generalizations.

Quote:

Why are some people so infatuated with the trivial and frivolous?

This topic has enthralled you to, and if you'd spend less time trying to negatively characterize participants herein you might find the time to actually focus on their positions.

For example, if the litmus test is ability, how does gender matter? Please try to make sure to answer that among the ranting about "liberals".

0 Replies

mmmmmmmmm women

0 Replies

Only a few women can function properly under tough combat conditions on the battle field. They are, however, capable of flying fighter or bomber planes or doing other work to free men for combat duty.
.
During WW2 almost all doctors in the Soviet army were women. The top test pilot for the Nazis was a woman; she even flew a V-1. Too bad she was a fanatic Nazi.
.
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/reitsch.html

0 Replies

Earl wrote

Quote:

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

I work with and have worked with a lot of women in management. I don't know of any who have put others at risk of their health, life, or livelihood by virtue of their management position.

If the presence of women in a combat unit will in any way, for any reason, put in jeopardy the life, health, or livelihood of any other members of the unit, women should not be in that unit. That could be for all the reasons Lusatian listed. Also, the Israeili army found out the hard way that Brandon's sociological explanation is quite real--the men were so instinctively motivated to protect the women, it rendered the whole unit less effective. They said never again. As a feminist, I also say that in the rare circumstance in which the presence of women makes no difference or is useful, then why not? I do think such circumstances will be rare.

And I would like to join the others in welcoming back Scrat and also acknowledge and welcome the rare appearance of Craven.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

You are on a cruise ship in a very remote area of the ocean. Your ship experiences a serious difficulty and is going to sink. For whatever reason, the number of lifeboats is not adequate. The captain orders that all women and children will be given places in the lifeboat before any adult man. Do you complain to him that the men have just as much right to seats as the adult women?

If you find this exploration of your position embarrassing, I will understand, but I am quite curious how you fit this scenario into your world view.

Embarrassing? Why? It's actually a good hypothetical. In such a crisis situation, I would likely yield to the captain's authority, preferring any form of order above personally increasing the risk that same was lost. As to what my thinking would be about the situation--how I might handle it differently than the captain--I'm unsure. I would not personally take a seat away from a child, nor would I likely wish to take one from a woman, though rationally if I had children and she did not there might be a logical reason for preferring my survival over hers...

Interesting question, but you are still testing my personal emotional response against a dispassionate intellectual argument. That I might choose to behave against my own interests and give up my life for nameless women because I was raised to believe that is correct does not mean it is what is best or what must be done. Further, if the captain of your hypothetical ship had suggested any other reasonable method of manning the lifeboats that precluded my survival, I believe I would be similarly willing to accept my fate. (I do not personally believe that my life is of particular importance in the grand scheme, but I think that is my determination to make, not the government's, nor society's.)

If you meant by your hypothetical to test whether I would balk at making my argument in that setting, point taken. I agree with you that the urge you describe is there, and I understand the resistance to the point of view I've put forth.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Interesting question, but you are still testing my personal emotional response against a dispassionate intellectual argument.

To decide matters of life and death based on intellect without feeling is not something I would consider appropriate.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

To decide matters of life and death based on intellect without feeling is not something I would consider appropriate.

I assume that neither would you decide them based solely on feeling without intellect. The feeling aspect of this has been much discussed, and has driven the policy until now, so I hope you'll allow me to add to the intellectual side of the equation.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
To decide matters of life and death based on intellect without feeling is not something I would consider appropriate.

I assume that neither would you decide them based solely on feeling without intellect. The feeling aspect of this has been much discussed, and has driven the policy until now, so I hope you'll allow me to add to the intellectual side of the equation.

That would be appropriate, but discrediting the feeling/emotional side as inferior would not be. This is why many of us will never vote to put women in harm's way, and certainly never to compel them to go into harm's way, as with a draft.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

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.

You understand, of course, that the veil orginated as protection against the desert winds and sand storms. You understand, of course, that the same winds and storms led to the rule that men wear beards.

Modesty has nothing to do with the veil.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

Well, letting a person know that she is both a bore and boor without actually using those words is a service, a politeness if you will.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

...discrediting the feeling/emotional side as inferior would not be.

With respect, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge the emotional aspect, but I am not comfortable using it as justification for denying anyone the liberty or responsibilities we extend to others. (This is where I believe you and I will have to agree to disagree.)

0 Replies

Atkins wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
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.

Well, letting a person know that she is both a bore and boor without actually using those words is a service, a politeness if you will.

I want us both to be crystal clear about this. You will not apologize because you maintain that telling a woman that she should be sent to a combat zone because the enemy would lay down their weapons to shut her up is both (a) polite, and (b) a service to her?

This is your reason, and not simply a belief that you need not adhere to minimal standards of decent behavior when you are behind the anonymity of the Internet?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I work with and have worked with a lot of women in management. I don't know of any who have put others at risk of their health, life, or livelihood by virtue of their management position.

If the presence of women in a combat unit will in any way, for any reason, put in jeopardy the life, health, or livelihood of any other members of the unit, women should not be in that unit.

Agreed. Except I would change "women should not" to "THAT woman should not"

If somebody passes all the testing protocols and yet still puts others at risk then the testing criteria are at fault. My point is that the majority of women would be eliminated from front line service if you tested correctly but I maintain that some women are better suited to the role than many men, and deserve the right to hold those positions if they wish to do so.

0 Replies

Craven, as is appallingly customary, you are trying to apply debate tactics to a subject that has very quantifiable results. There are some things that can be argued to death in a prep school debate hall, where straw man riposts have deadly effect and cries of "fallacy" are a coup-de-grace, however this is one area where the posturing of intellectuals have never created a tactical proficient killing machine. Possibly because the moving parts of such (i.e. the common soldier) are so far from being an "intellectual".

I'm going to point out just a couple of places where the argument, as artfully presented as it may seem, completely overlooks facts that are naturally apparent "on the ground":

Craven de Kere wrote:

Given that the only legitimate argument against allowing women is a question of their abilities, then the existence of a woman with said abilities certainly is a reason to allow participation in combat.

I could ask "how would you know?" as since you are not here from the theoretical viewpoint that may be the ONLY argument, but no ...

A couple of months ago I was at a firebase less than six kilometers from the Pakistani border. The area was rife with ACM's (anti-coalition militant - euphemism for everyone who shoots at us). Our firebase housed two special forces teams, a SEAL element, intelligence agents, and a small squad of marines who manned the artillery. Then we received word that a woman was coming out. This gave rise to a considerable number of problems:

- showers. We had one small communal shower with no way to partition it to provide a "female" shower.

- bedrooms. Army regulations (with excellent reason) demand that in NO cases may a woman and a man share a sleeping quarters. This is to eliminate possibility of inappropriate relationships, sexual harrassment, and complaints. The firebase was very small. I slept in a room with 4 other guys. Now we have to provide an entire room for one woman.

- mission. We had a multi-faceted mission just after she arrived. (Apropos, in conformation with most-probable-situations, this woman couldn't pack the same weight as the rest of us.) On day 11 in the mountains we had to medically evacuate her. Why, she had developed a common infection due to many days without washing.

But of course, Craven, the ONLY arguement I have against likewise situations is based on her physical abilities. In your senario we would have had to: a. build her an entire seperate bathroom facility, b. construct extra housing to accomodate a "female-only" quarters, both of these inside an already crowded firebase, c. curtail missions, or at the least take into consideration, her health issues, d. carry her food and water, and possibly some of her cold-weather gear, as it would have weighed about as much as she did ... all just because liberals want to have a woman there just to have her.

To refute your arguement, letter "d" while being the most common and insurmountable problem, was actually the easiest to fix. So NO that is not the ONLY arguement.

Craven de Kere wrote:

<parody>
X shouldn't be allowed to do Y because X does not have the ability to do Y. Furthermore, is the mere ability to do Y something that should justify allowing X to do Y? CERTAINLY NOT!
</parody>

Make ability the litmus test, not gender and the issue of ability is moot.

Your parody is completely irrelevant because it catagorically ignores the point I made (you may not have read it, check page 6), that just because a rare woman can make the cut, demographically they are not needed. An arguement that I think is far more persuasive than the whole "strength" factor. Check my statistics. If you think we can't find enough fit men from a pool of approx 67,742,879, with an annual addition of 2,143,873, then you are hopelessly pessimistic. And please don't try to point to recent reports that the Army is failing it's recruitment goals as "evidence" that we don't have enough men, or even "willing" men. Fact is, the minuscule amount of women who would be "willing", and who are physically able, would be so low that there would be no significant boost to recruitment. The reasons for our shortage is political climate, people just don't want to join to be sent to war, and that goes for women as well as men - possibly even more compelling for women.

Do you have any good, tactical, or combat effective reason why women "should" be placed in combat slots? Besides change for changes sake.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
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?

Yes. If primates are capable and willing (you said allow, not force and this eliminates the arguments used against the use of combat dolphins and sea lions that the military currently uses).

This is the kind of rationale that makes liberals look utterly ridiculous. You just said, to support a typically liberal arguement, that primates should be allowed to join the military. I understand words like "inclusion", but doesn't this take it to the extreme? And if so, where would all the inclusionists out there draw the line? To counter I'll go back to the "why, exactly do we NEED women, gorillas, or alpacas, to bolster our combat arms slots?" Here is the quote you posted:

Quote:

"We look at the capabilities of each animal and choose the one who works best for the particular mission you have in mind," Tom LaPuzza, a spokesman for the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Centre in San Diego.

In other words, they are doing the smart thing. Use an asset where it's useful. Not employing an asset simply because a very small percentage can adhere to the physical requirements of combat training (and possess opposable thumbs), and therefore should absolutely be "included" into every thing under the holy banner of equal opportunity/political correctness.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
Why are some people so infatuated with the trivial and frivolous?

This topic has enthralled you to, and if you'd spend less time trying to negatively characterize participants herein you might find the time to actually focus on their positions.

For example, if the litmus test is ability, how does gender matter? Please try to make sure to answer that among the ranting about "liberals".

With a feeble ray of hope I've answered your question. "How does gender matter?" Also, the topic "enthralls" me too as I happen to be the ONLY person in the discussion that it would effect. You just so happen to be blithely arguing the sweeping changes of what I do. Another very puesdo-liberal trait. Argue everything whether you have anything to do with it or not. Equivalently, perhaps I should break into preposterous arguement on data systems entry methods, Illinois civil law (joefromchicago), Australian municipal politics (dlowan), or the Star Wars Mulitverse (other liberals).

I won't, but that's because I know, I have nothing to do with that world, I have no first-hand knowledge that would qualify or even justify my extrapolation, and frankly, because I'm just not too interested in preaching about what does not concern me.

So again I reiterate. Why make such a sweeping change, just to make the sweeping change? 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?

(Oh, but primates in combat, now there is a great idea.) Rolling Eyes

P.S. And I haven't even broached on the psychological reasons to keep them out of the combat arms. That is a whole book unto itself.

0 Replies

Lusatian - Thanks for your comments. Your first-hand view of this issue has helped me to see it from a new angle. I now understand that one of the things that prevents the military from being able to efficiently integrate women into tactical groups and situations is the absurdity of the military regulations around same. I would argue that--within a combat zone--the military ought to be blind to gender, but that's probably not realistic. Another suggestion that might prevent most of the problems being worried about would be to only allow ugly women into combat. (The risks of harassment and inappropriate relationships ought to be reduced drastically.) :wink:

0 Replies

Should Women Fight in Combat?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know