Print

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

[Nikov]

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.

"Can suffer" does not equal "just as likely to suffer." Furthermore you are focusing on rape rather than the other option, being selectively targeted because of gender. Sowelu, the largest casualty producer of any modern war has been "large bombs". That doesn't stop armies from issuing smoke grenades; entirely useless against howitzers or aircraft a thousand meters away, but a potential lifesaver if you need to maneuver under small arms fire. Likewise there is no reason to ignore a heightened risk from snipers "discriminating against" women in the infantry simply because it is less likely to kill them than a mine.

Personal attacks aside, Nenjin, Israel does face a war of annihilation. It seems hardly absurd to point out a nation in such a position would have reason to train and mobilize all possible combat power, but as the US does not face such wars of annihilation, we can afford to not mobilize combat power which would be targeted for specific excesses and cruelties.

[Leafsnail]

"Can suffer" does not equal "just as likely to suffer." Furthermore you are focusing on rape rather than the other option, being selectively targeted because of gender. Sowelu, the largest casualty producer of any modern war has been "large bombs". That doesn't stop armies from issuing smoke grenades; entirely useless against howitzers or aircraft a thousand meters away, but a potential lifesaver if you need to maneuver under small arms fire. Likewise there is no reason to ignore a heightened risk from snipers "discriminating against" women in the infantry simply because it is less likely to kill them than a mine.

So, any evidence to suggest that women are more likely to suffer in capitivity, then?  Or indeed that women are targeted more than men by snipers?

[Sowelu]

"Can suffer" does not equal "just as likely to suffer." Furthermore you are focusing on rape rather than the other option, being selectively targeted because of gender.

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.

Don't move the goalposts dude, we were just addressing one of the points you made a big deal out of.

And do you have any sources claiming that in the Israeli army, women are selectively targeted over men?  That would actually be an interesting read.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Personal attacks aside, Nenjin, Israel does face a war of annihilation.

I don't think Israel is in very much danger of annihilation. Israel already fought Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, and the PLO at the same time and I believe we all remember how that turned out.

[Willfor]

Spoiler: snip (click to show/hide)

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!

My post has no bearing on the current discussion, but that image macro inspired me to make a macro of my own:

Spoiler: equal snip (click to show/hide)

[Taricus]

Personal attacks aside, Nenjin, Israel does face a war of annihilation.

I don't think Israel is in very much danger of annihilation. Israel already fought Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, and the PLO at the same time and I believe we all remember how that turned out.

Back on the rails you.

[nenjin]

Personal attacks aside

If asking you to justify your beliefs, or at least answer a question about them, is a PA, we're already far down the rabbit hole. Does the idea of it make you uncomfortable, Nikov? Could it be you can't see or think your way past your gut feeling, to actually consider how a woman who wants to serve feels? No guy should be comfortable considering this stuff, but our comfort level a) isn't what's important ethically and b) is what's interfering rationally.

Again, if every female checked on their enlistment papers "You will be specifically targeted by the enemy in the field and may be subjected to sexual assault and mutilation. Do you understand?" before they came on, what then? Would you tell a man you're too worried about what might happen to them to let them serve? No, of course you wouldn't. You could find 100 other reasons they couldn't serve, but you wouldn't deny them just because the idea of them suffering makes you squeamish. That'd be insulting that recruit's commitment. Is it ok to treat a woman's commitment that way?

It seems hardly absurd to point out a nation in such a position would have reason to train and mobilize all possible combat power, but as the US does not face such wars of annihilation, we can afford to not mobilize combat power which would be targeted for specific excesses and cruelties.

Ironic how quickly we go from being under threat from every quarter, just like Israel, needing to spend billions and adapt into "modern war fighters", to being so comfortable we get to pick and choose which military cleaves best to tradition. For all the threat Israel faces, they still have normal lives. They're both integrated and functional.

On the flip side too, we can "afford" to allow women the full control of their abilities and their futures because we're a democracy. Nothing would make me prouder than watching American men and women serve side-by-side as equals.

Or as Strife put it "Starship Troopers" levels of forgetting that men have one set of genitals and women have another when it matters.

[Nikov]

Personal attacks aside, Nenjin, Israel does face a war of annihilation.

I don't think Israel is in very much danger of annihilation. Israel already fought Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, and the PLO at the same time and I believe we all remember how that turned out.

That's like saying Israel doesn't need a really big fire department, because last time a huge fire broke out, the really big fire department managed to put it out.

[Flare]

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.

I don't recall ever saying anything about rape specifically. I personally think it's likely a good portion of the men in the army are raped, yet never come forward about it given the extremely macho environment they have to deal with. I also think it's possible that given the wide range of physical and combat abilities, that a woman will be able to rape a man if she wanted too.

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.

Indeed, I don't think they would, but I don't think it would be because of their sex that caused it. A meek person, no matter the sex is just as vulnerable regardless of sex.

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.

A good deal of soldiers don't give a rats ass about policy, I think this is the same in the Israeli armed forces as well unless sourced otherwise.

[ed boy]

One issue that I haven't seen come up is the matter of public support. The military looks bad enough when a male soldier is killed; I imagine that a female soldier being killed will have a much worse effect.

[Leafsnail]

One issue that I haven't seen come up is the matter of public support. The military looks bad enough when a male soldier is killed; I imagine that a female soldier being killed will have a much worse effect.

I don't see why there should be any difference.  I'm not sure about US casualties, but I don't think there's been much difference when UK casualties have been female.  They just get added to the list.

[Flare]

One issue that I haven't seen come up is the matter of public support. The military looks bad enough when a male soldier is killed; I imagine that a female soldier being killed will have a much worse effect.

Isn't that a little bit like asking people to take into consideration of how a 1910s American public would have felt if they read African Americans dying in the first world war? I concede that this may translate into votes, but I don't think this touches on the question of whether we ought or ought not let certain people serve in the military (insofar as it is not a question about political practicality).

I think the question ultimately resides on which option makes the most good. I think we will agree that barring people from serving in the military because some people don't like the idea of arming these people is a not a good thing. We think that isn't a justifiable thing both for the people who think that that coloured peole should be able to serve as well as the question in terms of equality and morality. So why would we make an exception for women?

[nenjin]

I think it does. It's symptomatic of the issue. Americans have some very deeply seated beliefs about gender and gender roles. The impact of seeing dead female soldiers is a very real one, whether we agree it's "valid" or not. I personally think Americans need to rewire their ideas about gender roles, because times change.

I'm of the mind soldiers being blown apart, male or female, it makes no difference at that point. They served, they're dead.

[Sowelu]

If a war is important enough for a man to die for, it's important enough for a woman to die for, and I believe the public recognizes that.

[hamburgerfan]

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.

Hand to hand combat is not the only situation where physical strength is important to a soldier. What about lifting your 200 lb wounded buddy and carrying them to safety? What about carrying very heavy equipment over rough terrain? Read the articles I posted a couple pages back.