Should Women Fight in Combat?

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Then I assume you accept that avoiding same is not--in and of itself--a reason to continue with the status quo.

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

That's a compelling argument if we accept the notion that the legitimacy of the issues dictates whether they have a real impact on the equation.

But let me try another tack with you... What if everything that you believe to be true of the average woman were true of the average black? Would you support refusing to allow blacks in combat, despite there being some who were perfectly qualified--even better qualified than some men now seeing combat--if most were not so suited?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

To me this is not an issue of fairness or anything else. It is issue of practicality, efficiency, and effectiveness.

In the short term, practicality, efficiency, and effectiveness, would have dictated keeping the military segregated. Looking back now and seeing the success of doing so overlooks the difficulties, costs, and problems of moving from the way things were to the way things are. That we would have to do likewise to deal more fairly as pertains gender is no more a justification for not doing so than it would have been for avoiding desegregation.

0 Replies

Scrat writes

Quote:

But let me try another tack with you... What if everything that you believe to be true of the average woman were true of the average black? Would you support refusing to allow blacks in combat, despite there being some who were perfectly qualified--even better qualified than some men now seeing combat--if most were not so suited?

No, I would not refuse to allow a qualified black MALE to be in a combat unit even if most blacks could not qualify. That's almost an oxymoron, however, considering that the black race seems to have an edge over all others when it comes to average speed, stamina, endurance, and strength Smile

Nor would I refuse to allow a qualified person of the Japanese race be in the NBA even though by virtue of their ethnic physical stature, it would be an extremely rare person of pure Japanese descent who could qualify.

In both of these cases, the presence would not affect the efficiency or effectiveness of the unit. For all the reasons I have already enumerated, I believe a woman, regardless of her abilities, would have a detrimental effect on the efficiency and effectiveness of a military combat unit.

My interest here is not to keep women down--I am a feminist through and through--but my interest is to keep those people in harms way uninjured and alive as much as it is reasonaby possible to do. If women, no matter how well qualified, will in any way be a hindrance to their effectiveness, efficiency, or safety, those women should be assigned to non combat duty.

0 Replies

I think women should strap their babuies on their back like papooses and go into combat using bazookas.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Scrat writes

Quote:
But let me try another tack with you... What if everything that you believe to be true of the average woman were true of the average black? Would you support refusing to allow blacks in combat, despite there being some who were perfectly qualified--even better qualified than some men now seeing combat--if most were not so suited?

No, I would not refuse to allow a qualified black MALE to be in a combat unit even if most blacks could not qualify.

I think that's endgame. If you would not disallow another group given the same circumstances, it certainly calls your insistence on disallowing women given those circumstances into question. (For me, at least.)

It isn't that the issues you note don't exist, but rather that they carry less weight for me than the need to protect and extend liberty to all on as equal a basis as possible.

0 Replies

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

Scrat wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Scrat writes

Quote:
But let me try another tack with you... What if everything that you believe to be true of the average woman were true of the average black? Would you support refusing to allow blacks in combat, despite there being some who were perfectly qualified--even better qualified than some men now seeing combat--if most were not so suited?

No, I would not refuse to allow a qualified black MALE to be in a combat unit even if most blacks could not qualify.

I think that's endgame. If you would not disallow another group given the same circumstances, it certainly calls your insistence on disallowing women given those circumstances into question. (For me, at least.)

It isn't that the issues you note don't exist, but rather that they carry less weight for me than the need to protect and extend liberty to all on as equal a basis as possible.

It's only the liberty to take a job killing people personally, as opposed to being support personnel where the killing is being done, and that is not a particularly large privilege. This is not a question of having a job at all, just a question of participating in the killing personally. This privilege is very minor, and could be easily outweighed by other factors.

0 Replies

There is also a correlation between male phsyiology, such as testosterone level, and propensity for violence, desire to dominate, and competitiveness, which could be extremely useful in combat. See, for instance, Source

The task of combat has been done for millenia, or longer, by males, and evolution appears to have adapted them to it.

0 Replies

Scrat writes

Quote:

It isn't that the issues you note don't exist, but rather that they carry less weight for me than the need to protect and extend liberty to all on as equal a basis as possible.

If they in any way are disruptive or distracting to our fighting forces in harms way, that carries more weight for me than any other consideration whatsoever. I am wildly opposed to political correctness in the military and put function (safety, efficiency, effectiveness) miles ahead of form (ie fuzzy notions of equal rights that are impossible to achieve without violating more pressing rights of our fighting forces to have the best chance to succeed and survive in the field.)

0 Replies

Brandon - Hypothetically, I would treat all enemy combatants identically, as it would be my duty to do.

But of course, we're not arguing whether the enemy ought to let women in combat, and I'm unlikely to target my own troops. However, if it is true--as you wish to imply--that most men are less likely to shoot a woman, wouldn't having female combat troops give us a tactical edge? ;-)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Scrat writes

Quote:
It isn't that the issues you note don't exist, but rather that they carry less weight for me than the need to protect and extend liberty to all on as equal a basis as possible.

If they in any way are disruptive or distracting to our fighting forces in harms way, that carries more weight for me than any other consideration whatsoever.

Which--again--was the sole argument against integrating blacks into white units.

With respect, I think we both know the other's point of view. Let's agree to disagree. :-)

0 Replies

Scrat writes

Quote:

Which--again--was the sole argument against integrating blacks into white units.

With respect, I think we both know the other's point of view. Let's agree to disagree.

And my argument all along has been there is no comparison between race and gender if real criteria is used rather than attempts to link them by false analogy or metaphor.

But yes, we can agree to disagree. That's cool. Smile

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Brandon - Hypothetically, I would treat all enemy combatants identically, as it would be my duty to do.

But of course, we're not arguing whether the enemy ought to let women in combat, and I'm unlikely to target my own troops....

Yes, but this is an exploration of what ought to be done, and if everyone were to do as you recommend, women would be in combat on both sides. I hear you loud and clear that you would feel nothing special when shooting a female compared to the aversion you would feel when shooting anyone, but I have to acquaint you with the fact that some of us would.

Scrat wrote:

...However, if it is true--as you wish to imply--that most men are less likely to shoot a woman, wouldn't having female combat troops give us a tactical edge? ;-)

Since you appear not to be very familiar with the idea, let me reiterate that most men would find it more difficult to shoot a woman than to shoot a man, because most men feel an urge to protect women. You are correct, indeed, that possible hesitation by the enemy to shoot our female soldiers could give our side a tactical advantage, but at the expense of putting the women in a situation where they are in very real danger of being shot, which is the downside to the practice from our point of view.

I think that to ask young men to shoot young women, and undergo the emotional conflict that would cause in most of them, is more of a negative than any benefits that would be gained by the practice.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I hear you loud and clear that you would feel nothing special when shooting a female compared to the aversion you would feel when shooting anyone, but I have to acquaint you with the fact that some of us would.

Your boorish habit of putting words in my mouth to my discredit has worn thin. (I wrote nothing of how I would "feel", but rather that I would endeavor to do my duty. This you know full well, but prefer to pretend otherwise.) I imagine this tactic amuses you, but it does you no credit, and adds nothing to the discussion.

So, when next you inquire as to whether you might presume upon me with another hypothetical, you may assume that my silence means "no".

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I hear you loud and clear that you would feel nothing special when shooting a female compared to the aversion you would feel when shooting anyone, but I have to acquaint you with the fact that some of us would.

Your boorish habit of putting words in my mouth to my discredit has worn thin. (I wrote nothing of how I would "feel", but rather that I would endeavor to do my duty. This you know full well, but prefer to pretend otherwise.) I imagine this tactic amuses you, but it does you no credit, and adds nothing to the discussion.

So, when next you inquire as to whether you might presume upon me with another hypothetical, you may assume that my silence means "no".

On the contrary. That part of your response was limited to one single sentence, and I interpreted your meaning as best I could. Apparently, I did not know what you meant. How could I with a response that skeletal? I stand corrected. If I drew an incorrect conclusion, just clarify what you intended. In fact, if, as you now seem to be implying, your answer was intended only to convey the fact that you would do your duty no matter what your feelings, then it was not an answer to what I asked.

I note in passing that you have completely refrained from addressing any of the substance of my post. Do you only respond to arguments you find easy to defeat?

0 Replies

Lusatian wrote:

Craven, as is appallingly customary, you are trying to apply debate tactics to a subject that has very quantifiable results.

Rigour in logic is less appaling to me than to you I suppose.

Edit: Though a meaningless exchange I'd like to note that I redefined a variable (tactics > logical rigour) to get a fallacious barb in, it's not a biggie but is not honest either.

Quote:

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".

Lusatian, it does not become of you to speak of "posturing" given the amount of it that you are doing.

Quote:

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":

I will make sure to review them carefully, while ignoring your attempts to declare yourself an authority on your own argument.

Quote:

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 summarize your argument, you have shared an anecdote in which you found a woman in combat to be an impediment and you have concluded that this was the exclusive fault of "liberals".

Roger that.

Quote:

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.

So to keep things organized, what additional argument are you forwarding? If I read you correctly, it sounds like you are speaking of the logistical challenges of unit segregation. If so, I agree that this can be a valid counter argument to unisex units (please note slight logical difference from women in combat in case discussion goes this way in the future).

Is the medical condition another separate argument? Or can we agree that if anything this would fall under a medical subset to the physical requirements?

Quote:

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.

I did read your comments on the need, I have not verified them but am happy to accept them as is for this discussion.

I don't think it eliminates the relevance of this parody. It's a classic case of a generalization being defended on the basis of quantifiable metrics while resisting acceptance of said metrics as a litmus test.

I think this is relevant as this is a counter-argument only to the question of women's ability, not need.

If using physical ability as the litmus test is a viable solution, then the arguments of physical ability are rendered moot.

As long as physical ability is still being used as an argument, then this parody stands and continues to invite discussion on whether using physical ability as a litmus test is viable.

Quote:

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.

As I stated earlier, I don't intend to challenge your position on the "need" for women as I don't see pressing need as a pre-requisite for my position.

Quote:

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

How is "change for change's sake" "good, tactical, or combat effective"? This is a loaded question that assumes that attempts to pre-define sociological motivations as being merely "change for change's sake".

Whether or not sociological motivation is valid in this case, I don't think you've made an intellectually honest case that it isn't merely by loading your question this way.

But to answer your question, no, I do not see any compelling tactical reasons for this change in the short term, and I think the diversification of combat forces would have minimal long-term tactical advantages at best as well.

I'd like to go on to say that I think the tactical disadvantages are not nearly as acute as some would have us think and that in the long term they could diminish.

For example, I believe that the physical capabilities of combat soldiers in the future will be less discriminatory to women through advancements in combat technology.

And if women are represented in combat well enough unisex units can be avoided, thereby undercutting some arguments of the problems of segregation within a unit.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Lusatian wrote:
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.

Lusatian, you used the word allow. Though I will cede that you did not do so in "typically liberal" fashion.

Quote:

I understand words like "inclusion", but doesn't this take it to the extreme?

Lusatian, you brought up primates. Don't make it sound like I've been campaigning vigourously for primates in the military. It may be an easy way to try to make me look foolish but it is not an accurate one.

The military already dips into the animal gene pool for combat use. Your question to me was whether I would favor "allowing" primates in combat.

My answer to this marginally relevant question is yes. Mind you that most liberals are actually quite opposed to animals in combat. I repeated the word "allow" that you used only to conveniently side-step an even more off-topic debate on the morality of the US military's use of animals in combat.

I don't see this as relevant to my position on this issue at all. I do not think any animals have rights and this eliminates any sociological elements of my position.

I would be fine with allowing primates in combat if it makes tactical sense to do so. That is all.

Quote:

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.

Indeed.

Quote:

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.

Agreed. That convoluted sentence certainly does not sound like the military's motivation for the use of combat animals.

Quote:

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?"

I, in turn, will repeat that I am less interested in the "need" for women in combat thant the "need" to exclude them on the basis of sex.

My position remains that if there are really enough solid reasons for the exclusion then said reasons can compose the litmus test for inclusion, thereby eliminating any arguments of sexism.

Quote:

With a feeble ray of hope I've answered your question. "How does gender matter?"

I'm not sure that you have, but I would be happy to be shown to be wrong. Could you summarize the arguments for me? Just the arguments, I'll cross reference them to your support for them throughout the thread.

Please note that I will be looking for arguments that can't be a serve as a litmus test that would replace gender.

It may help to clarify that I am far less interested in women in combat than in having a just litmus test if they are to be excluded.

Quote:

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.

Lusatian you, like me, like to argue. Consider that this may be a predominant characteristic of curious, argumentative people more so than a "puesdo-liberal trait".

This is a quality (curious, argumentative) but that you wish to use in partisan slurs.

I just think the incessant slurs on "liberals" is tired and that you would do better to just make your case without your slurs. <shrugs>

The reason I think this is because they are just argument vulgarities that need to be ignored by those who want to actually discuss the issue with you instead of playing partisan mudslinging.

Quote:

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).

Star Wars is liberal too? I'm going to make you a T-Shirt that says "I see liberals...." Lusatian. ;-)

But to answer your question, I think you should argue anything you feel like, and if you argue out of a position of ignorance it will show.

I'm not sure if you are trying to assert a position of authority here, but if so it can easily be done merely by addressing the deficiencies in the ignorant positions you are faced with, thereby making an appeal to authority superfluous.

Quote:

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).

I wasn't aware that I was making a "fuss" about this, I really don't have much of a dog in this fight. But in a continuing trend I don't wish to dispute this negative characterization.

As I stated earlier, I don't care whether or not women end up in combat. I care about having a logical and just litmus test for this exclusion.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't think it is such a practical concern as it is a matter of principle.

Thing is, I just don't think a gender-based litmus test is needed, I think with a minimum of thought both parties can be sated with exclusion criteria that is gender-neutral.

Quote:

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

I don't see how this matters, so this is another negative characterization I would like to ignore.

Quote:

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

Again, Lusatian, I think you are being unfair to try to make me look foolish on the basis of the primate example you raised.

Quote:

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.

Indeed, and I think there are some good arguments there as well, culminating in a circular argument that supports itself, it would be interesting. Scrat touched briefly on this and I would be happy to take this up if you do.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Atkins wrote:
Let's send FoxFyre to Iraq. People would lay down their arms just to have her shut up.

Don't be such a tool.

I finally finished re-reading the education thread that is under the aegis of politics. A group of hypocrites here made life hell for a writer who uses the handle, plainoldme, who, I believe from her writing to be a woman (I was fooled by the masculine FoxFyre, so I may be wrong on this one as well).

I believe plain left in disgust at the abuse that was hurled her way.

You have the nerve to upbraid me for a statement that in no way is as bad as the abuse you gave plain.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

How can you refrain from something you never started?

See the above.

0 Replies

Bella Dea wrote:

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.

Looks like there will be more homeless people under that state of affairs, unless the real estate bubble bursts.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

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.

A long time ago, I read that more women survived the Blitz in better condition because of the mechanisms in place to help a woman carry children during pregnancy.

0 Replies

Should Women Fight in Combat?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know