1
   

Should Women Fight in Combat?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 07:45 am
And to Scrat, my very first friend on A2K and warmly welcomed back, and who wrote
Quote:
I would argue that--within a combat zone--the military ought to be blind to gender, but that's probably not realistic


I would agree that gender blindness in the military is not realistic, and would respectfully disagree that the military ought to be blind to gender. In a post a few pages back, I stated my opinion, not entirely tongue in cheek, that there should be a constitutional amendment separating the military from political correctness. (I also addressed the 'ugly woman' issue Smile)

The military was desegregated in 1948 after years of consideration. There was no way the military command could show that black soldiers were less fit or less capable on average than white soldiers and segregation actually reduced combat efficiency by making deployment more complicated. There is no way that anybody can make a case that women, on average, are as fit or capable as men, on average, to do what combat troops are expected to do.

A combat zone with people in harms way is not the place for social engineering. If the men who put themselves in harms way say that women in combat units put the men at higher risk, then women should not be in the unit, period.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 11:37 am
Foxfyre - Did you previously go by another username? I believe I've recognized the tone of your posts, but don't recognize the name.

As to your current comments, may I respond with some questions? Do you think there are some men who are not fit to be deployed in combat? Do you believe that some of these are invariably so deployed? Do you think that some men recognize traits in others and presuppose that these others will not "hold their end up" under fire? Aside from the percentages, is this any different if we're talking about women?

If it is true that any women are qualified for combat, how will men gain sufficient experience with such women that they can trust same if we never give men the opportunity to experience interaction with combat qualified women?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 11:52 am
Scrat,

One more hypothetical, if you will permit it. You are a soldier in the middle of a battle. It is your job to take aim with your gun at enemy soldiers and pull the trigger. I think we can take it for granted that, not being a sociopath, you regret the necessity to kill people, yet there you are in the field doing that task. My question is this, would you find it more psychologically difficult to take aim at and kill a female enemy soldier than a male enemeny soldier, or, would you find the degree of difficulty precisely the same? Please don't evade the question by raising possibly important but not relevant questions, or pointing out some technical difficulty with the scenario. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 12:00 pm
I have always been Foxfyre, Scrat. You welcomed me with a welcoming post and I believe a PM when I first came to A2K more than a year ago. But then you shortly thereafter mostly disappeared and I would be the first to say I am entirely forgettable. Smile

But in answer to your questions. Of course there are men who are not fit to be deployed in combat but I think they are fairly rare. Most who can't hack it wash out in training. (This from a drill sergeant uncle and others who are or who have been in the military on A2K).

The average women will never have the speed, stamina, strength, or endurance of even the less than average man. A unisex world based on those four things would shut out all but a statistically insignificant number of women.

And there are the physical and sociological problems built into gender differences mostly illuminated by Lusatian's posts. There may in fact be the very rare woman who can do what the average man can do in combat, but you cannot get around the lack of privacy, feminine hygiene, and sociological issues no matter what she can do.

I personally want our fighting forces to have the best possible chance for success with the absolute minimum casualities possible. As women are not needed in combat, it makes no sense to me to introduce even a minor distraction or inconvenience of a female presence.

It could become possible that we women will have to fight and I think we will do so honorably if it comes to that. But it is not necessary now, and I see no reason to dilute the efficiency and effectiveness of our fighting forces in the interest of some sense of 'fairness'.
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 12:18 pm
Scrat wrote:
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.)


Has anyone considered that most people take on responsibilities because of their emotional response to a situation?
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 12:20 pm
Brandon has demonstrated a complete lack of a sense of humor and a rather rudimentary ability to read.
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 12:25 pm
Eorl wrote:
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.



Then, you must have worked with a very limited number of managing women. While we might eliminate the word life, I have known and known of women whose management style hurt the health and livelihood of others.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 02:12 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
...I see no reason to dilute the efficiency and effectiveness of our fighting forces in the interest of some sense of 'fairness'.

Do you think it likely that when the military integrated blacks and whites doing so diluted the efficiency and effectiveness of our fighting forces to a measurable degree and for some measurable period of time?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 02:38 pm
Scrat writes
Quote:
Do you think it likely that when the military integrated blacks and whites doing so diluted the efficiency and effectiveness of our fighting forces to a measurable degree and for some measurable period of time?


Given how widespread cultural prejudices were in play at the time, I would imagine that it did. Certainly integration of the schools and workplace did not pass without some disruptions.

It is also constructive that the integration of blacks and whites took place in peacetime. By the time we started sending troops to Korea, the situation wasn't perfect, but attitudes were beginning to change everywhere.

The important thing, however, is that there was that there was no practical reason to segregate blacks and whites and certainly no practical reason to exclude either from combat roles. The color of a person's skin does not affect speed, strength, stamina, or endurance and there are no issues of hygience, privacy, or sexual attraction.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 02:43 pm
They should decide for themselves whether to fight in combat or not.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 02:45 pm
Atkins wrote:
Brandon has demonstrated a complete lack of a sense of humor and a rather rudimentary ability to read.

Once again a post with no content other than a personal attack, lacking even the virtue of relevance to the thread. You are either violating or nearly so the Terms of Service. I will refrain from communicating with you further.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 02:45 pm
http://www.buzzlife.com/forums/images/smilies/wee1.gif
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.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 03:37 pm
Moondoggy! Scrat!

<bowled over>
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 10:58 pm
Lusatian wrote:
How typical. Six pages of opinions (mostly in favor of women in combat), posted by individuals who have no first-hand experience, no stake in the issue, will share no part in the repercussions, and face the issue as an "equal opportunity" matter instead of one of combat effectiveness. Here are a short list of the reasons why women are banned from direct combat roles, and ones which would prove excaberated if a host of liberals hoping on the feminist bandwagon as their "cause of the month" had any bearing on the matter: (Highly unlikely. Thankfully.)

- women cannot physically endure some of the grueling aspects of combat roles. Many men cannot either, which is why they wash out of Ranger school, Special Forces, Seals, or even the plain infantry. On my last mission I carried an eighty pound ruck up a mountain for six klicks. That did not include my rifle, ammunition, grenades, or water. I weigh 160 lbs, rather light for my job, and it was difficult for me. I have never met a woman who could do the exact same trek, without substantially slowing us down.

- even if a (stress "a" as the numbers would be extremely low) woman could endure the same rigors, travel at the same speed, etc, there would be the logistical matter of meeting her feminine needs. A patrol base out in the mountains, jungle, what-have-you, provides no privacy for her (something that is absolutely necessary to avoid sexual harrassment complaints, or simple friction between team members. If the woman happened to be menstruating this would be an impactful matter (medical issues and tactical ones). And if the patrol needed to be extended, say from one week to two, a woman without the chance to wash anything would be at risk of infection. (Personal experience with an experienced female interpreter.)

- there is no demographic necessity. Are we lacking in male members of the population to fill the combat slots: No. Only 15% of the armed forces is counted as "combat arms" (infantry, special ops, jet pilots, marines, etc), from a force of approximately 2.5 million (including National Guard and Reserve) this represents only 375,000. The CIA Fact Book listed the following for the United States:

Military manpower - availability:
males age 18-49: 67,742,879 (2005 est.)

Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 2,143,873 (2005 est.)

This should serve as a common sense rule of thumb that we are in no desperate shortage of men.

- 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.


While there may not be a shortage of young men capable of enlisting and serving, there does appear to be a shortage of such capable men who are willing to enlist and serve, or the Army would not be falling so short of its recruitment goals. In any case if a persuasive pitch to young men who might enlist in the armed forces with a combat role in mind might be that it is a way for them to personally participate in the defense of their nation and democracy, why shouldn't women be permitted the same patriotic urge?

It would be foolish to allow women to participate in combat simply because they wanted to, but likewise it seems foolish to ban them from participating simply because they are women.

True that I am not in the military, but I have difficulty believing that all "combat" roles are held by Rangers, Seals and Green Berets. There may be legitimate reasons why most women would not qualify for certain combat missions, but I find it hard to accept that none of them can qualify for any combat missions.

I agree completely that it would be wrong to lower standards just so that a woman might serve in combat, but if she is willing and able, then I think emotional paternalistic arguments are rather flimsy.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jun, 2005 11:04 pm
I've known women physically stronger than me. I've also watched women basketball and boxing, and I'd dare say, they're in much better physical condition than I ever was in my youth.
0 Replies
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 07:51 am
Does this lengthy debate not remind you all of WW2? If I remember correctly there were arguments that black people should not be in combat.
.
They were thought to be unable to fight. They should only be used as a support for the 'real' troops. That was the argument at the time.
.
I saw them being treated like lesser beings; it was shocking.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Jun, 2005 03:20 am
detano inipo wrote:
Does this lengthy debate not remind you all of WW2? If I remember correctly there were arguments that black people should not be in combat.
.
They were thought to be unable to fight. They should only be used as a support for the 'real' troops. That was the argument at the time.
.
I saw them being treated like lesser beings; it was shocking.

An argument about a division of labor between races does not carry over to an issue about a division of labor between genders. Not, that is, unless you believe that if anyone is entitled to anything, it follows that everyone should be entitled to do everything. It's a different case with different issues.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Jun, 2005 07:49 am
Brandon writes
Quote:
An argument about a division of labor between races does not carry over to an issue about a division of labor between genders. Not, that is, unless you believe that if anyone is entitled to anything, it follows that everyone should be entitled to do everything. It's a different case with different issues.


But some are unable to make the distinction Brandon.

There seems a tendency to attempt to equate discrimination against people of another race as being no different than any issues of equal rights and equal opportunity in general, most particularly issues of gender. But many, if not most, of us have descended from people who have experienced prejudice and discrimination. If you are American and descend from Catholics, Mormons, Irish, Italians, Asians, Mexicans, Native Americans, any peoples of dark skin, et al, it is likely your ancesters have exerienced such prejudice and discrimination at some point since the United States became a nation.

None of these, purely by virtue of their race, social, or ethnic group, will fail to meet the standard physical requirements for combat military personnel. Discrimination based on religion, race, or ethnicity therefore makes no sense whatsoever and the huge majority of Americans have learned and accepted that.

Each one of these groups, however, have two genders. The huge majority of females from all groups are going to fail to meet the standard physical requirements for combat military personnel. The rare female who can hack it will be statistically insignificant and there will still be issues of hygiene, privacy, sexual attraction, and the natural inclination of at least some males to protect the female, all of which can be detrimental to a fighting unit.

If gender made no difference, there would not be separate public restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc., gender specific washroom attendants, etc., and there would be no issues of sexual harrassment. When our combat troops are in harms way, they need every advantage we can give them. The battlefield is not the place to do social experimentation that could in any way be distracting or reduce their safety or efficiency in any way.
0 Replies
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Jun, 2005 08:16 am
What I am trying to say is: when we look at prejudices of times gone by, we shake our heads. Not too long ago women had no right to vote or own property.
.
Let women became pilots in the airforce. That will help the war effort without slowing down the males.
.
There are millions of men who are less fit than millions of women. To assume that all men are superior is false.
............................................
In the Ancient Olympic Games, women were forbidden to take part. Married women were forbidden to even enter the competition areas as spectators. If they were caught, the punishment was death.
.
...even by the 1936 Games in Berlin where there were only four sports available to women..
.
1928 The collapse of several runners at the end of the 800m saw the race declared dangerous for women and banned.
.
All this seems ridiculous now. It was the norm then.
.
http://www.olympics.org.uk/olympicmovement/olympicissueswoman.asp
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Jun, 2005 08:34 am
The difference Detano is in distinctions between prejudice based on false assumptions and policy based on practical realities. Yes, some women are stronger than some men. Most of those 'weaker' men however can't meet the standard physical requirements for combat duty either and they will wash out just as quickly as the women.

To me this is not an issue of fairness or anything else. It is issue of practicality, efficiency, and effectiveness. To recognize that the average man will have more speed, strength, stamina, and endurance than all but the most rare woman is not discriminatory. It is reality. To recognize all the other issues inherent in gender differences is not discrimination. It is reality.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 05:11:50