Women in Combat? Why?

It is obvious that women have no problem being in combat.The Vietnamese women who are tiny done very well in the Vietnam war.

 

I am willing to bet that Vietnamese men did much better on average though. I think that is his point.

 

I was not commenting on any of his points.I was just stating that Vietnamese women who are tiny had no problems fighting in the combat zone.

 

I think he meant stress fractures, not mental stress. That's actually true,
about 50% of stress fractures in basic training are with female recruits.

 

That seems to imply that many women do NOT have this problem.

 

If they are up to the task and don't put anyone at risk and are willing and able, who cares?

 

That's just basic training.

Advanced infantry training is even more physically challenging.

 

The point being, that unless women are 100% incapable of making it through, why should they not be allowed to try? What is the downside other than the baseless claims that it'll cost too much?

 

Physical differences is only one of the reasons for the Pentagon's
policy banning women from direct ground forces combat.

Another is unit cohesion.

Women might be a distraction.

 

Why did that same argument not apply to racial integration? Please explain.

 

Yeah really. What possible difference could there be in the dynamics of interracial relationships vis a vis intergender relationships?

 

Maybe we can ask some of the racists who opposed racially integrating the military. Do you think they might use arguments based on "unit cohesion" "differences are a distraction" as well?

 

The arguments against allowing women to serve in combat units are threefold.

1. Women are physically inferior and different to men and this will degrade combat
effectiveness.

2. Women would be a distraction and will detract from unit cohesion and negatively
effect good order and discipline.

3. Opponents of women in combat believe it to be immoral, as society should
protect the weaker sex and not send them into harm's way.


Reason # 3 is really the weakest of the arguments against women serving as women
are already in combat situations and have sustained casualties. Society is more
and more accepting of the notion that women are killed or injured in combat.

I believe that reasons #1 and #2 are still valid concerns.

 

Unless the argument is "ALL Women are physically inferior to ALL men", then that is irrelevant. Because we can test for physical fitness. If they are physical equals, there is no logical reason to believe they will degrade combat effectiveness.

As to "different", you would need to be specific about the differences you are talking about before we can determine if they would degrade combat effectiveness, right?

That might actually be true, but that was also true for racial integration in the military as well. So why was it ok to weaken unit cohesion when it was race, but not when it is gender? This smells like an arbitrary double standard.

Should the weaker sex get a say as to whether they want to be "protected"?

I have actually met military women that could thorougly kick the ass of miltiary men I know. They are larger and stronger and more aggressive.

Is it the norm? No, definitely not. But it is possible for women to be stronger than some of the men currently allowed into combat. That situation does occur, I have seen it myself.

Actually I think #2 is your weakest argument. I dont see how that would not also apply to racial integration, yet I assume you were ok with that. Why?

 

Only a moron would care. hth

 

I wonder if people in 30 years will say that about the people opposing women in combat today.

 

I served with women, so you're barking up the wrong tree with me if you think
I'm putting them down.

I'm merely presenting the arguments for maintaining the Pentagon's policy of no women
in ground units that engage in direct combat. Infantry, Armor and Artillery more specifically.

Ignorance is Bliss was in the infantry I believe, and perhaps his opinion should
be carrying more weight. Experience trumps theory. He is more aware of the physical
challenges and lifestyle associated with being an infantryman, than either one of us.

 

It is irrelevant to me what your motives are. Whether you admire women or hate them, it has no bearing on this issue either way. It has no effect on any of the arguments we have been discussing.

Would I be correct in asusming that the majority of the infantry opposed racial integration as well when it was introduced?

If he doesn't like the policies of the military, he can leave (or choose not to join). He wasn't conscripted.

His personal experience doesnt trump anything. Especially on an anonymous forum.

That is irrelevant in this context, because physical capability can be TESTED. Do you think he has met all the women that have ever been in the military? If not, how did he determine that that are physically insufficient?

 

You just said you know women in the military who are quote "tougher than men"...

Therefore your statement above invalidates that also...if anecdotal comments
are to be discarded...that includes any personal experience you may have as well.

anonymous internet and all...

 

Yeah, I am explained the origin of my opinion on women being weaker than men. I never said it trumped anything.

Why?

They are not discarded if they are simply personal opinion. They are only discarded if used as objective evidence.

 

Stress fractures:
http://www.jacn.org/content/17/2/128.full

Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey's in 1993):

Interesting article by a female Harvard grad. who enlisted in the army.

http://www.bobjust.com/womenincombat/

It's not an assumption, its fact. It would cost significantly more to train and weed out the tiny minority of women capable of being infantrymen.

 

Thats not the same as 130-to-zero.

You keep going back to "averages". But averages are not absolute.

...in Canada.

Your example is not analogous to my solution...there was no preliminary weeding out process like I described. They all simply went into the full process immediately. So of course it was more expensive.

 

Far be it from the y-man to gainsay the possibility of moronic becoming the new normal.

 

Maybe it isnt as moronic as you think it is. Is that a possibility?

 

The military operates based on "averages" not exceptions.