Women in Combat

[Stu Pidasso]

I don't think there is anything morally wrong with having women preform combat duty, but I think our society should not allow women in combat for the following reasons

1)There are enough men available to meet current defense needs.
2)Biologically speaking, females are more valuable than males.(i'm just being honest, men are pretty worthless which is why we make such good infantry)
3)POWS are often abused sexually. While Male POWS cannot get pregnant the Female POWs can. Any Childern born to female POWS would become innocent victims who never had a voice in weather they wanted to be in the conflict or not.

Your thoughts?

Stu

[jokerswild]

.

[elwoodblues]

I don't think there is anything morally wrong with having women police officers, but I think our society should not allow women police officers for the following reasons:

1) There are enough men available to meet current policing needs
2) Biologically speaking, females are more valuable than males
3) Criminals are often rapists who might sexually assault and impregnate the female officers. While male sexual assault police officers cannot get pregnant the females can. Any children born to femal sexually assaulted police officers would become innocent victims who never had a voice in weather they wanted to be in the conflict or not.


-----------------

I don't think there is anything morally wrong with having women preform as prison guards, but I think our society should not allow women prison guards for the following reasons.....

[MMMMMM]

Elwood,

Do you actually...actually...think that women being in police or guard capacity is comparable to women being on the front lines in combat?

Police and prison guards aren't fighting days on end, sometimes without rest. Do you really think women can be as effective in grunt combat as men, on average? No way.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think there is anything morally wrong with having women preform combat duty, but I think our society should not allow women in combat for the following reasons

1)There are enough men available to meet current defense needs.
2)Biologically speaking, females are more valuable than males.(i'm just being honest, men are pretty worthless which is why we make such good infantry)
3)POWS are often abused sexually. While Male POWS cannot get pregnant the Female POWs can. Any Childern born to female POWS would become innocent victims who never had a voice in weather they wanted to be in the conflict or not.

Your thoughts?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that fair to the men in the service? They get the same pay and benefits, but don't have to put their lives on the line.

Get a new cause.

[elwoodblues]

The 3 reasons that he listed for women not to be on the front lines are silly. There might very well be good reasons to disallow it, but these aren't compelling to me in the least.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Elwood,

Do you actually...actually...think that women being in police or guard capacity is comparable to women being on the front lines in combat?

Police and prison guards aren't fighting days on end, sometimes without rest. Do you really think women can be as effective in grunt combat as men, on average? No way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then they shouldn't be allowed in the service.

[vulturesrow]

One simple, if not the most politically correct one, is that the average woman is physiologically inferior to the average man as far as strength and endurance go. Does that mean their are some women who could hack it? Of course. But you cant completely reshape the infrastructure and organization of numerous frontline combat units in order to accomdate a few exceptions to the rule.

[MMMMMM]

So next time you make an argument I might agree with, but not for the reasons you cite, I will only attempt to refute those reasons while never letting on that I might actually agree with your underlying argument.

Beautiful use of everyone's time including yours.

[MMMMMM]

"Then they shouldn't be allowed in the service."

Why not? There are plenty of non-combat roles available in the services.

[MMMMMM]

"How is that fair to the men in the service? They get the same pay and benefits, but don't have to put their lives on the line."

So maybe hazardous duty should draw bonus pay?


"Get a new cause."

Have another beer.

[elwoodblues]

Why do you have to reshape the infrastructure? Why not have physical standards and those that can make it are in, those that can't are out?

[ThaSaltCracka]

How about this one:
Women are not as physically strong as men, nor do they have the endurance and stamina to carry around over 100 lbs of gear all day, and still have the energy and strength to engage the enemy.

Not to mention that women are just pussies anyways.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I will only attempt to refute those reasons while never letting on that I might actually agree with your underlying argument

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that I agreed with the premise. I said that there might be good reasons to agree with the premise, but not those listed. Still haven't seen the good reasons.

I suspect that the original poster didn't list his real reasons/beliefs for not supporting women in combat. For most people, I suspect the reasons for not wanting women in combat are based on two beliefs:

1) Men are physically stronger than women

2) Women would be a distraction and/or would need special protection

3) Society just isn't ready for women on the front lines

With regard to physical strength, I would contend that if that is the concern, then it would make more sense to have the benchmark be a strength one, not a gender one.

With regard to the protection issue, that might very well be a concern. I don't see where it has to be, but it might. I would think that solid training could change that.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Women are not as physically strong as men, nor do they have the endurance and stamina to carry around over 100 lbs of gear all day

[/ QUOTE ]

Then the benchmark should be those physical skills, not gender. Some women do have that strength and endurance. They should not be excluded because many, if not most, do not have the strength and endurance.

[BeerMoney]

So maybe hazardous duty should draw bonus pay?

Or maybe the women should just put out.

Have another beer.

You buyin'?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Then the benchmark should be those physical skills, not gender. Some women do have that strength and endurance. They should not be excluded because many, if not most, do not have the strength and endurance.

[/ QUOTE ] You are absurd. Have you ever seen women run? or jump? or throw?

and what is with this constant obsession to make everything equal and fair? So what your saying is that just because there might be a small fraction of women who could perform athletically (on average) with most men, that the entire system should be changed? And this is assuming that a high percentage of these super athletic women are actually in the military, which they aren't.

C'mon, do all of us a favor, pull the tampon out of your ass and be realistic.

[elwoodblues]

It is your loss if you wouldn't accept the truly athletic women who are more athletic than the vast majority of men merely because they have a vagina. If they can perform the same tasks that are required by the job, why exclude them?

The entire system should be changed if it's sole justification is because "most" women can't do it. If most women can't do it, don't accept most women. Only accept the women that can do it.

Let me put it in a different way --- assume that most men can beat most women at tennis. You have a pool of 100 people - 50 men and 50 women. On the whole, the men outperform the women, however 2 of the women are the Williams sisters. Against 50 random men, I would pick either of the Williams sisters any day of the week. You would seem to pick the men because on the whole, men outperform women.

[andyfox]

"Police and prison guards aren't fighting days on end, sometimes without rest."

You obviously don't live in L.A. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Actually, my son is LAPD and he works 12 hour shifts; lately it's been 6:30 PM through the night to 6:30 AM, and with paperwork it's been more like 5:30 pm to 7:30 AM. Then he often has to appear in court at 9:00 AM.

[jcx]

I do not support women in combat because I believe women are something to be cherished. I would not see my wife, my daughter, my sisters exposed to such horrors. However, there are quite pragmatic reasons to keep women away from the battlefield as well.

The physical limitations and potential for abuse in capture have already been mentioned. That in itself would be enough for many people. Another big reason why women do not belong in combat situations is the psychological effect they have on the men around them. Men have a natural instinct to protect and nurture women. Situations arise on the battlefield where individual men may be sacrificed to ensure success of the mission. Your buddy may be pinned down somewhere and you could possibly save him if you acted immediately, however your orders are to take out a machine gun nest to ensure the rest of your squad doesn't get turned into hamburger. There is time to A. Save your buddy, B. Take out the machine gun nest but not both. Now replace your buddy with a 115lb woman who is crying and screaming out for your help. Natural instinct takes over, and you rush to her aid. You manage to save her, but your entire squad gets butchered by the intact machine gun nest.

This is just one example off the top of my head, I could think of many situations where inserting women into combat could jeopardize the mission. Another item not being considered: Men have been able to focus on the battlefield in past wars because they believed they were fighting to ensure the safety of their families and loved ones back home. How will it affect their ability to stay focused in combat when they are worried about their wives or girlfriends also on the front?

Women in combat would be a complete disaster. God willing it will never happen to the US military.

[ThaSaltCracka]

good post.

although now we will have to be subjected to more "what if's" from Elwoodblues.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
now we will have to be subjected to more "what if's" from Elwoodblues

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you actually read what I posted? What if you actually responded to it?

I personally think it is a legitimate question to ask if there are otherwise qualified women (based on the physical abilities) should they still be excluded from combat service because they are women. If so, why?

There are a lot of instances where we don't accept the heckler's veto type response. For example, I wouldn't accept someone to say: I'm not racist, but I'm not going to hire a black person as a salesperson because my customers are racist. It very well might be true, it very well might have a negative affect on sales, but I don't accept it as a legitimate reason to not hire a black person.

While Jcx's position makes sense, I don't accept a lot of it. Men can be trained to not be overly protective of their female colleagues.

[ThaSaltCracka]

if your gonna whine about it....


[ QUOTE ]
It is your loss if you wouldn't accept the truly athletic women who are more athletic than the vast majority of men merely because they have a vagina.

[/ QUOTE ] your a little confused. A truely athletic women is comparable to an average athletic man, especially in regards to strength and stamina, key attributes for combat soldiers. Most combat soildiers are in excellent physical shape and at a level that would be very difficult for any women to attain.

[ QUOTE ]
Against 50 random men, I would pick either of the Williams sisters any day of the week. You would seem to pick the men because on the whole, men outperform women.

[/ QUOTE ] precisely. You can't determine who is going to be where in combat. I would rather have someone who will "win" a majority everywhere. War is about numbers and statistics, you can't get caught up in this nonsense of "An Army of One", its all about your team. Lets put it this way. Take the best basketball player from the WNBA. Put her on any NBA team and tell me what kind of player she would be? My guess, she probably won't even play. There are enourmous differences in regards to every sport played by both men and women. The mens games are all faster, require more strength, stamina, and agility.

That right there is why women couldn't cut it in combat. Would you want the best center in the WNBA linning up against any of the centers in the NBA? No, she would get destroyed. Would you want to line up any athletic women against a foreign soldier who was just as athletic(by comparison)? No, because she would be outmatched.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
While Jcx's position makes sense, I don't accept a lot of it. Men can be trained to not be overly protective of their female colleagues.

[/ QUOTE ] Can women be trained to not have breast and a vagina?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
That right there is why women couldn't cut it in combat. Would you want the best center in the WNBA linning up against any of the centers in the NBA? No, she would get destroyed. Would you want to line up any athletic women against a foreign soldier who was just as athletic(by comparison)? No, because she would be outmatched.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but I wouldn't disqualify her because of her vagina. You would. I would disqualify her if she couldn't meet the rigors of the job.

[ QUOTE ]
Take the best basketball player from the WNBA. Put her on any NBA team and tell me what kind of player she would be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I might be incorrect in my thinking, but I don't think the military is the equivalent of the NBA (I've seen Stripes...) You might be right that the military only has the very best athletes; I doubt it. To be sure they have many of the very best. They also have many people of well above average athletic ability. My point is simply this...if a woman can meet the physical and mental rigors I would not exclude her.

[ QUOTE ]
You can't determine who is going to be where in combat

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you can. You can have basic training and have the people who "cut it" go on to the more physically demanding jobs. Isn't that what they do now?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
No, but I wouldn't disqualify her because of her vagina. You would.

[/ QUOTE ] no, I wouldn't immediately disqualify her because she has a vagina, but I would disqualify her because I know she would have a hard time keeping up with the men that would be in the same posistion as her.

[ QUOTE ]
I might be incorrect in my thinking, but I don't think the military is the equivalent of the NBA

[/ QUOTE ] you are incorrect in your thinking and you missed the point entirely. The women in the WNBA are all in great shape physically, however they are no match for their male counterparts in the NBA, especially physically. That was my point, regardless of how good of shape a women is in, she can't possible be anywhere near to a man (physically) who is in good shape.

[ QUOTE ]
You might be right that the military only has the very best athletes; I doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ] All of the soliders in combat roles are in very good shape, they have to be, but your right, not all the soldiers in the military are in top shape. There are plenty of men who have support roles, but even they have to be able to run 1.5 miles in 10 minutes as well as pass many other physical tests. But then there are many female soldiers who are also no where near excellent athletic shape in the military, and in fact the physical tests for women are actually easier than the ones for the men. I might be mistaken, but I believe they have to be able to run 1.5 miles in 15 minutes, I'll ask my brother, he is in the Army.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is simply this...if a woman can meet the physical and mental rigors I would not exclude her.


[/ QUOTE ] My point is that they can't, unless you lower the standards.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
don't think there is anything morally wrong with having women police officers, but I think our society should not allow women police officers for the following reasons:

1) There are enough men available to meet current policing needs
2) Biologically speaking, females are more valuable than males
3) Criminals are often rapists who might sexually assault and impregnate the female officers. While male sexual assault police officers cannot get pregnant the females can. Any children born to femal sexually assaulted police officers would become innocent victims who never had a voice in weather they wanted to be in the conflict or not.


-----------------

I don't think there is anything morally wrong with having women preform as prison guards, but I think our society should not allow women prison guards for the following reasons.....


[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood,

When was the last time a prison guard or cop was captured by an enemy and held prisoner for up to five years? When was the last time 1000s of cops were killed in one engagement? Your comparison of women combat soldiers to cops and prisons guards is silly. Now go back and come up with a real argument.

Stu

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that they can't, unless you lower the standards.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the individual woman could, would you allow her in? I would. If they can't meet the standards, I wouldn't.

[Boris]

Your post makes no sense.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
When was the last time 1000s of cops were killed in one engagement?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with your original post? Does this make it more risky for a woman than a man?

[ QUOTE ]
When was the last time a prison guard or cop was captured by an enemy and held prisoner for up to five years

[/ QUOTE ]

This, at least, relates to your original point (somewhat.) The suggestion here is that it is worse for a woman to be held for 5 years because she could be impregnated through rape (at least that was your original point.) Being held POW is horrible for anyone. If the captors rape the POWs that is horrible for anyone. The only difference you defined in your original post was the ability of the woman to become impregnated. I suppose that the reason you bring up 5 years is because they could be impregnated five or six times. Either that, or you are changing your argument from the silly pregnancy thing to a belief that it is worse for a woman to be captured than a man.

[elwoodblues]

Do Stu's points about why women shouldn't be in combat make sense to you? What is the difference?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
If the individual woman could, would you allow her in? I would. If they can't meet the standards, I wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ] Nope, for the same reasons Jsx stated.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
The suggestion here is that it is worse for a woman to be held for 5 years because she could be impregnated through rape (at least that was your original point.) Being held POW is horrible for anyone. If the captors rape the POWs that is horrible for anyone. The only difference you defined in your original post was the ability of the woman to become impregnated

[/ QUOTE ]
Question for you. Which POW is likely to be sexually assaulted, a man or a women? If both, which one is likely to be sexually asualted more often? If still both(because I know you would probably take this absurdity this far), which one is likely to have worse physical and emotional damage?

[tolbiny]

which one is likely to have worse physical and emotional damage

This is an interesting question (because of your previous posts i am assuming you think a woman would suffer more damage)- It would be very hard to quantify the type of difficulties that a person goes through after being raped, but i personally think that it would be as hard for a male to adjust as it would a female... possibly even more so due to the stigma of that homosexuality carries in our society as well as the lack of research/support that would be available to him.

[Boris]

Well I'm assuming that you were trying to show that soldier work and police work are logically equivalent with regards to whether or not women should be allowed to serve.

The only point that applies to both is point #1.

As for point two, there is no equivalence. The assertion is that it is more costly for society to lose massive numbers of women in combat. Clearly that doesn't apply to police work as it is not nearly as dangerous.

Same for point 3. Women cops are rarely (if ever?) sexually assualted by non-police officers in the line of duty. I really don't know how often female POWs are abused by their captors but it seems plausible to me. Raping and pillaging have long beed associated with non-combat wartime activities.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I agree with you. I assume though that you see my point with the previous post. A women POW is much more likely to be sexually abused, and with more frequency.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I forgot to add this:
[ QUOTE ]
if the individual woman could, would you allow her in?

[/ QUOTE ] There is no point arguing the "if" because it just won't happen.

[Abednego]

Simply put, a civilized society does not send women to combat.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put, a civilized society does not send women to combat.

[/ QUOTE ] we can add this to the long list of reasons not to send women to combat.

[elwoodblues]

So then why are you spending the time to say how they aren't good enough. Even if they were good enough, you still think they shouldn't be allowed in.

Just as an FYI, if the topic ever comes up in a social setting, you sound like much less of a jackass if you just say what jcx said instead of rambling on and on about how much better and stronger men are then women when in the end that doesn't even matter to your decision.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
So then why are you spending the time to say how they aren't good enough. Even if they were good enough, you still think they shouldn't be allowed in.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't know, because apparently I am talking to a brick wall. You seem to constantly want to play "what if". You are constantly bringing up hypothetical situations which aren't possible.

[ QUOTE ]
Just as an FYI, if the topic ever comes up in a social setting, you sound like much less of a jackass if you just say what jcx said instead of rambling on and on about how much better and stronger men are then women when in the end that doesn't even matter to your decision.

[/ QUOTE ] Listen, I didn't say what jcx said because others had already said similar things, so therefor I didn't need to say anything. Secondly, I wouldn't ever need to get in a discussion about this because most people agree with me. You are in the stupid minority in regards to this discussion, so I am afraid you would be the one looking like a jackass. You never provided any serious argument for allowing women in combat roles, you just spouted off hypothetical situations.

[radar5]

Ss let me get this straight. You want to set back the country a few years and put women back in the kithchen? Women are weak? Women fought for these rights in the U. S. long ago. Why do women have to work so hard to prove they are capable of doing so many jobs, combat included.

I always thought I lived in a forward thinking society.....

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Ss let me get this straight. You want to set back the country a few years and put women back in the kithchen? Women are weak? Women fought for these rights in the U. S. long ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
You got it all crooked. Did I say anything about putting women "back into the kitchen"? Did I say women shouldn't play sports? Did I say women are not as smart as men?

[ QUOTE ]
Why do women have to work so hard to prove they are capable of doing so many jobs, combat included.

[/ QUOTE ] Combat is like no other job out there. To compare it to other jobs is incredibly foolish by you and insulting to those who are in the military's combat roles.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
When was the last time 1000s of cops were killed in one engagement?


[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with your original post? Does this make it more risky for a woman than a man?


[/ QUOTE ]

That women are biologically more valuable then men. As police officer, women are not likely to be killed off in substantial numbers. As soldiers, however, they very well could. Historically, soldiers have been killed by the millions. I'm pretty sure police officers have never been killed in the line of duty on such a massive scale.

I'll help you out on this one. The best counter argument is to say that historically war has never killed off enough humans that it jeopardized the viability of the human race. Therefore the claim women should not be combat soldier on that basis has no merit. That counter argument is a whole lot stronger than saying its silly as you suggest.

[ QUOTE ]
Being held POW is horrible for anyone. If the captors rape the POWs that is horrible for anyone. The only difference you defined in your original post was the ability of the woman to become impregnated. I suppose that the reason you bring up 5 years is because they could be impregnated five or six times. Either that, or you are changing your argument from the silly pregnancy thing to a belief that it is worse for a woman to be captured than a man.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I chose 5 years because that is how long John McCain was held captive and he is a well know contemporary). Suppose we went to war with North Korea in which large numbers of women were held captive for 5+ years. Many of these women would be raped. Many would get pregnant. Many would bare childern as captive POWs. Now you have needlessly brought even more innocent lives into this horror.

Eventually the war would end, but what happens to these innocent childern? What would the United States do if North Koreans refused to repatriate them with thier mothers on the grounds that they are North Korean citizen? What if the North Koreans decided it would be an effective punishment/ interrogation technique to torture the child of a female POW in presence of that childs POW mother? Can you see males captured and held as POWs is bad, but female captured and held as POWs is even worse?

Women do not need to be in combat(as there are plenty of expendable men around). Having women in combat has the potential to magnify the horror of war. Civilized societies avoid war when they can, and when they can't avoid it, they attempt to minimize the evils of it.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
suspect that the original poster didn't list his real reasons/beliefs for not supporting women in combat. For most people, I suspect the reasons for not wanting women in combat are based on two beliefs:

1) Men are physically stronger than women

2) Women would be a distraction and/or would need special protection

3) Society just isn't ready for women on the front lines

With regard to physical strength, I would contend that if that is the concern, then it would make more sense to have the benchmark be a strength one, not a gender one.

With regard to the protection issue, that might very well be a concern. I don't see where it has to be, but it might. I would think that solid training could change that.


[/ QUOTE ]


I think women can be trained to be effective killing machines.

I think equipment can be designed to be lighter to such a degree that women would be able to effectively use that equipment.

I think technology has changed the art of warfare to such a degree that physical strenghth and endurance are not as important as they used to be.

Technology is making it very possible for women to be every bit as effective as men in combat. Nevertheless I still think there are fundamental overriding factors which should preclude women from combat.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
While Jcx's position makes sense, I don't accept a lot of it. Men can be trained to not be overly protective of their female colleagues.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I was a soldier, I don't think I would hesitate much in killing an enemy soldier who was also male. However, if I came upon an enemy female soldier, I might just hesitate (especially if she was a hottie). That hesitation could get me or other members of my unit killed.

If the civilized world starts to allow women to serve in combat position in large numbers(i.e. infantry). We should probably give our male soldiers extra training on killing women without any hesitancy.

I wonder how the feminist would look at that?

Stu

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
However, if I came upon an enemy female soldier, I might just hesitate

[/ QUOTE ]

All the more reason to have women on the front lines... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BeerMoney]

What exactly does women in combat mean anyway? Does it mean fighter pilots? Does it mean foot soldier? Someone who knows please clarify this for me.

If it means fighter pilots, think about this. It costs about .5 million to train a fighter pilot.. Something astronomical. If we spend that much money to train some douchebag, and then she doesn't even have to go fly a mission, I'm not cool with that..