- Posts: 389
- Thank you received: 0
Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat
- ckm8
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
19 Jan 2011 12:35 #41
by ckm8
Replied by ckm8 on topic Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat
Much of the ability to advance in the military depends on combat time. Limiting womens ability to serve fully also limits their ability to advance in their careers. Pretending that women aren't as capable just doesn't fly anymore. Pretending that men are chivalrous and will put themselves in danger to protect women has been firmly put to rest by the actions of men themselves.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- ScienceChic
-
- Mountain Champion
-
Less
More
- Posts: 15741
- Thank you received: 320
19 Jan 2011 13:08 #42
by ScienceChic
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Replied by ScienceChic on topic Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat
That quality of life is substandard for the men to be healthy as well. We don't get any other diseases that men don't get for not maintaining clean hygiene for several weeks. Women have survived and thrived in all the same remote places on this earth that men have so that's a moot point.lionshead2010 wrote: So you can see women living harmoniously among infantrymen or artillerymen in the squalor of a foxhole for weeks at a time? Or do you put the women in the foxholes and remote FOBs and then criticize the commander who doesn't have the logisitical ability, due to operational tempo and security, to carry these women back to shower facilities on a regular basis? At the risk of offending my Air Force and Navy brothers and sisters....I would say that life on a ship, in a submarine, in an airplane or on an air base is radically different than life in a foxhole or on a remote outpost or forward operating base. I would dare to say that the quality of life is substandard for the sort of personal hygiene a woman must maintain to stay healthy.
And basing policies on how previous wars were fought is not the only or necessarily best way to train our forces and utilize our people if they won't be fought the same way now or in the future. Why keep women off the front line if foxholes are a thing of the past, are not being currently used in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are less likely to be used in future wars with the technology used in wars?The trouble I see is that many are drawing too many conclusions from the two most recent wars. The US has a history of drawing lots of conclusions from and preparing for the last war fought and subsequently being ill prepared for the next war (look up two ill fated operations Kaserine Pass (WWII) and Task Force Smith (Korea)). This approach has caused us some serious problems resulting in the loss of life and treasure. What if the next war is a high intensity confict in places like Korea, Iran or China? We need to look at the full spectrum of wars the US has fought over the past 200 years or so. Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam...those wars had many, many men living in unhygienic conditions for months at a time. Commanders had no choice but to live with their men in those wet, muddy, icy and either cold or hot hootches. As with DADT I wish the politicians would slow down and think about the impact of this stuff before forcing bad policy on an already taxed fighting force.
If future wars are fought in foxholes, then the policy can be revised. Until then, it's silly to keep them from the frontlines if we aren't currently fighting in foxholes and that's the main objection. Flexibility and adaptation are strengths - we change our fighting style depending on the terrain, offensive capabilities of our enemies, firepower/technology at our disposal, etc and should use the best personnel for whatever that style - as Computer Breath said, those serving on the frontline should be there based on ability, not height, weight, gender, religious affiliation, or skin color.You can call me a chest thumping macho man if you want....but I'm not convince folks have thought this through in their great rush to make everything "equal". If you think women rushing to the front line fox holes and the horrors of war so they can be "equal" is a good idea...then I respectfully disagree.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- lionshead2010
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 789
- Thank you received: 0
19 Jan 2011 14:15 - 19 Jan 2011 14:24 #43
by lionshead2010
Replied by lionshead2010 on topic Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat
Okay....you can go play GI Jane now. Let me know how it works out.
Last edit: 19 Jan 2011 14:24 by lionshead2010.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- lionshead2010
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 789
- Thank you received: 0
19 Jan 2011 14:45 #44
by lionshead2010
So would it be safe for me to assume that you agree that men and women entering the combat arms units (infantry, armor, artillery) should be held to the same physical fitness and weight standards? One high standard for both genders?
Replied by lionshead2010 on topic Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat
ckm8 wrote: Much of the ability to advance in the military depends on combat time. Limiting womens ability to serve fully also limits their ability to advance in their careers. Pretending that women aren't as capable just doesn't fly anymore. Pretending that men are chivalrous and will put themselves in danger to protect women has been firmly put to rest by the actions of men themselves.
So would it be safe for me to assume that you agree that men and women entering the combat arms units (infantry, armor, artillery) should be held to the same physical fitness and weight standards? One high standard for both genders?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- daisypusher
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 847
- Thank you received: 0
19 Jan 2011 15:28 #45
by daisypusher
Replied by daisypusher on topic Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat
It will be like firefighting. Women will cry discrimination about physical standards......
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/blazin_mad_firegals_cryin_discrimination_4By2ECiNj8NlzO0twbeUuL
The women who sued were allowed to take a different test. As a result, 41 females entered the department in 1982.
In 1983, the city devised still another test for women testing speed instead of strength. The next year, the judge ordered the test changed again to be less physical and increased the weight of the written exam.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/blazin_mad_firegals_cryin_discrimination_4By2ECiNj8NlzO0twbeUuL
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Nmysys
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 4563
- Thank you received: 0
19 Jan 2011 15:37 #46
by Nmysys
SC:
Do you realize how hard and long it takes to revise policy? Sorry, but there is nothing silly about warfare and your judgment based on emotions doesn't make it into a romantic fairy tale. You and CKM8 can argue all you like about how comparable women are now to men, but that is the effect of the feminization of men over the last few decades and by no means applicable to even basic training, no less combat units. You can't call time out in the midst of battle and say it isn't fair for women to be there. Once this is enforced it isn't going to be pretty.
CKM8 men naturally look out for the female of the species, whether you can ever admit it, it is true. Of course you have to look like the female of the species to get that kind of treatment.
Replied by Nmysys on topic Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat
If future wars are fought in foxholes, then the policy can be revised. Until then, it's silly to keep them from the frontlines if we aren't currently fighting in foxholes and that's the main objection.
SC:
Do you realize how hard and long it takes to revise policy? Sorry, but there is nothing silly about warfare and your judgment based on emotions doesn't make it into a romantic fairy tale. You and CKM8 can argue all you like about how comparable women are now to men, but that is the effect of the feminization of men over the last few decades and by no means applicable to even basic training, no less combat units. You can't call time out in the midst of battle and say it isn't fair for women to be there. Once this is enforced it isn't going to be pretty.
CKM8 men naturally look out for the female of the species, whether you can ever admit it, it is true. Of course you have to look like the female of the species to get that kind of treatment.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- mudguppy
-
- Tourist
-
Less
More
- Posts: 13
- Thank you received: 0
19 Jan 2011 19:34 #47
by mudguppy
(Y :bash yes, believe it or not, I am female.)
Replied by mudguppy on topic Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat
Daisypusher, your suggestion that all people are equal and sexism is a learned attitude is absolutely laughable. It's true: not all boys like to play with guns and not all girls like to play with dolls. But gender differences start in the brain. Men don't readily hear higher-pitched voices (which explains why so many male students tune out in front of female teachers) and women typically struggle with spatial reasoning concepts. Women's emotional center is located directly adjacent to the verbal center in their brain - hence the female's ability to readily express her emotions. And men? Their emotional center is way down under in the area of the hypocampus, about four light years from their verbal center up front in the brain - hence men's failure to express emotions that gets women so frustrated all the time. To suggest that sexism is a learned response is ridiculous. Saying that women are equal to men is like saying that bananas are like oranges. Sure, they're both fruit; after that, you can't make banana juice for breakfast and an orange split sundae sucks. Men and women are human. After that, we really are two very different creatures. If women want to serve, let them serve... as snipers and medics and liaisons with Afghan women - roles that take advantage of women's gender-specific skills. But to dismiss the male response to the distressed female as irrelevant and reversible programming is as stupid as it gets - and pretty damned insulting, since most of our armed services are made up of men.daisypusher wrote: If a person whats rid the world of sexism, that lesson should be taught from birth. All people are equal.
(Y :bash yes, believe it or not, I am female.)
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- daisypusher
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 847
- Thank you received: 0
19 Jan 2011 21:16 #48
by daisypusher
Replied by daisypusher on topic Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat
OK, I will play. lol :pop
I very much believe you are female after that tirade - it's that female stimulus response thing whenever the topic of sexism arises. Another term for it is penis envy. Any opportunity to put men in their place no matter reality. It's not that the opportunity to do so necessarily arises, but females seem to see red and then just fly off on something. Perhaps there is a brain structure difference that creates that inequality. Not only could I not hear you if you spoke it, but we males just cannot read female rants either. Sorry, born that way.
To summarize your statement in your own words:
What is sexism: "Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century,[1] is the belief or attitude that one sex is inherently superior to, more competent than, or more valuable than the other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism
So according to you sexism (that one sex thinks they are superior to the other) is not learned and one or both genders naturally believes they are superior to the other NICE.... That truly seems counter to your rant. Is there a gender brain difference to explain this?
Now let's look at equality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality
So much for allowing women to fight - no need according to you. Men and women are not equal.
And in case you want to argue equality versus equal:
Equal
a : capable of meeting the requirements of a situation or a task
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
Perhaps women are more verbally challenged than they think. All that sexism is getting in the way.... But this is not fair to women - I suppose this should only apply to you. :thumbsup:
:frienddrink:
I very much believe you are female after that tirade - it's that female stimulus response thing whenever the topic of sexism arises. Another term for it is penis envy. Any opportunity to put men in their place no matter reality. It's not that the opportunity to do so necessarily arises, but females seem to see red and then just fly off on something. Perhaps there is a brain structure difference that creates that inequality. Not only could I not hear you if you spoke it, but we males just cannot read female rants either. Sorry, born that way.
To summarize your statement in your own words:
mudguppy wrote:
Daisypusher, your suggestion that all people are equal and sexism is a learned attitude is absolutely laughable.daisypusher wrote: If a person whats rid the world of sexism, that lesson should be taught from birth. All people are equal.
<snip>
To suggest that sexism is a learned response is ridiculous. Saying that women are equal to men is like saying that bananas are like oranges.
<snip>
But to dismiss the male response to the distressed female as irrelevant and reversible programming is as stupid as it gets - and pretty damned insulting, since most of our armed services are made up of men.
(Y :bash yes, believe it or not, I am female.)
What is sexism: "Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century,[1] is the belief or attitude that one sex is inherently superior to, more competent than, or more valuable than the other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism
So according to you sexism (that one sex thinks they are superior to the other) is not learned and one or both genders naturally believes they are superior to the other NICE.... That truly seems counter to your rant. Is there a gender brain difference to explain this?
Now let's look at equality:
Equality may refer to:
Social concepts
* Egalitarianism, the belief that all/some people ought to be treated equally
* Equality before the law
* Equal opportunity
* Equality of outcome or equality of condition
* Gender equality
* Racial equality (disambiguation)
* Social equality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality
So much for allowing women to fight - no need according to you. Men and women are not equal.
And in case you want to argue equality versus equal:
Equal
a : capable of meeting the requirements of a situation or a task
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal
Perhaps women are more verbally challenged than they think. All that sexism is getting in the way.... But this is not fair to women - I suppose this should only apply to you. :thumbsup:
:frienddrink:
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- ComputerBreath
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1208
- Thank you received: 20
20 Jan 2011 09:10 #49
by ComputerBreath
Replied by ComputerBreath on topic Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat
Is anyone taking into account the extensive training and indoctrination someone in the military gets? So extensive, that a lot of actions become second nature.
I still reach for my hat to put it on when I go outside or sometimes if I'm wearing a winter hat I take it off when I come through a door.
I still carry my purse on my left shoulder and carry as much as I can (even if it is 4 or 5 grocery bags) in my left hand...so I can leave my right hand free to salute.
I still call people "Sir" or "Ma'am".
If someone near me, even jokingly, says they are going to commit suicide, I do not take it lightly.
I get irate when the US flag isn't flown correctly.
During a crisis, and thank God I haven't experienced a "big" one since I retired, I immediately run a checklist inside my head of what needs to be done.
I use checklists.
If a woman thinks she can handle front-line combat duty...let her try. If she can't handle it, she'll be trained in a new job or reassigned to her old one. And by handle it, I mean the teasing and ribbing and possible harrassment she will get from her male counter-parts, superiors, peers, and subordinates.
If a man wants to be a nurse or wants to open a daycare, no one tells him that his gender isn't the right one to do this kind of job.
Yes, allowing women to perform front-line combat duties and be in special forces could create problems, because these are traditionally men-oriented jobs. BUT, the majority of the men I came into contact with while active duty, were open to working with women and at least gave them a chance to prove themselves.
I still reach for my hat to put it on when I go outside or sometimes if I'm wearing a winter hat I take it off when I come through a door.
I still carry my purse on my left shoulder and carry as much as I can (even if it is 4 or 5 grocery bags) in my left hand...so I can leave my right hand free to salute.
I still call people "Sir" or "Ma'am".
If someone near me, even jokingly, says they are going to commit suicide, I do not take it lightly.
I get irate when the US flag isn't flown correctly.
During a crisis, and thank God I haven't experienced a "big" one since I retired, I immediately run a checklist inside my head of what needs to be done.
I use checklists.
If a woman thinks she can handle front-line combat duty...let her try. If she can't handle it, she'll be trained in a new job or reassigned to her old one. And by handle it, I mean the teasing and ribbing and possible harrassment she will get from her male counter-parts, superiors, peers, and subordinates.
If a man wants to be a nurse or wants to open a daycare, no one tells him that his gender isn't the right one to do this kind of job.
Yes, allowing women to perform front-line combat duties and be in special forces could create problems, because these are traditionally men-oriented jobs. BUT, the majority of the men I came into contact with while active duty, were open to working with women and at least gave them a chance to prove themselves.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- lionshead2010
-
- Mountain Legend
-
Less
More
- Posts: 789
- Thank you received: 0
20 Jan 2011 09:28 #50
by lionshead2010
Replied by lionshead2010 on topic Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat
Computer Breath: In my book, the fact that you are a woman and a veteran gives you considerable credibility on this matter. My hat is off to you for your selfless service AND your perspective on this matter.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.174 seconds
sponsors
