toldailytopic: GI Jane: Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the armed

[MrRadish]

Women can give birth.

Not without a man's assistance a few months before. lain: What's that got to do with it?

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".

Also being a man, I feel no such instinct. I'd consider stepping into the line of fire for anybody who I felt was less able to withstand it than myself, simple as that. Not that I'd feel justified in feeling anything other than that and would not allow myself to do so for long.

Maybe it's because of my family's long history of strong, single mothers. :idunno:

Nice discussing the matter with you, in any case. :e4e:

 

[elohiym]

Not without a man's assistance a few months before. lain:

One man can impregnate many women.

A friend of mine hunts Mule deer. He only hunts bucks because it only takes a few bucks to keep the population going. The females are not as expendable, and killing too many will hurt the deer population.

What's that got to do with it?

Survival of the species is paramount, instinctively. Men protecting women is part of that instinct. For many of us, we have no way (or desire) to change this human instinct.

 

[PureX]

Not without a man's assistance a few months before. lain: What's that got to do with it?



Also being a man, I feel no such instinct. I'd consider stepping into the line of fire for anybody who I felt was less able to withstand it than myself, simple as that. Not that I'd feel justified in feeling anything other than that not allow myself to do so for long.

Maybe it's because of my family's long history of strong, single mothers. :idunno:

Nice discussing the matter with you, in any case. :e4e:

It's an interesting subject. I see it as a case of my idealism being confronted by my biological instinct. We humans are a strange hybrid of human idealism and animal instinct, and the human condition is one of perpetual inner conflict, as a result. Our "animal" nature would lead us to behave one way, while our "human" natures would impel us to behave another. This inner conflict has been reflected in our philosophy, religions, and sociology throughout the whole history of human culture.

I guess I chose the position that I have regarding this particular issue only because I see warfare as an expression of our animal natures more than of our human idealism. So I side with my animal instincts in deciding the case. Whereas in situations that would allow for a more contemplative study of the matter, I would likely side with my more idealistic human instincts.

I guess it's a sort of ,"when in Rome, think like a Roman; when in Greece, think like a Greek" thing.

 

[bybee]

I didn't think I'd mentioned that around here... :noid:

It take what rights are mine and leave the rest, thanks. :thumb:

That's just a polite way of saying we're smarter than you guys. See, by saying we "changed our minds" it makes it easier for you to adapt to the seeming change in direction prompted by what circumstances might arise. Thus, neither of us need be saddled with enduring long explanations to convey all the intricacies...

I'm sorry, was I going to fast for you?

Look, just...don't worry about it. Go have a beer or something. Maybe football's on TV.

Now Mary, if you took that tone with my son!....

 

[MrRadish]

One man can impregnate many women.

A friend of mine hunts Mule deer. He only hunts bucks because it only takes a few bucks to keep the population going. The females are not as expendable, and killing too many will hurt the deer population.

The extinction of the species isn't really a pressing concern at the moment, and the only kind of war that's likely to make it so won't be fought with soldiers...

Incidentally, our social expectation of (relatively) monogamous child-bearing relationships is a rather neat illustration of the suppression of natural instincts for the benefit of society.

Survival of the species is paramount, instinctively. Men protecting women is part of that instinct. For many of us, we have no way (or desire) to change this human instinct.

I can understand it being difficult, and have already set out my arguments for why I think one should desire to change this instinct.

It's an interesting subject. I see it as a case of my idealism being confronted by my biological instinct. We humans are a strange hybrid of human idealism and animal instinct, and the human condition is one of perpetual inner conflict, as a result. Our "animal" nature would lead us to behave one way, while our "human" natures would impel us to behave another. This inner conflict has been reflected in our philosophy, religions, and sociology throughout the whole history of human culture.

I guess I chose the position that I have regarding this particular issue only because I see warfare as an expression of our animal natures more than of our human idealism. So I side with my animal instincts in deciding the case. Whereas in situations that would allow for a more contemplative study of the matter, I would likely side with my more idealistic human instincts.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, and certainly in a combat situation erring toward the 'animal' side might give you a bit of an edge, but I think that when you fail to allow your 'human' side to govern your actions - even temporarily - there's a real risk of embracing utter savagery.

One of my favourite passages of the Tao Te Ching, which I believe I've quoted before on this site, puts it quite well:

Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.

Our 'animal' side would have us hate our enemies and take pleasure in their suffering - the biological, hormonal response to conflict, the 'killer instinct', often manifests in a sort of excitement and exuberance - but it is of the utmost importance that we suppress this and instead grieve for those we harm, otherwise we actively betray everything our 'human' side stands for.

In the same way, there is an animal instinct in some men to prioritise women in times of hardship. As subtle as the negative effects of this on our idealism are, I do believe they exist, and once again I think this is reason enough to try to suppress and eliminate it.

Just my opinion.

 

[MaryContrary]

Now Mary, if you took that tone with my son!....

What? He'd be enjoying a beer and football game right now. :idunno:

 

[The Berean]

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.

:up:

Just watch the opeing scene of Saving Private Ryan and ask yourself (to those who support women in combat) do you want to have women is such circumstances, literally shot in the head and literally blown to pieces?

 

[elohiym]

The extinction of the species isn't really a pressing concern at the moment, and the only kind of war that's likely to make it so won't be fought with soldiers...

A species' survival and ability to thrive is not only threatened by depopulation due to war.

Depopulation and Ageing in Europe and Japan: The Hazardous Transition to a Labor Shortage Economy

Incidentally, our social expectation of (relatively) monogamous child-bearing relationships is a rather neat illustration of the suppression of natural instincts for the benefit of society.

Perhaps that is the social expectation of some people, even a majority, but it's not my expectation. From what I've seen, it appears more like an expectation of serial polygamy and divorce than monogamous child-bearing relationships. And it appears to be an expectation of having few children instead of many. That is the suppression of natural instincts for the detriment of society, imo.

 

[bybee]

What? He'd be enjoying a beer and football game right now. :idunno:

Hmmmmmmm.

 

[Ps82]

For me personally ... I would never want myself or any daughter of mine in front line combat.

Secondly, I believe that it does compromise the battle field to have women fighting among men.

In fact, I have heard first hand by those who would know that when women enter the military that the single (I assume) guys make bets as which one of them will be the first to "lay" her. I'm figuring that are many crisis pregnancies within the military branches ... and that's why contraceptives are a big issue.

I don't think you train men to be virile with a courageous ego and have him then embrace a disregard for life in battle without compromising his regard for women also.

Why else would men lose all of their morals and collectively rape innocent women among their enemy after they conquer them?

Women, who bear children and are physically weaker, should be protected from such virile surroundings.

 

[Alate_One]

A species' survival and ability to thrive is not only threatened by depopulation due to war.

A far bigger threat at current is overpopulation. Making an argument against women serving in the military from a population perspective in our current situation is ridiculous. This probably made sense when populations were small, before the industrial revolution. What we are dealing with now is something entirely different.

90% of earth's population could disappear and you'd still have two entire USA's worth of people left.

And it appears to be an expectation of having few children instead of many. That is the suppression of natural instincts for the detriment of society, imo.

Oversupply of people and labor is a huge problem. Populations cannot grow forever. There's no second earth to move to. Many children is BAD for society at this point in our development. All of the countries with high population growth are in terrible shape economically and politically.

For all of the love there is spread in conservative circles for Israel, you wonder why conservatives don't embrace the Israeli policy of mandatory military service for BOTH sexes.

 

[MaryContrary]

A far bigger threat at current is overpopulation. Making an argument against women serving in the military from a population perspective in our current situation is ridiculous. This probably made sense when populations were small, before the industrial revolution. What we are dealing with now is something entirely different.

:doh:
Seriously?

90% of earth's population could disappear and you'd still have two entire USA's worth of people left.

Or we could just kill off all but, say, a couple hundred. I think that's the last estimate I heard for the minimum you'd need.

Or, you know, just kill 'em all. Why not?

Oversupply of people and labor is a huge problem.

No, it isn't. That's actually a ridiculous notion.

Populations cannot grow forever.

Yes, they can.

There's no second earth to move to.

Well make one, if we ever need it. Which is highly doubtful.

Many children is BAD for society at this point in our development. All of the countries with high population growth are in terrible shape economically and politically.

Are you sure about that? :think:
Edit: Or maybe just show us some countries that aren't in terrible shape economically and politically? I think you're being highly subjective here.

For all of the love there is spread in conservative circles for Israel, you wonder why conservatives don't embrace the Israeli policy of mandatory military service for BOTH sexes.

I do. I think that's a great idea. I've always assumed we don't do that because we have too many liberals. I'd vote for it.

 

[elohiym]

A far bigger threat at current is overpopulation.

Please visit OverpopulationIsAMyth.com for all the evidence that refutes your unsupported claim.

Making an argument against women serving in the military from a population perspective in our current situation is ridiculous.

I haven't made such an argument, so save your ridicule. My point was regarding the human instinct to protect the female of the species, which is palpable; and it's logical to have such instincts if the human species is to survive and thrive. I presume them to be God-given instincts in harmony with the command to be fruitful and multiply.

Oversupply of people and labor is a huge problem. Populations cannot grow forever. There's no second earth to move to. Many children is BAD for society at this point in our development. All of the countries with high population growth are in terrible shape economically and politically.

Kids: Stable Population

For all of the love there is spread in conservative circles for Israel, you wonder why conservatives don't embrace the Israeli policy of mandatory military service for BOTH sexes.

Women serve in both the U.S. and Israeli Armies already. The Israeli-women-in-combat-myth was addressed earlier in one of my previous posts. Unless you are arguing for mandatory military service, I don't see your point. If you are arguing for mandatory military service, that isn't the topic we are discussing, but whether women should fight in combat along side men.

 

[Alate_One]

Please visit OverpopulationIsAMyth for all the evidence that refutes your unsupported claim.

You have no idea what you're talking about. 7 billion people is not a myth. Having enough *quality* food and resources is already a problem. Most people on earth subsist on less than a dollar a day.

Guess what happens to a lot of them?

We can sit in our lovely houses and apartments and assert there's no population problem. The rest of the world has to deal with the effects.

This is a 5 year old BTW.

I don't see your point. If you are arguing for mandatory military service, that isn't the topic we are discussing, but whether women should fight in combat along side men.

The question is, why not. None of the arguments you've put forward have any merit. Men will defend their comrades just as well as they will want to protect women. Given the level of violence against women in our society, I do not think there is a very "hard wired" need in men to protect women.

 

[Alate_One]

No, it isn't. That's actually a ridiculous notion.

Oversupply of labor is a ridiculous notion? That's what we have right now. Too many people competing for too few jobs. Oversupply of labor pushes down wages and benefits. The extra workers are what we call "unemployed". The labor market can increase in size but there's no rule that says there must be a job that provides a livable wage for everyone. That's capitalism and that means if your labor market does not grow as fast as your population, more people will be out of work and wages will be low.

Well make one, if we ever need it. Which is highly doubtful.

:rotfl: Make another earth out of what exactly?

Are you sure about that? :think:
Edit: Or maybe just show us some countries that aren't in terrible shape economically and politically? I think you're being highly subjective here.

Lecture on Population

Might want to watch this and learn a bit (May also want to skip past the introductions - doesn't actually start until 10 minutes in)

I do. I think that's a great idea. I've always assumed we don't do that because we have too many liberals. I'd vote for it.

I would think it was a great idea also if we didn't keep starting wars we had no business fighting. I would be for national service at least, required for everyone. Don't want to fight? Teach, clean streets, whatever is needed in your community.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6hp8HMstkE

Hopefully this will open up some people's eyes on the blissful ignorance of society and all of it's false convictions.

 

[Ps82]

I've always thought that it would be interesting if a woman was the one in charge of making a call over that 'red phone'.

Her reasoning might go like this:
What, go into an outdoor camping situation (either too hot or too cold) where there are no private toilets and no where to bath... fight street battles with high powered weapons where we equally might either kill or be killed... or finally fight in hand to hand combat?

Let's just win this war against our enemy quickly and efficiently ... where's that red phone?

 

[MaryContrary]

Oversupply of labor is a ridiculous notion? That's what we have right now. Too many people competing for too few jobs. Oversupply of labor pushes down wages and benefits. The extra workers are what we call "unemployed". The labor market can increase in size but there's no rule that says there must be a job that provides a livable wage for everyone. That's capitalism and that means if your labor market does not grow as fast as your population, more people will be out of work and wages will be low.

So the problem would be the labor market not growing as fast as the population. Not overpopulation. :duh:

But rather than address that, you'd put women in combat roles so they can die and we can whittle the numbers down a bit. Because, yeah, that's a great way to fix that labor market thing.

:rotfl: Make another earth out of what exactly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_habitat :thumb:

Might want to watch this and learn a bit (May also want to skip past the introductions - doesn't actually start until 10 minutes in)

tl;dl

I would think it was a great idea also if we didn't keep starting wars we had no business fighting. I would be for national service at least, required for everyone. Don't want to fight? Teach, clean streets, whatever is needed in your community.

No, I just think the people should be taught how to be soldiers. In case they need to be someday. Needn't even necessarily be assigned combat roles or spend any actual time in the military (beyond basic training) for that matter. I just like the idea of an invading army facing a city full of civilians who've at least been through basic training. And are armed, since I'm a big supporter of the second amendment.

 

[BabyChristian]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for February 10th, 2012 11:48 AM

toldailytopic: GI Jane: Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the armed forces?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

If they want to, they should be able to.

As a younger woman and especially as a teen I was athletic as any man I know, in case that one was used. I haven't read this thread, don't want to.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I believe it is fine if a woman serves in the military. However, it is not discrimination to not allow them in special forces and the like. Military supremacy is a product of thousands of years of experience and tactics, and is not a place for which such 'equalities' should be petitioned much less observed. Women are more pat to crack under pressure and just as the military notion goes, a battalion is only as strong as it's weakest link. But that doesn't mean to say women are 'weak', it's a matter of physics and internal affairs. This isn't an issue in the mainstream, but such can put special tactics on a crutch. Since the beginning of mankind, military has simply been an object of men. Even certain military symbols explicitly represent manhood or manliness.