As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread:

Women's roles in the military

ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
edited July 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
EDIT: Damn, I'm slow. I'll re-post this in the new split thread.

Let's discuss whether and which biological or cultural gender differences should be a factor in determining who gets to participate in the armed forces (of any nation).

I contend that women have just as much right as men to the opportunity to serve in their nations' armed forces in any role, and that any "biological problems" that pop out can be reasonably dealt with.

From the Media Bias derailment:
There's two things you're refusing to come to grips here with, Zal:

1) The biology DOES play a large factor in it all, which you're pretty much refusing to admit, shutting your eyes and going NANANA CAN'T HEAR YOU. The rule of a third isn't something I pulled out of my ass, its something that's been known since Roman times. Women tend to be lighter than men. A women will be able to carry less than a man, thus the burden falls more on her male comrades. I saw it when I was in Sergeant's School, where I was ordered to give a female soldier the light machine gun, and she couldn't hump it. Hint: People don't assign 240B light machine guns and other crew served weapons to people who aren't considered "strapping" for a reason.

Not all women are lighter and less physically fit than all men. This is why neither I nor Cat have argues that 50% of all front-line troops must be women; assuming that there are certain physical standards to be met before you can join the front-line ranks, then those exact same standards should be applied everyone regardless of reproductive organs.

There may not be enough women to hit 50% front-line participation, but there certainly are some and they deserve a fair chance, and not to be arbitrarily disallowed.
2) You're also refusing to acknowledge the fact that the bureacracy isn't just going to leave it at "oh if they can meet the same standards.." because, and here it is in bold text for you: that's what happened last time when they integrated combat support roles, and when females weren't making it past Specialist because they couldn't meet the physical standards, they changed the physical standards in favor of the females. Getting all huffy because the bureacracy is fucked up dosen't change a thing.

It's true that bureaucrats and politicians have done a great job of botching the women's assimilation process through heavy-handed and stupid policies. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the military women who meet the standards of front-line combat deserve an equal chance compared to their male colleagues to be considered for those jobs.

If we want to eliminate Pentagon dumbassery then we need to eliminate Pentagon dumbassery, not perpetuate gender discrimination.

I do not expect that process to go smoothly or easily. It will take a long time, with setbacks along the way. But it's still the right thing to do.
As far as your cohesion rebuttal goes, it shows that you still have no clue WTF you're talking about. Someone who breaks a leg can still deploy. Someone who gets into a car crash can - possibly - still deploy. Someone who gets pregnant CAN'T deploy, no how no way. Someone over there who gets pregnant gets sent home, no ifs ands or buts.

First, I have always acknowledged that pregnancy is a little different and will almost certainly require women in these combat roles to use birth control. Second, there's technically no fraternization in the ranks as it is. Women in front-line combat roles will face different standards of behavior and health than women in non-combat roles. I can accept that as long as those standards are fair and based on sound reasoning, and I doubt that most women looking to get into these positions would disagree.

Zalbinion on


  • Options
    siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    When you say "not all", you make it sound like its a close thing, when we both know that its not even. There's a lot more 5'6 130 pound women in the service then there are 6'1 210 pound males in. The minimum weight for a female to join is 90 pounds. There are crew served weapon systems that weigh more than that, and you expect her to be able to hump it? Females are also allowed to have 6% more body fat (30%!) upon entering, so pretending that there's a cadre of track stars and soccer players who want to be combat arms but can't due to our draconian policies is a little ingenious.

    You keep saying that "they won't enforce quotas" when they already have been proven to, and your assertion that there's "no fraternization in the ranks" is fucking mind numbing to someone who's seen it. You say "you don't expect it'll be easy road" and I say bullshit because its not you who's going to be fighting and dying and relying on someone who was allowed exceptions because she happened to be a female.

    No, you're some dude on the internet who's the left wing version of a reactionary right wing zealot, and believes if he closes his eyes and everyone tries really hard! everything will be okay.

    siliconenhanced on
  • Options
    ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    silicon, I'm replying in the other (split) thread.

    Zalbinion on
This discussion has been closed.