The basic argument most of us have against the practice is that we simply aren't willing to put women in harm's way like that. And, honestly, the difference between being support staff near combat, or getting to do some of the killing isn't much of a career opportunity issue. But also, since most men would find it much more psychologically difficult to point a gun at a woman and pull the trigger than at a man, the trauma inflicted on young men by asking them to kill young women is hardly worth the benefit. You think people are traumatized now when they come home from war, just wait and see what this produces.
Brandon9000 wrote:The basic argument most of us have against the practice is that we simply aren't willing to put women in harm's way like that. And, honestly, the difference between being support staff near combat, or getting to do some of the killing isn't much of a career opportunity issue. But also, since most men would find it much more psychologically difficult to point a gun at a woman and pull the trigger than at a man, the trauma inflicted on young men by asking them to kill young women is hardly worth the benefit. You think people are traumatized now when they come home from war, just wait and see what this produces.
You do know this is terribly paternalistic don't you?
What you are willing or not willing to afford to women is entirely besides the point, unless you are able to impose your opinions on the general public, and, clearly, that is not the case.
[You are, of course, entitled to your opinion concerning women participating in combat, but, as you have expressed it, it is an opinion that is both sexist and paternalistic and I am usually quite loathe to use such terms.
As for the trauma induced by men shooting women, what does that have to do with this issue?
The American military is hardly in a position to ban foreign women from serving in combat positions within their armed forces, and presumably you are not all that worried about the psyche of foreign male soldiers who might kill American female soldiers.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:The basic argument most of us have against the practice is that we simply aren't willing to put women in harm's way like that. And, honestly, the difference between being support staff near combat, or getting to do some of the killing isn't much of a career opportunity issue. But also, since most men would find it much more psychologically difficult to point a gun at a woman and pull the trigger than at a man, the trauma inflicted on young men by asking them to kill young women is hardly worth the benefit. You think people are traumatized now when they come home from war, just wait and see what this produces.
You do know this is terribly paternalistic don't you?
Couldn't care less.
Well, just so we cleared that up.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:What you are willing or not willing to afford to women is entirely besides the point, unless you are able to impose your opinions on the general public, and, clearly, that is not the case.
I vote, and sometimes try to persaude people that I am right on forums like this.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:[You are, of course, entitled to your opinion concerning women participating in combat, but, as you have expressed it, it is an opinion that is both sexist and paternalistic and I am usually quite loathe to use such terms.
Sexist is often used merely to mean making rational distinctions between things that are different. You are attempting to argue with my logic by naming it, which certainly does not disprove anything I say.
Sexist may often be used as you suggest, but not by me, and if you admit your "logic" is sexist, it is not logical at all. You are hardly making a rational distinction between things that are different. Even when you acknowledge that a woman might be the equal of a man in a combat situation, you argue that the woman should not be permitted to engage in combat. The only difference in such a situation is your regard for the two sexes.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:As for the trauma induced by men shooting women, what does that have to do with this issue?
Generally people try not to adopt practices which have highly negative consequences.
This is a common problem on A2K: Pop out a glib response to a point taken entirely out of context. The substance of the issue follows:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:The American military is hardly in a position to ban foreign women from serving in combat positions within their armed forces, and presumably you are not all that worried about the psyche of foreign male soldiers who might kill American female soldiers.
The whole practice of putting women in combat is bad. We should do our part to avoid it and hope that others will too.
Nice try brandon. You very definately have argued that putting women in combat would somehow induce psychic trauma in American male soldiers. Do you really mean to suggest that the logic behind this claim is that if we allow women to fight, other countries will, and then our men will have to kill their women?
I will never vote for or acquiesce to deliberately putting a female in danger, and many, many men feel the same way.
Fair enough, but you are struggling to base this position on anything but paternalistic emotion and a sexist mindset.
Brandon9000 wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:The basic argument most of us have against the practice is that we simply aren't willing to put women in harm's way like that. And, honestly, the difference between being support staff near combat, or getting to do some of the killing isn't much of a career opportunity issue. But also, since most men would find it much more psychologically difficult to point a gun at a woman and pull the trigger than at a man, the trauma inflicted on young men by asking them to kill young women is hardly worth the benefit. You think people are traumatized now when they come home from war, just wait and see what this produces.
You do know this is terribly paternalistic don't you?
Couldn't care less.
Well, just so we cleared that up.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:What you are willing or not willing to afford to women is entirely besides the point, unless you are able to impose your opinions on the general public, and, clearly, that is not the case.
I vote, and sometimes try to persaude people that I am right on forums like this.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:[You are, of course, entitled to your opinion concerning women participating in combat, but, as you have expressed it, it is an opinion that is both sexist and paternalistic and I am usually quite loathe to use such terms.
Sexist is often used merely to mean making rational distinctions between things that are different. You are attempting to argue with my logic by naming it, which certainly does not disprove anything I say.
Sexist may often be used as you suggest, but not by me, and if you admit your "logic" is sexist, it is not logical at all. You are hardly making a rational distinction between things that are different. Even when you acknowledge that a woman might be the equal of a man in a combat situation, you argue that the woman should not be permitted to engage in combat. The only difference in such a situation is your regard for the two sexes.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:As for the trauma induced by men shooting women, what does that have to do with this issue?
Generally people try not to adopt practices which have highly negative consequences.
This is a common problem on A2K: Pop out a glib response to a point taken entirely out of context. The substance of the issue follows:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:The American military is hardly in a position to ban foreign women from serving in combat positions within their armed forces, and presumably you are not all that worried about the psyche of foreign male soldiers who might kill American female soldiers.
The whole practice of putting women in combat is bad. We should do our part to avoid it and hope that others will too.
Nice try brandon. You very definately have argued that putting women in combat would somehow induce psychic trauma in American male soldiers. Do you really mean to suggest that the logic behind this claim is that if we allow women to fight, other countries will, and then our men will have to kill their women?
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:I will never vote for or acquiesce to deliberately putting a female in danger, and many, many men feel the same way.
Fair enough, but you are struggling to base this position on anything but paternalistic emotion and a sexist mindset.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:The basic argument most of us have against the practice is that we simply aren't willing to put women in harm's way like that. And, honestly, the difference between being support staff near combat, or getting to do some of the killing isn't much of a career opportunity issue. But also, since most men would find it much more psychologically difficult to point a gun at a woman and pull the trigger than at a man, the trauma inflicted on young men by asking them to kill young women is hardly worth the benefit. You think people are traumatized now when they come home from war, just wait and see what this produces.
You do know this is terribly paternalistic don't you?
Couldn't care less.
Well, just so we cleared that up.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:What you are willing or not willing to afford to women is entirely besides the point, unless you are able to impose your opinions on the general public, and, clearly, that is not the case.
I vote, and sometimes try to persaude people that I am right on forums like this.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:[You are, of course, entitled to your opinion concerning women participating in combat, but, as you have expressed it, it is an opinion that is both sexist and paternalistic and I am usually quite loathe to use such terms.
Sexist is often used merely to mean making rational distinctions between things that are different. You are attempting to argue with my logic by naming it, which certainly does not disprove anything I say.
Sexist may often be used as you suggest, but not by me, and if you admit your "logic" is sexist, it is not logical at all. You are hardly making a rational distinction between things that are different. Even when you acknowledge that a woman might be the equal of a man in a combat situation, you argue that the woman should not be permitted to engage in combat. The only difference in such a situation is your regard for the two sexes.
I am certainly making a rational distinction between things that are, in fact, different. Men and women have different physical abilities, different psychological suitabilities to situations of violent confrontation (a post of mine you have conveniently ignored) and in addition, most, although, apparently not all, men have an instinct to protect them.
You are making sweeping distinctions between the sexes which have no relevance on an individual basis.
No argument that, overall, men are physically more capable than men, but this doesn't rule out the fact that some women are indeed physically capable for combat. You would ban them from such action because their sisters are incapable.
No argument that men are more prone to and more comfortable with violence, but this doesn't rule out the fact that some women are indeed psychologically capable for combat. You would ban them from such action because their sisters are incapable. (So you see, the psychological side of your argument is hardly distinguishable from the physical one).
As for a male's instinct to protect women, where is the relevance? Are you truly suggesting that the question of whether or not women should be allowed to engage in combat should be decided based upon an instinctual tendency?
What I am arguing is that to the extent that there are women who are both physically and psychologically capable of combat, should they wish to engage in it as a means of serving their country, there is no logical reason to prohibit them.
What you seem to be arguing is that because women, in general, are less capable that men, in general, to engage in combat, none of them should be allowed to do so.
Sometime these sort of broad prohibitions make practical sense, but I'm afraid I don't see how that is possibly the case here.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:As for the trauma induced by men shooting women, what does that have to do with this issue?
Generally people try not to adopt practices which have highly negative consequences.
This is a common problem on A2K: Pop out a glib response to a point taken entirely out of context. The substance of the issue follows:
You have not given a response to my statement that asking men to kill women could cause, in many cases, severe trauma.
I have given a response, but it seems to either elude you or dissatisfy you, but allow me to respond once again, but in greater detail:
1) Asking men to kill women could cause severe psychological trauma in some cases. I think you overstate the case however. In modern warfare, more casualties are the result of attacks where the gender of the enemy is unknown that in face to face combat. In addition, history has hardly shown us that men are incapable of killing women in times of war.
2) Beyond all arguments is the one that holds that this concern matters little when it comes to the soldiers we care about - American, because, presumably they will not be firing at female American soldiers. The counter argument that our allowing female combat soldiers will somehow increase the likelihood of foreign female combatants coming into the sights of American soldiers is wholly without foundation. There is hardly the threat of a female combatant race between the US and any of its enemies should we allow women to fight.
3) Your argument here is a barely disguised red herring.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:The American military is hardly in a position to ban foreign women from serving in combat positions within their armed forces, and presumably you are not all that worried about the psyche of foreign male soldiers who might kill American female soldiers.
The whole practice of putting women in combat is bad.
We should do our part to avoid it and hope that others will too.
Nice try brandon. You very definitely have argued that putting women in combat would somehow induce psychic trauma in American male soldiers. Do you really mean to suggest that the logic behind this claim is that if we allow women to fight, other countries will, and then our men will have to kill their women?
If the practice becomes common, many men will have to kill women. Surely this is obvious. You appear to be implying that killing men and women in combat holds precisely the same degree of distaste for you, that you would not in any way be struggling with a desire to protect them. Is this, in fact, a correct conclusion on my part?
Many American military men already kill women. I know we have smart bombs but I doubt they are so smart as to distinguish between genders.
In addition, allowing a relative handful of American women to participate in combat (assuming they are qualified) is hardly going to lead to a sea change in modern warfare.
As for your question of distaste, the answer is yes. I do not find it more distasteful that a woman combatant might die in battle than her male counterpart.
To the extent that such a thing as a warrior ethic exists (and I believe it does) I see no reason to blanketly exclude women from it. A woman warrior's death is no more tragic than a male warrior's.
I do not, at all, struggle with a desire to protect those women who want to engage in combat.
I'm right there with you if the issue was drafting women to engage in combat, but clearly that is not the case here.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:I will never vote for or acquiesce to deliberately putting a female in danger, and many, many men feel the same way.
Fair enough, but you are struggling to base this position on anything but paternalistic emotion and a sexist mindset.
On the contrary, I am practically screaming through a megaphone that I am basing my point on that, although, as I have mentioned, I regard your use of the pejorative "sexist" as merely indicating the logical practice of treating things differently that actually are significantly different.
"Sexist" is not necessarily a pejorative and I can only say that I take great care not to use the term loosely. It seems to me that your position is indeed sexist because even in the cases where a woman might be demonstrably capable of combat you argue against allowing her to engage. In such cases what can be the distinguishing factor other than simply gender?
I will never vote for or acquiesce to deliberately putting a female in danger, and many, many men feel the same way.
Fair enough, but you are struggling to base this position on anything but paternalistic emotion and a sexist mindset.
On the contrary, I am practically screaming through a megaphone that I am basing my point on that, although, as I have mentioned, I regard your use of the pejorative "sexist" as merely indicating the logical practice of treating things differently that actually are significantly different.
Brandon9000 wrote:I will never vote for or acquiesce to deliberately putting a female in danger, and many, many men feel the same way.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Fair enough, but you are struggling to base this position on anything but paternalistic emotion and a sexist mindset.
Brandon9000 wrote:On the contrary, I am practically screaming through a megaphone that I am basing my point on that, although, as I have mentioned, I regard your use of the pejorative "sexist" as merely indicating the logical practice of treating things differently that actually are significantly different.
Which is great, except that you continue to argue that your position doesn't change even in those cases where they are actually significantly the same. You gloss over this rather important point because it suits your argument to do so, but it is central to your position: Women shouldn't fight because that's the way Brandon feels about it. Forget whether they are qualified, whether they want to, whether their personal liberty is constrained or is not; Brandon isn't comfortable with the idea.
FoxFyre - I wonder whether you believe this woman should never have been in a position to show valour in a combat situation. ???
I find it offensive that my son's life is considered to be of less value than the life of someone else's daughter, solely based on the difference in their gender.
Brandon - My point to you is very simple: Your feelings about women are no reason to deny them liberty.
Scrat wrote:Brandon - My point to you is very simple: Your feelings about women are no reason to deny them liberty.
What liberty am I denying them? As far as I can see, I am only denying them the right to actually kill, as opposed to being support staff near the killing. So, then, you would agree to reducing the minimum age for entering the armed forces and fighting in actual combat to 10? If not, on what basis?
I do not remember whether or not I posted this.
The last time I sat down to answer posts here, there was a power failure in the building, and my answers went down the toobs.
About men being unwilling to harm or kill women:
Men are more likely to harm a woman in an act of domestic violence than women will toward men.
However, thinking men are unwilling to harm women may be why our evening news is about young white women in distress.
Brandon9000 wrote:Scrat wrote:Brandon - My point to you is very simple: Your feelings about women are no reason to deny them liberty.
What liberty am I denying them? As far as I can see, I am only denying them the right to actually kill, as opposed to being support staff near the killing. So, then, you would agree to reducing the minimum age for entering the armed forces and fighting in actual combat to 10? If not, on what basis?
that would be the one then wouldn't it?
Atkins wrote:I do not remember whether or not I posted this.
The last time I sat down to answer posts here, there was a power failure in the building, and my answers went down the toobs.
About men being unwilling to harm or kill women:
Men are more likely to harm a woman in an act of domestic violence than women will toward men.
However, thinking men are unwilling to harm women may be why our evening news is about young white women in distress.
I didn't say that men were unwilling to harm women. You are misquoting me in order to have a false argument easy to disprove. My position is that most normal men would find it very distasteful to kill women by personal methods like shooting or hand to hand combat - more distasteful than to kill men that way.
I had no idea that comparing a grown woman with a ten year old child was a serious question. Naturally I'm for it...as long as it's the children of the politicians and career miltary people responsible for the wars....and the dickweeds that support them of course...me I'd like my kids to stay home and will make their decisions for them until they are mature enough to decide for themselves or until our new government takes that right away from me, whichever comes first.
