Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
why is it necessarily a feminist "agenda"? sure, there are probably some that want to further women's rights, but i'd also guess that there are just as many that simply have the desire to serve their country in whatever fashion they are capable. assuming physical capabilities, i don't see why they should be denied the opportunity.
f/k/a mclamb6
"It, however, does not logically follow that women who can pass the requirement should be excluded from combat."
It does in the context of this policy discussion. Why should the exceedingly small number of women who both physically qualify and desire a combat role be admitted to combat units? As a poicy objective, should not the paramount goal of the military be accomplishing the mission?
"I said it before - if the powers that be in the military define real, practical reasons to keep women from combat, I'm not in a position to aruge with that. I am am opposed to vitus' reasoning based on some very inflexible and arcane definitions of gender roles. "
Is the exceptionally low number of women who could both physically qualify and desire a combat billet a sufficient practical reason not to change the policy? Can you agree that inserting women into combat roles would have a negative effect on the male contingent?
Can you foresee any "real, practical reason" sufficeint to keep women from combat?
"i'd also guess that there are just as many that simply have the desire to serve their country in whatever fashion they are capable."
I disagree. The nature of the question requires women who seek to choose their role, a combat billet, rather than serve in whatever fashion they are capable.
"assuming physical capabilities, i don't see why they should be denied the opportunity."
Can you accept that women qua women would have a negative impact on the males in the unit? As I asked before, why should the mission of the military be seconded to the goal of gender neutrality? Finally, why should an accomodation be made for the admittedly very small number of women who possess both the physically qualities and desire to be in combat?
i can accept that in the short term women in combat would negatively impact some of the males in the unit but my personal feeling is that the impact would have more to do with the "newness" of having women in combat rather than any type of objective measure. these are the same type of arguments that were made when blacks were integrated into the military--it would affect morale of the white troops, etc. seems to be ok now.
and i disagree with the premise that allowing women in combat is done in furtherance of "gender neutrality". maybe for some women, but i think they are the minority. if a woman wants to put her life on the line in service of her country, let her. being allowed to serve and die for your country is not and should not be the exclusive domain of the male half of society....
f/k/a mclamb6
"my personal feeling is that the impact would have more to do with the "newness" of having women in combat rather than any type of objective measure."
I believe studies have been done which establish an objective difference when women are inserted in the mix. One mentioned previously on this thread concerns naval readiness when women are on board ship. Are you susceptable to persuasion on this point?
If not gender neutrality, call it what you will, the question remains: Why should the mission of the military be seconded to any goal other than accomplishing the mission?
As a practical matter, why should an accomodation be made for the admittedly very small number of women who possess both the physically qualities and desire to be in combat?
i'd agree that in the short term there would be and is an "objective" difference in how men react with a woman in their unit. but i don't think that result is from any hard wired difference between men and women, but rather that the men aren't used to the concept. is it worth it in terms of the short terms problems that would result to require men to become acclimatized? maybe not. maybe the acclimatization period would be too long and too problemmatic.
and accomodation should be had because i don't agree that only men should have the "right" to die for their country. it's not fair to men or women.
f/k/a mclamb6
" i'd agree that in the short term there would be and is an "objective" difference in how men react with a woman in their unit."
Women have been on navy ships for more than the short term. There are quantifiable differences. I think hard wired differences between men and women just might be the reason. Or maybe its the interaction of those hard wired differences.
"i don't agree that only men should have the "right" to die for their country."
I am not sure I could name any man who would not willingly pass on the idea of dying for his country, given the choice. :-)
I think the cost of the accomodation is too high. The mission of the military should not be hampered to quench the desire of the small number of qualified and willing women.
The mission of the military should not be hampered to quench the desire of the small number of qualified and willing women.
If the mission of the military were being hampered by having women in combat positions, that would be a real, practical reason to keep them out of that role.
I don't think military service is a "right" for anyone.
_______________________________________________
I've got a torn achilles and am on vicodin, so I'll keep this short, and then I'm done with this thread. I don't have the same problems vitus does with women in combat roles, which, it seems to me is mostly based in emotional ties to traditional female roles or at leastmen's views of feminine traits and roles. I can think of many reasons not to let women into certain combat roles that are based on more objective practical reasons. Physical capability is the most obvious. There are of course, women who could pass the tests and requirements, but you can't restructure combat units for the sake of one or two women who want to do the job, and qualify. It doesn't make sense to re-engineer submarines for the sake of adding women to the crews. There are medical considerations like carrying feminine hygeine supplies, and having docs that can adequately treat feminine medical problems. There are the fraternization issues, and the problems of discipline. there are alos the worries about men taking greater risks to help or save the life of a female than other men. Anyways, I have no problem with women in the military, but I think there is more difficulty than it's worth to try to fit them into many of the combat units.
Slowguy
(insert pithy phrase here...)
If the mission of the military were being hampered by having women in combat positions, that would be a real, practical reason to keep them out of that role.[b]
"if"? What part of the rest of the post to you object to?
As a follow up to my last post to you, can you describe any other real, practical reasons for keeping women out of combat roles?
"I don't think military service is a "right" for anyone."
My point exactly. Probably why they call it an "obligation." And not a good reason for it being yet another front on the gender neutrality war.