toldailytopic: GI Jane: Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the armed
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
You were raised right!
PureX
Well-known member
Yeah, but we're talking about combat, in a war. Not much room there for philosophy, moralizing, or social adaptation. The stronger and the faster are the more likely to come out alive. That's all there is. And in a way, maybe the more 'barbaric'. Things happen in combat that men are not going to want women to be any part of. They don't even want to be part of it, themselves. And women, if they have any sense, won't want any part of it, either. War happens when all those other more idealistic humanist methods of behavior have already failed. Deadly combat is the last activity on Earth that will be likely to concern itself with any form of fairness. And I think it's the last place on Earth we should be trying to foster it.
This isn't that far off. Defensive positions, and an expeditionary force (which is what the US Army is used for) are different things.
More than just that. Think of how cold an insensitive your husband can be at times. That is a good combat trait.
Back to the expeditionary forces used to run over evil, and wield the sword of justice.
Deuteronomy 20. Study up. You will also find that the draft is not a good idea.
8 “The officers shall speak further to the people, and say, ‘What man is there who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go and return to his house, lest the heart of his brethren faint[a] like his heart.’ 9 And so it shall be, when the officers have finished speaking to the people, that they shall make captains of the armies to lead the people.
Last edited:
This is a tragedy.
I'm not sure what your point is here.....a woman died while flying a plane so they shouldn't be in combat roles?
Or, since the article mentions that the crash was probably due to pilot error, are you suggesting that women aren't capable of serving in these roles so we shouldn't let women try?
MrRadish
New member
True to some extent - war is inherently inhumane, so trying to ameliorate it with basic decency is arguably of limited use - but on the other hand, you could use the same argument against the Geneva Convention. The fact is, the way in which a nation goes to war is - or at least, should be - a reflection on that country's values. And I personally believe that it paints a rather disturbing picture of our society if we believe that it's better for males to die than females.
PureX
Well-known member
Well, the Geneva Convention Protocols are ignored most of the time, anyway. And they didn't involve deliberately putting anyone in harms way. If they work, great, if they don't, we haven't increased the barbarity of war, only left it as it was.
But placing women in combat would increase the barbarity of war for no discernible positive gain. What possible gain is there in deliberately placing women in harms way along with men? It's bad enough that the men have to engage in such deadly combat.
I think out of respect for the men who are willing to risk their lives in a war, we ought to respect their desire to keep their womenfolk out of it. And to ....... with social idealism, under those extreme circumstances.
I have heard very good arguments for women being better combat pilots than men. And, yeah, he's being a doofus.
I could make a long list of how, under this or that circumstances, women would generally be better warriors than men. Better combat pilots, better with spears, higher pain threshold, etc, etc. And my answer would still be "no" here.
MrRadish
New member
Some of the time. Don't you agree that it's much better that they're in place, though?
I'm not suggesting we increase the absolute number of soldiers, though. No more people would be deliberately placed in harm's way than are being already. It's just that the people who are being placed in harm's way would include both males and females.
I don't really see how women being on the front line would particularly increase the barbarity of war. Even the risk of sexual assault, which obviously shouldn't be overlooked, is hardly unique to women - captive men are frequently subjected to such offences in wartime situations as well, in addition to other non-sexual but equally horrific forms of torture. Naturally this is all appalling and it would be far, far better if nobody had to suffer this kind of thing. It being the case that they do, however, I see no reason to believe that it happening to members of both genders is any worse than it happening to only one.
Not only does this seem to imply that all men who risk their lives are vehemently against the idea of female soldiers, I also question the wisdom of indulging people's irrational and arguably damaging desires merely because they are members of a risky profession. To use another analogy - there are a few soldiers who joined up to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan because they hate Muslims and enjoy the prospect of killing them. Does this mean that we should respect this by forbidding Muslims from joining the army and encouraging their persecution by Western armed forces?
I honestly can see where you're coming from, and I think extreme caution would need to be employed in the process of changing army policy, not to mention adjusting the social values surrounding it. However, I think that to entirely disregard social idealism simply because war is, in itself, a breach of the same also gives tacit (and, of course, entirely unintentional) approval to some of the most savage and heinous acts in human history.
PureX
Well-known member
If we put women on the battlefield, we are inviting their abuse. There is no other way to say it. The men on the other side will almost surely target the women deliberately, and will almost certainly horribly abuse them when they get hold of them to show us how much 'bader and tougher and barbaric' they are. This is the kind of thing that routinely happens in a war. Our men will then have to take special precautions to try and keep the women safe, and to deny the enemy an opportunity for such humiliation, which will further endanger their own lives. And all this extra danger and barbarism, for what? What is there to be gained by putting women in battle?
It's true that men are raped and tortured in battle. But not usually. A woman combatant, however, will almost certainly be raped and deliberately abused in the most horrible ways the enemy can think of because they'll want to use her abuse as a psychological weapon, and because this is what men do when they have been reduced to the level of frightened animals as in deadly combat. I really don't think you're understanding how ugly and deliberate these things often get. Women are special targets for the most heinous abuse men can think of, in times of war. There simply is no reason to deliberately put them in such horrible danger, unnecessarily. A man may lose his life in combat, but probably will not be raped and tortured to death. A woman will almost certainly be raped and sexually tortured to death if it's at all possible. Why invite that additional suffering? And for what?
It's true that men are raped and tortured in battle. But not usually. A woman combatant, however, will almost certainly be raped and deliberately abused in the most horrible ways the enemy can think of because they'll want to use her abuse as a psychological weapon, and because this is what men do when they have been reduced to the level of frightened animals as in deadly combat. I really don't think you're understanding how ugly and deliberate these things often get. Women are special targets for the most heinous abuse men can think of, in times of war. There simply is no reason to deliberately put them in such horrible danger, unnecessarily. A man may lose his life in combat, but probably will not be raped and tortured to death. A woman will almost certainly be raped and sexually tortured to death if it's at all possible. Why invite that additional suffering? And for what?
MrRadish
New member
Fair points, PureX. There is an argument that one of the reasons that women would be particularly targetted for abuse is society's tendency to put them on a pedestal, of course. It might be that it we didn't view them as being fragile and delicate and precious (precious because they're women, that is; all people are precious, of course) then their violation wouldn't be considered such a desirable trophy. But you do make very a valid point about it potentially inviting additional suffering.
Just to answer your question "What would we gain from allowing women to serve on the front?" - in practical terms we'd have a wider pool of potential recruits and therefore a somewhat superior army, but more importantly we'd be giving out the message that nobody in society is more expendable than anybody else, regardless of gender, and that it should always be one's capabilities which determine what one can do and not one's sex. Moreover, it would help dispel the preconception that women are inherently weak and men are inherently violent. In short, it would be an important step toward becoming a gender-blind society.
But, as I've said, the practical concerns that you describe can't be ignored and would certainly present a major obstacle to progress in this regard, which is something I tried to acknowledge in my first post in the thread.
:e4e:
Just to answer your question "What would we gain from allowing women to serve on the front?" - in practical terms we'd have a wider pool of potential recruits and therefore a somewhat superior army, but more importantly we'd be giving out the message that nobody in society is more expendable than anybody else, regardless of gender, and that it should always be one's capabilities which determine what one can do and not one's sex. Moreover, it would help dispel the preconception that women are inherently weak and men are inherently violent. In short, it would be an important step toward becoming a gender-blind society.
But, as I've said, the practical concerns that you describe can't be ignored and would certainly present a major obstacle to progress in this regard, which is something I tried to acknowledge in my first post in the thread.
:e4e:
PureX
Well-known member
But some of us ARE more expendable.
I am not married, for example, and have no children. So in an extreme situation, where life sacrifices have to be expected, I am more 'expendable' than the fathers and husbands among us would be. That doesn't mean I'm any less valued, appreciated, or loved. But if I were to be lost, my loss would be less hurtful for those left behind. That's just the way it is.
I am not married, for example, and have no children. So in an extreme situation, where life sacrifices have to be expected, I am more 'expendable' than the fathers and husbands among us would be. That doesn't mean I'm any less valued, appreciated, or loved. But if I were to be lost, my loss would be less hurtful for those left behind. That's just the way it is.
elohiym
Well-known member
Debunking the Israeli 'women in combat' myth.
..... It’s time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel’s experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn’t successful. It was a disaster by Israel’s own admission. “History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle,” wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder. “For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said. Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: “Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.” “Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review. Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat. ..... |
MrRadish
New member
I don't see why you'd be more expendable than an unmarried woman with no children, though.
elohiym
Well-known member
Women can give birth.
PureX
Well-known member
Hmmm ... being a man, I can't help but see women as something I step into the line of fire, for. It's built into the genes.
As William Munney said: "Deserves got nuthin' to do with it".