Do people honestly think that women can fight in the military? (Congress, enemies)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean seriously.. Let's be honest. Do you honestly think that most women cant pass the physical testing (same as the men) carry around 70 plus pounds, stay out on missions for several days, handle a massive assault rifle etc... What is the benefit of having females serve in combat roles when A) most wont be able to handle it anyways and B) it will inevitably cause a disturbance within the unit?
A - this one is a good point. I have seen female Army and Marine officers make this same point. They have experimented with putting women through equal combat training that the men do, and found that women wash out at unacceptably high rates and also get injured at unacceptably high rates. Men have been doing society's "heavy lifting" for thousands upon thousands of years and it's simple biological fact that the female body has not evolved to bear the same levels of physical punishment. Individual exceptions aside, they simply do not have the strength, speed, and endurance required.
However, that doesn't mean women can't serve on the front lines. They just shouldn't serve as foot soldiers. They can still operate crew served weapons. A woman can fire a cannon just as well as a man. A woman can drive a tank just as well as a man.
So I think a "no female infantry" rule makes sense, but I would side with the people who say that "no women in combat" is sexist.
B - I don't believe your point "B" should be a consideration. Where the genders are biologically different it makes sense to separate them. Where it is purely a matter of psychology it does not. What we need to do is stop valuing women more than men. Of course liberals will howl that women are the oppressed ones, not men. But we're not talking about the business world, we're talking about the military. And in the military, women have always been kept out of harm's way. That was, in fact, the main way that the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated in the 80s. The primary slogan used was "do you want to see your daughters killed in combat?" That was how we got it being illegal to discriminate against women, but not an amendment saying women were equal to men. Equality would have meant drafting women.
Quote:
Wars have been fought for thousands of years without females.. Let me ask you. Do you honestly think that women who received the same training as men could have stormed the beaches of Normandy sucessfully against a wall of German/French/Czech/Italian men, tanks and artillery?
Yes, I do. You're talking there about a short engagement. I think women are perfectly capable of serving in a short firefight. Women could easily have commanded and/or piloted the landing craft at Normandy also. You can see this by the fact that women are serving as police officers just fine. Where they are not as capable is extended field operations where heavy loads have to be managed for long periods of time.
Well as I said before, give me examples of how women in the Soviet Army significantly contributed to the war effort.
Anything a woman can do, a man can do 2x better.
You maybe missed the point that you don't need to believe they contributed materially. The Russians do and that's the tell. Why don't you ask some remaining German vets who served on the Russian winter front.
Their contribution would be consistant with their numbers just as they would be for their male counterparts.
And that last little quote of yours is just stupid as there are many jobs that women excell at involving traditionally male roles.
I've seen women operate heavy equipment for months on end moving more tonnage without the thing needing shop time while the average male counterpart would have it being repaired weekly. It ain't making money if it's in the shop.
There is nothing easy about Sniper training. As I said before let the woman's ability define her contribution. She can either pass the requirements or she will fail, the same as their male counterparts.
I mean seriously.. Let's be honest. Do you honestly think that most women cant pass the physical testing (same as the men) carry around 70 plus pounds, stay out on missions for several days, handle a massive assault rifle etc... What is the benefit of having females serve in combat roles when A) most wont be able to handle it anyways and B) it will inevitably cause a disturbance within the unit?
Wars have been fought for thousands of years without females.. Let me ask you. Do you honestly think that women who received the same training as men could have stormed the beaches of Normandy sucessfully against a wall of German/French/Czech/Italian men, tanks and artillery?
I don't think anybody disputes that men on average (and I'd say pretty much almost always, judging by me being a "weak" male yet still doing more pushups and/or "punching" velocity than basically all of the women I've been with) are stronger physically. That's not really the point though.
The massive flaw in your argument though is that it's rarely about brute strength, but rather efficiency. For example, if you have three guys who can carry 70 lbs for a week, that will enable more carrying volume (I think 1470 lb.) But is it an efficient use of these guys' energy to carry a volume of 1470 lbs? Usually not, and that's why there really isn't a compelling need to only have men serve in the military.
Point (B) is just being unnecessarily misogynistic by the way. Most guys don't go around lording their maleness around women and actually respect their abilities.
I don't think you understand that for example a 140 lb male is significantly stronger than a 140 lb female.
Generalities aren't applicable when that 140lb male may be serving with a 185 lb female that can whip his azz and carry him out of a firefight on her back.
Means test them. I don't mean for the Seals or force Recon, but your standardbred Army groundpounder. They pass, they serve. What's wrong with that?
I'd honestly be more concerned fighting alongside right-wingers. Did you see how they ran to Putin's defense in his rift with Obama? They're party-first, country-second. That's dangerous in the field of battle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.