Women in combat

[jimmy olsen]

I'm glad Siege showed up to liven up an otherwise boring thread. 

[Zanza]

So the argument against women in combat roles is that the men are unprofessional jerks? Not convincing.

The answer should be that the military and its members must change, not that women are excluded.

[Siege]

So the argument against women in combat roles is that the men are unprofessional jerks? Not convincing.

The answer should be that the military and its members must change, not that women are excluded.

Sure. Come and join the military, deploy with a platoon with females, be the main effort, not some friggin battalion QRF back inside the wire, and then come and tell us how it went. You wanna be part of that stupid experiment? By all means, go ahead. But don't force that evil on us.

[Siege]

I'm glad Siege showed up to liven up an otherwise boring thread. 

Who the fuck are you?
Timmothy Assplay or Monkeybutt?

Can't tell you two apart.

[jimmy olsen]

I'm glad Siege showed up to liven up an otherwise boring thread. 

Who the fuck are you?
Timmothy or Monkeybutt?

Can't tell you two apart.

We both changed our names years ago. I'm Tim.

Please edit my last name out of that post.

[The Brain]

Interesting...

[Zanza]

Sure. Come and join the military, deploy with a platoon with females, be the main effort, not some friggin battalion QRF back inside the wire, and then come and tell us how it went. You wanna be part of that stupid experiment? By all means, go ahead. But don't force that evil on us.

No thanks. I am a civilian and intend to stay one.

But I reserve myself the right to have an opinion on general issues of society. And the discrimination of women in the military is such an issue.

So far, the arguments I've read suggest that the problem is not with the women, but with the men serving in the military. That's not a good enough reason for discrimination in my opinion.

I have no problem with setting standards for say strength or stamina as a criterion of fitness for a certain task even if that excludes most or all women.

[Camerus]

We as a society have (rightly) declared that men and women are equal.  Distinctions between men and women are becoming increasingly blurred in virtually all areas of life.  As long as one is physically and mentally qualified, I can't think of a single compelling logical or moral reason why the military should be an exception to this principle. 

[Ed Anger]

I feel vaguely insulted by GI Jew.


Oh, its gas.

[CountDeMoney]

Also, if the females are unprofessional and choose one of her fellow soldiers as boyfriend, jealousy eat the rest of the boys, to the point of anarchy.

It's a rank structured organization, not a fucking dating service.  Get over yourselves.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm glad Siege showed up to liven up an otherwise boring thread. 

Who the fuck are you?
Timmothy or Monkeybutt?

Can't tell you two apart.

We both changed our names years ago. I'm Tim.

Please edit my last name out of that post.

We already know your last name, Chemo.

[grumbler]

We as a society have (rightly) declared that men and women are equal.  Distinctions between men and women are becoming increasingly blurred in virtually all areas of life.  As long as one is physically and mentally qualified, I can't think of a single compelling logical or moral reason why the military should be an exception to this principle. 

Women do serve in the military.

There are two main arguments against women in combat, and both need to be addressed before one can try to use logic to justify putting women in combat units.

The first is the resistance this move will find from the men in these combat units.  As has been noted, Israel attempted to place women in combat units and gave up the policy when they saw its effects.  Simply arguing that the "men should get over it" isn't logical.

The second is the unreadiness of the public to accept female casualties the way they do male casualties.  Remember how everyone got so upset at the Iranian chick dying during the demonstrations, when dozens of men died without much comment from the western public?  Multiply that by hundreds of cases, and you can start to see how the "cost of war" will become disproportionately higher if a significant fraction of the dead are women.

Neither of these reactions is logical, but if we are to logically address the issue, we must acknowledge that the reactions exist, and would make the introduction of mixed-gender combat units risky.  Women-only combat units might be an answer, but were do you get the critical senior NCOs for such a unit?  And women-only combat units would surely be disproportionately targeted by an enemy, in order to exploit the weakness of the scheme to public pressures as women die in large numbers.

I am sure women will be in combat units at some point, but I don't see how we are going to get there from here.  Wishing away the problems will doom such efforts to failure, even if such wishing-away is accompanied by appeals to morality and logic.

[merithyn]

We as a society have (rightly) declared that men and women are equal.  Distinctions between men and women are becoming increasingly blurred in virtually all areas of life.  As long as one is physically and mentally qualified, I can't think of a single compelling logical or moral reason why the military should be an exception to this principle.

I agree completely.

For that matter, I've long thought that women should be required to register for Selective Service just like the men. It's a sexist program at its core, and completely unfair to the men forced to register.

[CountDeMoney]

Remember how everyone got so upset at the Iranian chick dying during the demonstrations, when dozens of men died without much comment from the western public?  Multiply that by hundreds of cases, and you can start to see how the "cost of war" will become disproportionately higher if a significant fraction of the dead are women.

Hell, just remember all the bullshit over Jessica Lynch.  And she was just in a fucking car accident.

[merithyn]

Women do serve in the military.

There are two main arguments against women in combat, and both need to be addressed before one can try to use logic to justify putting women in combat units.

The first is the resistance this move will find from the men in these combat units.  As has been noted, Israel attempted to place women in combat units and gave up the policy when they saw its effects.  Simply arguing that the "men should get over it" isn't logical.

The second is the unreadiness of the public to accept female casualties the way they do male casualties.  Remember how everyone got so upset at the Iranian chick dying during the demonstrations, when dozens of men died without much comment from the western public?  Multiply that by hundreds of cases, and you can start to see how the "cost of war" will become disproportionately higher if a significant fraction of the dead are women.

Neither of these reactions is logical, but if we are to logically address the issue, we must acknowledge that the reactions exist, and would make the introduction of mixed-gender combat units risky.  Women-only combat units might be an answer, but were do you get the critical senior NCOs for such a unit?  And women-only combat units would surely be disproportionately targeted by an enemy, in order to exploit the weakness of the scheme to public pressures as women die in large numbers.

I am sure women will be in combat units at some point, but I don't see how we are going to get there from here.  Wishing away the problems will doom such efforts to failure, even if such wishing-away is accompanied by appeals to morality and logic.

Valid points, all. The question isn't if it's a problem. The question is how best to fix it.