Women in combat, bad/good idea?

[turinturambar]

Re: Tempra, Shryke

Not taking this issue on as a manifestation of sexism is what is missing the point. Denying people employment and service opportunities based on their sex is, by definition, sexism. How are we to talk about it otherwise?

While the reality is that women will have to prove themselves in some fashion in order to be accepted into these front-line combat positions, those of us who value equality should not cede the philosophical ground to this event: Women should not have to prove that they are of equal merits to men, no more than blacks should have to prove that they are of equal merits to whites. To justify the exclusion of women from job X, the onus should be on those who advocate the exclusion.

If the exclusion is based upon ability, then it isn't sexist. I, along with the vast majority of people in this thread, believe that any women capable of passing the physical requirements should be allowed to serve along the front lines. However, the physical requirement is a HUGE aspect of this particular job. You wouldn't hire a man to carry your baby to term, he doesn't have a uterus. Women that can pass the requirements should be allowed on the front lines, but if no women can pass the requirements, that does not make them sexist. There's a reason why women are allowed in all combat roles with respect to Navy and Air Force, such physical requirements aren't a necessity like they are amongst infantry units.

[turinturambar]

I think sometimes sexism and misogynism get muddled. They are not the same thing at all. Lets try a different tack. Heterosexual men, who make up the vast majority tend to put women on a pedestal because they are attracted to them. To a heterosexual man, a woman is beautiful. Simply put, this instantly makes her more important than a bloke (in general). For Christ sake, just look at films, popular culture, etc. As long as men find women attractive, this view is never going to disappear. This results in 'mollycoddling', treating women as if they are somehow more delicate and important (which clearly creates a problem on the battlefield). This, is latent sexism.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Evolution passes on psychological traits as well as physical traits. For 100,000 years our modern human ancestors relied upon a system of women taking care of children, and men taking care of the women. The only real purpose in living for a primitive man was to find a mate and protect/provide for that mate. Yes, men find women attractive and that has some influence, yes society makes us feel one way and that has some influence, but those who don't think that such traits aren't passed on through evolution are only kidding themselves. Most men can't stand to see a woman in pain, a woman being tortured would drive them out of their mind much faster and and have a much more adverse affect than seeing a similar thing happen to a man. Most guys can't really explain why they feel this way...it's kind of an innate feeling for some. Not everybody who feels that way is a chauvinist pig or a sexist a$$hole.

[Lord O' Bones]

So are you admitting that the problem with women in combat is not women, but you?

Excepting the the physical standards line of thinking that's basically what it boils down to, yes. Much like that is all it boils down to regarding gays.

They're $19 for three...

Sheesh. The Military-Industrial-Complex needs to make it's cut. $19 won't even cover their sports cars.

Exactly.

There's a reason why women are allowed in all combat roles with respect to Navy and Air Force, such physical requirements aren't a necessity like they are amongst infantry units.

"Excepting spec-ops and Marine-attached Navy Corpsmen" I'm sure he merely forgot to add. /pre-emptive pedantry

[TerraPrime]

Re: turinturambar

If the exclusion is based upon ability, then it isn't sexist.

Perhaps you didn't have a chance to really read the posts yet? The argument is that some of the reasons given by some users here to exclude women from these roles are sexist. Those who support women's full participation and integration into armed services have all stated that physical requirements for the jobs should be maintained and not waived simply because we want to let women into those jobs. So, you'd do well to abandon that strawman now, before your argument go too deeply into irrelevance.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Evolution passes on psychological traits as well as physical traits. For 100,000 years our modern human ancestors relied upon a system of women taking care of children, and men taking care of the women. The only real purpose in living for a primitive man was to find a mate and protect/provide for that mate. Yes, men find women attractive and that has some influence, yes society makes us feel one way and that has some influence, but those who don't think that such traits aren't passed on through evolution are only kidding themselves.

You are confusing me by talking about evolution like you have a firm grasp about what it is. Clearly, you don't, since you are mixing customs, which is a social construct, with heredity, which is a biological event. Customs change and evolve according to human interactions. Biological traits follow rules in genetics, which are governed by chemistry and chance. To further enunciate the difference between customs and biology: men producing more testosterone than women do is a biological event, whereas, the aggression derived from high level of testosterone being valued more highly in men than in women is a social phenomenon. A social phenomenon that is kept up and maintained over thousands of years does not make that into a biological trait.

Most men can't stand to see a woman in pain, a woman being tortured would drive them out of their mind much faster and and have a much more adverse affect than seeing a similar thing happen to a man. Most guys can't really explain why they feel this way...it's kind of an innate feeling for some. Not everybody who feels that way is a chauvinist pig or a sexist a$$hole.

I wouldn't use epithets like pig or asshole, but men who value the life of women more because they cannot stand to see women suffer are, by definition, sexist and chauvanistic. I don't know why you'd want to spend your energy arguing against definition. Look to Stego. He feels the way you describe, but he clearly understands that it's a sexist point of view.

Further, are you really going to deny women who can qualify for these jobs the opportunity for these jobs because their employment will cause psychological discomfort in most men? Think carefully before you commit to this argument, especially on the ramification of accepting the validity of this argument. What other sensibilities of men are we to coddle? Similarly, can we then ban men from being gynocologists because most women feel uncomfortable having a male doctor poke around their vagina? How about racism? It's been the habits of humans for thousands of years (in your terminology, it's an evolutionary trait) to treat people of different races differently. That's something we should revive? Really, the insanity of your argument is rather obvious, not to mention transparent.

[litechick]

To reinforce my earlier point and with regards to peeing, I think there is a simple solution.

Women simply need a longer zipper than men. Given the ability to split their pants (so to speak) and a wide stance, a woman can pee while standing. It's just that none of our clothes are designed to make that an option (unlike men.)

[Lord O' Bones]

To reinforce my earlier point and with regards to peeing, I think there is a simple solution.

Women simply need a longer zipper than men. Given the ability to split their pants (so to speak) and a wide stance, a woman can pee while standing.

Standing is still stopping. Now march soldier!

It's just that none of our clothes are designed to make that an option (unlike men.)

I'm assuming you're talking specifically about 'combat fatigue trousers,' but if you're not, I've seen some clothing engineers come up some very innovative designs that would work.

[turinturambar]

Am I the only one here whose desire for Datepalm has skyrocketed? I mean, not to say that there wasn't a lot of love there before, but we're well into the unhealthy level of desire now... ;)

I'm amused that people actually talk about whether you'd be able to find very many women who are fit for spec ops forces training. As if there are lots of men who are fit for that kind of training. Like Marine Force Recon takes just anyone as long as they have an XY chromosome set? I'll be sure to submit my application after taking my afternoon nap before I have my pre-dinner cocktail. Of course there are a very limited number of women who would qualify. But there are a small number of men as well. We're already dealing with the tail end of a distribution, people.

Hell, I know someone who studies this kind of stuff. Well, that's what she's going to be studying, eventually. I'll ask her about women in combat positions to see what the opinion among DOD type people is these days, since she works with them a lot. Her area of research interest is elite performance in terms of kinesthetics. I suspect most of the people in spec ops feel the same way about stuff as Stego do, though. That's just my guess.

Actually, it has to do with more than that. Most men can qualify with training. Men have a much higher physical ceiling. A good buddy of mine went off to basic training fat and out of shape, he came back a few months later ripped like a mofo...just the amount of muscle he put on his body in a short period of time was shocking to me, but that's what he had been training for. Most women simply cannot do this, even with intense training. A lot of men, if their goal is to go special forces, can eventually reach that physical requirement. I think you'll find that the # of women who can reach such physical levels is very very low. I know there was a woman a while back that did get accepted into the US special forces, though she never made it through training.

[turinturambar]

Oh really? Again I ask you which ones. Provide them please.

Oh, I have read several books thank you very much, what I wanted was an answer from you specifying which ones. So please specify the differences and their impact on work life. You claimed there were some, hence the onus is on you to tell me which they are, since to me and a majority of women who function in the work place every day, you are frankly spouting a load of bollocks about "hormones" making us less fit for certain jobs.

And you already have "waded into that swamp". You brought hormones up, I don't think anyone else here did.

As I already stated, nobody has claimed women have penises or men vaginas, so this is a moot point.

I could perhaps answer for him. Over the years, I've had several jobs that had lifting requirements. I worked in a door factory which involved lifting 120 lb doors over my head and loading them onto crates. I know a few women that could do the lift a couple of times, but I've never met a woman who could do it for 9 hours 5 days a week.

I worked for a while in a welding factory where I had to regularly lift gates and other heavy metal objects. We had one woman in the shop, pretty sturdily built for a woman as well, but there were few things she could do in the shop.

I worked HVAC/Plumbing for a while where I had to lift S-Pumps and carry other very heavy loads across fair distances and up ladders. Don't get me started on the salt crates, that was enough to even make my back sore.

I worked a road crew one summer, where I dug for the greater part of the summer. There were women on the crew, but they were mostly sign holders. There was a woman digger, but it was not as easy of a task for her and she did not do it every day.

There are literally thousands of occupations out there which have a heavy emphasis on physical strength. Some require constant repetitive lifting, some require very little lifting, but massive lifting when it was required. When I worked for the hospital, I actually had to lift 140 lbs for them before they'd hire me. It's not that I would have to make such lifts often, but when those situations come up, if the lift cannot be made it causes a problem for everybody.

Of course, I had a lot of jobs like this because I'm a big guy and such work keeps me in shape and pays profoundly better than flipping burgers and/or other non-skill jobs.

[TrueMetis]

Seriously Women can and do work in infantry roles, the ones who can't aren't accepted just like guys, debating it is pointless the Canadian military has proved this.

[Relic]

I'm assuming you're talking specifically about 'combat fatigue trousers,' but if you're not, I've seen some clothing engineers come up some very innovative designs that would work.

:lol:

that was pretty funny.

and by the way, might i add, that was one of man's best creations.

[turinturambar]

Re: turinturambar

Perhaps you didn't have a chance to really read the posts yet? The argument is that some of the reasons given by some users here to exclude women from these roles are sexist. Those who support women's full participation and integration into armed services have all stated that physical requirements for the jobs should be maintained and not waived simply because we want to let women into those jobs. So, you'd do well to abandon that strawman now, before your argument go too deeply into irrelevance.

And you were replying to somebody that wasn't suggesting that women should be excluded. Perhaps you didn't read Tempra's post.

You are confusing me by talking about evolution like you have a firm grasp about what it is. Clearly, you don't, since you are mixing customs, which is a social construct, with heredity, which is a biological event. Customs change and evolve according to human interactions. Biological traits follow rules in genetics, which are governed by chemistry and chance. To further enunciate the difference between customs and biology: men producing more testosterone than women do is a biological event, whereas, the aggression derived from high level of testosterone being valued more highly in men than in women is a social phenomenon. A social phenomenon that is kept up and maintained over thousands of years does not make that into a biological trait.

Traits, characteristics, personality, other such psychological traits ARE transferred genetically. Certain behaviors are selected for survival and strengthened over time to where it becomes the very makeup of an animal. You can learn this in just about any entry level anthropology/biology book.

I wouldn't use epithets like pig or asshole, but men who value the life of women more because they cannot stand to see women suffer are, by definition, sexist and chauvanistic. I don't know why you'd want to spend your energy arguing against definition. Look to Stego. He feels the way you describe, but he clearly understands that it's a sexist point of view.

It's not that they value the life of men more. It's just an innate trait to protect. This does not go along with the definition of "chauvanistic" or "sexist" at all.

Further, are you really going to deny women who can qualify for these jobs the opportunity for these jobs because their employment will cause psychological discomfort in most men? Think carefully before you commit to this argument, especially on the ramification of accepting the validity of this argument. What other sensibilities of men are we to coddle? Similarly, can we then ban men from being gynocologists because most women feel uncomfortable having a male doctor poke around their vagina? How about racism? It's been the habits of humans for thousands of years (in your terminology, it's an evolutionary trait) to treat people of different races differently. That's something we should revive? Really, the insanity of your argument is rather obvious, not to mention transparent.

Hell no, I was just arguing the point. If a man can't get over his emotions on the battlefield, he shouldn't be on the front lines either. Nobody should be denied anything if they meet the requirements(as long as those requirements don't include "must have penis" or "must have vagina" along with other demographic attributes).

And to touch on your "racism" remark. No, it hasn't been the habit of humans for thousands of years to treat people of different races differently. Races evolved over time and for the most part evolved in isolated areas with little interracial mingling, due to geographical hindrance. True interracial mingling has only been very recent in relative terms, which is not long enough to pass any significant character and/or personality traits. I will say, however, that humans do have an instinctual distrust of foreigners, as the species lived in small groups for the majority of history and those who were overly trustful of outside tribes often found themselves dead. Why do you think you're much more likely to trust a friend than a stranger? That's been incoded into you as a human, it goes beyond anything mother or father told you.

[Ocean of Notions]

And to touch on your "racism" remark. No, it hasn't been the habit of humans for thousands of years to treat people of different races differently. Races evolved over time and for the most part evolved in isolated areas with little interracial mingling, due to geographical hindrance. True interracial mingling has only been very recent in relative terms, which is not long enough to pass any significant character and/or personality traits. I will say, however, that humans do have an instinctual distrust of foreigners, as the species lived in small groups for the majority of history and those who were overly trustful of outside tribes often found themselves dead. Why do you think you're much more likely to trust a friend than a stranger? That's been incoded into you as a human, it goes beyond anything mother or father told you.

....uh.... what?

[King Nobody]

I wouldn't use epithets like pig or asshole, but men who value the life of women more because they cannot stand to see women suffer are, by definition, sexist and chauvanistic. I don't know why you'd want to spend your energy arguing against definition. Look to Stego. He feels the way you describe, but he clearly understands that it's a sexist point of view.

Sexist yes, Chauvinist, no. You clearly think this a negative judging by your posts, which seems to be what he is arguing about. He didn't say you used those epithets, but you might as well have by the way you've been posting.

And IMO, if women really want this equality, if another draft is called they should be eligible.

[Relic]

Why do you think you're much more likely to trust a friend than a stranger? That's been incoded into you as a human, it goes beyond anything mother or father told you.

[litechick]

I'm assuming you're talking specifically about 'combat fatigue trousers,' but if you're not, I've seen some clothing engineers come up some very innovative designs that would work.

I am unfamiliar with that style of garment. :|

[Galactus]

How do you pee on the move without soiling yourself anyway? I'd figure you'd have to walk backwards somehow...

[Ran]

A good, hearty wind abaft the beam should work, provided you're not tacking into it. YARRR!

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Dammit, Ran, you had me all excited, thinking it was talk like a pirate day. :thumbsdown:

[mormont]

Traits, characteristics, personality, other such psychological traits ARE transferred genetically. Certain behaviors are selected for survival and strengthened over time to where it becomes the very makeup of an animal. You can learn this in just about any entry level anthropology/biology book.

Really?

Could you direct us to these entry level anthropology books that tell us that human behaviour is genetically determined, and we can't do anything about it?

Tendencies towards some behaviours have been found to be influenced by genetic factors, but that's a good long way away from what you're claiming. Human behaviours are very complex, and are usually the visible result of many different simultaneous neural processes. The structures in which these processes occur are formed partly by heredity, but mostly by the environment (including culture) in the early years of life. The outcomes of these processes are a complex blend of several different hereditary factors and many more environmental ones interacting.

To try to claim, based on current knowledge, that a tendency for men to become more distressed at women being hurt is 'innate', bred in by evolution rather than society: well, that does pretty conclusively show you don't really understand evolution, I'm afraid, or at least the current state of research in evolutionary psychology. (I'd also note that you haven't even established that such a phenomenon actually exists.)

Finally, even if you were right- which you're not - we are able to overcome many innate behavioural tendencies, anyway. 'It's innate' is not a get-out clause. In fact, it has a very sensitive history in debates about the behaviour of men towards women.

[MinDonner]

Christ. Aided by days of internet fail, I managed to stay out of this thread all week, but the stupid is sucking me in, WAY against my better judgment.

The logistics argument I will leave to those better informed; I'm mainly here to call out all this talk of "average", which is still being brought up despite several earlier smackdowns. Question: Why the suffering fuck does it matter what the average woman can or can't do, as compared to the average man? We are, emphatically, NOT TALKING ABOUT average women, we are talking about qualified ones, ie. ones that meet the fucking requirements. This average shit is just a smokescreen and totally irrelevant; can we stop dragging it back into the argument please?