Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zrk2]

I am a better shot than any woman I know, but then again I only know 1 military woman and I've neer seen her shoot.

However, she and my mom could probably kick your ass back into the age of the dinosaurs with ease (I think she went through puberty back then). So much for them being the weaker sex.

On average men are stronger than women. That is the point that he was trying to make.

[nenjin]

I think we all get that. It's pointing out a "hurr durr" fact as though it's the one and perfect answer that's irritating.

[Sowelu]

One of my former landlords was ex-MP and apparently once served with a woman who got a silver star in Iraq.  Her convoy got ambushed, she wound up clearing trenches with her team using grenades, plus she killed three insurgents with her rifle.  Maybe that's only average as far as badasses are concerned, but I know if I was in the military I'd be glad to have someone like her around.  I seriously don't see any reason to keep women out...any reason at all.

It's EXACTLY like keeping people out based on race.  For example, different races have different average heights--That's an easy, obvious thing that's hard to deny and has no political correctness issues involved so don't even start.  If you require a minimum height to get into the Army, why keep out someone from an ethnicity that's half a foot shorter on average, but who personally happens to be six foot six?  You might get fewer recruits from that ethnicity that qualify, but there's zero reason to keep out the ones who do.  Same with women.  You might have some people in your army who don't like the ethnicity of the guy you just recruited, but that's their goddamn problem.  If they try to start trouble, punish them.  Same with guys who don't want women in their unit.

[Cthulhu]

One of my former landlords was ex-MP and apparently once served with a woman who got a silver star in Iraq.  Her convoy got ambushed, she wound up clearing trenches with her team using grenades, plus she killed three insurgents with her rifle.  Maybe that's only average as far as badasses are concerned, but I know if I was in the military I'd be glad to have someone like her around.  I seriously don't see any reason to keep women out...any reason at all.

It's EXACTLY like keeping people out based on race.  For example, different races have different average heights--That's an easy, obvious thing that's hard to deny and has no political correctness issues involved so don't even start.  If you require a minimum height to get into the Army, why keep out someone from an ethnicity that's half a foot shorter on average, but who personally happens to be six foot six?  You might get fewer recruits from that ethnicity that qualify, but there's zero reason to keep out the ones who do.  Same with women.  You might have some people in your army who don't like the ethnicity of the guy you just recruited, but that's their goddamn problem.  If they try to start trouble, punish them.  Same with guys who don't want women in their unit.

Pretty much.  Women may be weaker than men on average, but that doesn't mean none of them can handle combat, and if they can handle it I haven't seen any reasons not to let them in that don't amount to coddling.

EDIT:  Aside from the problem of sexual assault by other people in the military, but that's something that shouldn't be solved by keeping them out (Plus it's not like the risk of being sexually harassed or assaulted is unique to the army)

[nenjin]

Let's not forget the IDF either. 60 years of full conscription, and Israel hasn't collapsed under the weight of military-grade doilies and emotional drama yet.

[Sowelu]

(Plus it's not like the risk of being sexually harassed or assaulted is unique to the army)

(or unique to women--and that kind of assault isn't even orientation based, before we change this into a different 'should we let them into the army' discussion)

[froodle]

The way human beings war is more dependent on intelligence and cunning than on brute force, so men being physically stronger than women (and they usually are) is a moot point. Also, historically & evolutionarily speaking, women were usually left to look out for and protect their offspring, which requires both intelligence and brute force ... so we're not without skills.

[Flare]

EDIT:  Aside from the problem of sexual assault by other people in the military, but that's something that shouldn't be solved by keeping them out (Plus it's not like the risk of being sexually harassed or assaulted is unique to the army)

From my experience, when you get a bunch of bored men together working and living in one group, they tend to become pretty gay. From an outsider's perspective those cat calls, shower shinanigens, and overall, crazy shit they do with sexual inneuendo all over the place pretty much make it seem like sexual harassment is part of the army. So long as women don't act any differently, there's no reason to think they'll be fine in the same environment the men are in as well.

The way human beings war is more dependent on intelligence and cunning than on brute force, so men being physically stronger than women (and they usually are) is a moot point. Also, historically & evolutionarily speaking, women were usually left to look out for and protect their offspring, which requires both intelligence and brute force ... so we're not without skills.

That's not a very good reason. You're committing the same fallacy people make when they argue that only men should be allowed in the military because they tend to be stronger.

Look at it this way, suppose there's a thing called a combat score and it's the culmination of all the abilities a person needs for combat, and the higher it is the better the person is at it.

Man #1        34

Man #2        28

Woman #1    27

Man #3        16

Woman #2    3

Man #4        2

Man #5        1

If you've only got four place to fill, you're not going to ignore Woman #1 and Woman #2 and pick the Man 3&4, it doesn't make sense from a practical point of view. Likewise, If you're not going to ignore the men on that chart when you have spaces to fill. You measure them by their merits. Some men and some women just aren't suited very well for combat while others are. It's a fallacy to associate their fighting ability with others that look like them on a statistic scale when you're dealing with them on the individual basis.

Giving people preferential treatment just because of something they can't do or didn't do is not good sense.

[Nikov]

This subject makes a lot of otherwise reasonable people seem quite cavalier about people being raped at gunpoint, and apparently if you aren't cavalier about rape you're some sort of sexist. Women in an infantry unit will be specifically targeted and abused in ways a male counterpart in the same situation will not. Women and men in an infantry unit will not share the risks equally, so until there is a need for some soldiers to suffer the worst excesses of cruelty when plenty of soldiers not so targetable are volunteering for the same combat role, simple gender equality will not be sufficient reason in the United States. Israel is not in nearly the same position, however. They are threatened with and prepared to fight a war of absolute annihilation and their policies reflect that.

@Vector; I am familiar with the BDM, which among other things operated FlaK batteries. However I wouldn't consider the Nazi party's incompetance, largely manifesting in the east as an unwillingness to lose ground and a willingness to lose countless lives in futile defense, as having much to do with the matter.

[Vector]

@Vector; I am familiar with the BDM, which among other things operated FlaK batteries. However I wouldn't consider the Nazi party's incompetance, largely manifesting in the east as an unwillingness to lose ground and a willingness to lose countless lives in futile defense, as having much to do with the matter.

Hmm, okay.  I'll have to think about this, since I'll admit that I'm starting to agree with you in some respects.

[Leafsnail]

This subject makes a lot of otherwise reasonable people seem quite cavalier about people being raped at gunpoint, and apparently if you aren't cavalier about rape you're some sort of sexist. Women in an infantry unit will be specifically targeted and abused in ways a male counterpart in the same situation will not. Women and men in an infantry unit will not share the risks equally, so until there is a need for some soldiers to suffer the worst excesses of cruelty when plenty of soldiers not so targetable are volunteering for the same combat role, simple gender equality will not be sufficient reason in the United States. Israel is not in nearly the same position, however. They are threatened with and prepared to fight a war of absolute annihilation and their policies reflect that.

These seem to just be assertions.  Men can suffer equally badly when captured (this includes rape).  In the article you cited, the woman in question felt that the men captured were treated worse than her.

[Sowelu]

This subject makes a lot of otherwise reasonable people seem quite cavalier about people being raped at gunpoint, and apparently if you aren't cavalier about rape you're some sort of sexist. Women in an infantry unit will be specifically targeted and abused in ways a male counterpart in the same situation will not.

You're talking about treatment by potential captors?  Because rape is worse than beheading, right?  This is wartime, and any of our enemies are likely to do some pretty crazy stuff to anyone they get their hands on.  Also, again, you're assuming that different ethnicities won't be targeted in exactly the same way which I don't think is a safe assumption.

Anyone who signs up knows the risks.  Risks like, I don't know, being shot at.  Plus aren't a large number of our casualties, even infantry ones, still from IEDs?  Large bombs aren't what you would call discriminate.

[nenjin]

Women in an infantry unit will be specifically targeted and abused in ways a male counterpart in the same situation will not. Women and men in an infantry unit will not share the risks equally, so until there is a need for some soldiers to suffer the worst excesses of cruelty when plenty of soldiers not so targetable are volunteering for the same combat role, simple gender equality will not be sufficient reason in the United States. Israel is not in nearly the same position, however.

Being shot and killed, captured, tortured and beheaded, that's less worse than being raped?

Our whole conception of risk to females is predicated on our need to protect them, specifically. In reality, while they might face being raped by the enemy, it's the ability of other service members to deal with that, not the women themselves, that prevents us from allowing them to accept the risk.

But seriously Nikov. If a woman is willing to put herself at risk, what is your problem? Why is her willingness to sacrifice any different than a man's willingness to sacrifice? Because it makes you uncomfortable?

And saying Israel is trying to save itself from annihilation, so they don't count, is absurd. They're the best example of women in combat and why most of the objections to women serving are fallacies. But you've cut to the heart of the issue. It's a social and cultural issue with Americans about women in combat, not a logical, factual or efficiency issue. Other than what Strife said about all the bureaucracy that comes with it, which AGAIN is a direct result of our whole American conception of sexuality.

Edit: Ninja'd by Sowelu and Leaf.

[freeformschooler]

You know, I'll be honest here. I've been "fighting" for different points on the matter but I've really been fighting for the side of logic without fallacies, not any specific opinion.

My true, honest opinion: No, women shouldn't be allowed in the military. At all. Neither should men, or even machines. This should apply to all countries and societies. We should all be able to get along!

[froodle]

That's not a very good reason. You're committing the same fallacy people make when they argue that only men should be allowed in the military because they tend to be stronger.

You didn't understand what I was saying. I said that human war is not dependent on brute force and physical strength (how many troops engage in hand to hand combat these days?), so those qualities are nearly irrelevant. So therefore, women are just as qualified as men to be infantry.