[dcolton]

Age old argument. My oponion has changed over the past few years, but I am still uneasy about women in combat roles. PArt of my says that if a women wants to serve and can meet or exceed the same requirements the men have to meet, then they should be allowed to play any role in the armed forces. The chauvinist part of me considers females to be too valuable of a resource to squander away in war.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130106,00.html

DALLAS — Today, equality of the sexes includes dying in combat.

In the current U.S. military, women fill battlefield roles alongside men like never before. Long gone are the days when female soldiers were nurses or were serving in some other behind-the-scenes capacity.

As a result, 24 female soldiers have died in Iraq, 15 from hostile fire — more female war dead than in any conflict since World War II (search).

Despite that reality, supporters of women in combat say it's a giant step for gender equality. Critics argue that it isn't a positive development but one that does more harm to society than good.

And while women now serve on combat ships, fly combat missions and conduct door-to-door searches through dangerous Iraqi neighborhoods, limits remain. They're still restricted from infantry units, armor and field artillery companies in wartime.

So while the combat doors have opened for women willing to die for their country just as their male counterparts do, the battle for complete gender equality remains a divisive conflict.

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
The chauvinist part of me considers females to be too valuable of a resource to squander away in war.

That is basically my option though I'm not sure it has anything to do with chauvinism.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
That is basically my option though I'm not sure it has anything to do with chauvinism.

I just figured that I would be called a chauvinist for not fully supporting women's rights in the military.

[mydog8mymac]

*sigh* and it's hard to believe we've been allowed to vote for 84 years.

[dodo_nutter]

Is the reason women aren't allowed into primary combat roles because of the fact as males (sorry to any women who read this) we are instinctively programmed by nature to protect our women. OR is it because we think were better than them and women cant do that messy shooting/killing thing because they should be at home in the kitchen (extreme view btw!) Because i haven't heard a logical argument i fully believe and support yet.

[Dakar]

Alright, I'll probably get flamed for this, but what makes women 'too valuable of a resource to squander away in war'?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Alright, I'll probably get flamed for this, but what makes women 'too valuable of a resource to squander away in war'?

No flame. If anything, I will get flamed for my opinion. I don't think any less of women, but I believe they are a gift. They nurture life, and that is a resource we cannot loose. If a women voluntarily joins the military, good for her. As long as she meets minimum standards and qualify for their service, I have no problem. Drafting women...I have a huge issue.

(My opinion has dramatically changed since the first Gulf War.)

[Logic]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Alright, I'll probably get flamed for this, but what makes women 'too valuable of a resource to squander away in war'?

That they are women makes them too valuable to squander away in a war. I know women are just as good soldiers as men, but I believe that every woman killed in a war is a tragedy. Wars are started by men, and should be fought and ended by men. And while the war is going on women should be protected at all cost.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
No flame. If anything, I will get flamed for my opinion. I don't think any less of women, but I believe they are a gift. They nurture life, and that is a resource we cannot loose. If a women voluntarily joins the military, good for her. As long as she meets minimum standards and qualify for their service, I have no problem. Drafting women...I have a huge issue.

(My opinion has dramatically changed since the first Gulf War.)

Well, looking at it by the numbers, women outnumber men, the population is still rising, and men are as capable of women of taking care of children.

That said, I'm sure if we were to have any type of prolonged conflict, I wouldn't mind dropping female deployment some.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Logic:
That they are women makes them too valuable to squander away in a war. I know women are just as good soldiers as men, but I believe that every woman killed in a war is a tragedy. Wars are started by men, and should be fought and ended by men. And while the war is going on women should be protected at all cost.

Yes, you answered the question with the question. What inherent traits make them too valuable to squander, that's what i was asking.

[lil'babykitten]

I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue Not wholeheartedly behind the idea. That said, I don't think women should be denied the right to join the military if they so wish.

[JLFanboy]

Originally posted by Logic:
Wars are started by men, and should be fought and ended by men.

Since when do the men (politicians and leaders) that start wars actually fight them? If a war is worth fighting, and the cause is worth dying for, it is everyone's responsibility to fight.

It worries me that--for many--women and men have become Women and Men. They're seen as idealizations that far outshadow the actualities. Women and men are people. I feel a man's life is worth exactly the same as a women's life. If a person is killed in combat the degree of tragedy shouldn't be determined by whether they had boobs or not.

[dcolton]

When I said nurture life, it includes child birth.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Yes, you answered the question with the question. What inherent traits make them too valuable to squander, that's what i was asking.

Lets put it this way.

1. Women spend 9 months having a baby. After that they spend 6-12 months breast-feeding the child. That makes the bond between women and children so much stronger than the bond between a father and a child.

2. One man can have almost as many children as he wants while a woman can only have a limited amount of children(10-15 being the maximum IIRC). Meaning that in case of war it is "OK" to lose men, because that will not have an impact on the rebuilding of the nation. Losing too many women on the other hand has a very serious effect on rebuilding the country.

3. I believe women are better at helping people who have experienced the horrors of wars(especially helping children) than men are. Hence I believe that women are an invaluable asset in the rebuilding phase after wars.

All I can think about at the moment. It's difficult to explain. Thing is that I value a woman's life much more than a man's.

One last thing

This is a man's world, this is a man's world
But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl

You see, man made the cars to take us over the road
Man made the trains to carry heavy loads
Man made electric light to take us out of the dark
Man made the boat for the water, like Noah made the ark

This is a man's, a man's, a man's world
But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl

Man thinks about a little baby girls and a baby boys
Man makes then happy 'cause man makes them toys
And after man has made everything, everything he can
You know that man makes money to buy from other man

This is a man's world
But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl

He's lost in the wilderness
He's lost in bitterness

[dcolton]

All I can think about at the moment. It's difficult to explain. Thing is that I value a woman's life much more than a man's

I agree

[OSX Abuser]

Women should be allowed to serve in Comfort Camps and recreational facilities

[Logic]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I agree

Can someone check the temperature in hell, please? Me and dcolton agree

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Logic:
Can someone check the temperature in hell, please? Me and dcolton agree

0ºC.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Logic:
Can someone check the temperature in hell, please? Me and dcolton agree

[deedar]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
0ºC.

For you "extra chromosome American conservatives", that's 32ºF

[Logic]

Originally posted by deedar:
For you "extra chromosome American conservatives", that's 32ºF

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
When I said nurture life, it includes child birth.

True enough, but they can't get pregnant without men.

Originally posted by Logic:
Lets put it this way.

1. Women spend 9 months having a baby. After that they spend 6-12 months breast-feeding the child. That makes the bond between women and children so much stronger than the bond between a father and a child.

2. One man can have almost as many children as he wants while a woman can only have a limited amount of children(10-15 being the maximum IIRC). Meaning that in case of war it is "OK" to lose men, because that will not have an impact on the rebuilding of the nation. Losing too many women on the other hand has a very serious effect on rebuilding the country.

3. I believe women are better at helping people who have experienced the horrors of wars(especially helping children) than men are. Hence I believe that women are an invaluable asset in the rebuilding phase after wars.

And I think you're right. But in a world of 6 billion, I also think that concern is... negligible. I'm not sure what I want to say, eiether.

Originally posted by Logic:
All I can think about at the moment. It's difficult to explain. Thing is that I value a woman's life much more than a man's.

I understand. Don't think I'm trying to belligerent. I ask only because, I have that feeling that women shouldn't be as common in combat as men, but I'm curious whether that emotion stems from the traditional upbrining of women to be protected, etc. or some actual solid reasoning.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Dakar:
I understand. Don't think I'm trying to belligerent. I ask only because, I have that feeling that women shouldn't be as common in combat as men, but I'm curious whether that emotion stems from the traditional upbrining of women to be protected, etc. or some actual solid reasoning.

It probably has a lot to do with the tradition of protecting women. But I also believe that tradition is an important one that we should keep. But it's difficult to explain why.

If women want to join the military I sort of see no problem with it as long as they do the same as the men, but I would prefer for them to stay out of the military. But perhaps pictures of women slaughtered in wars would be enough to discourage some of the more unnecessary wars. I don't know

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
The chauvinist part of me considers females to be too valuable of a resource to squander away in war.

Then go enlist yourself, and save 1 women from being in harms way. If that's not the case, then it's more about men having an advantage over women (the ability to go to war). Rather than 'too valuable of a resource'.

Personally I'm of the opinion if they want to go... let them go. Everyone should be given the option to control their own fate. As a concious adult, if you choose to go to war. Why stop someone? If it's their choice (and they are compitent/able... not being bullied by a recruiting agent, or mentally unstable... or something to that effect), let them. same goes for men btw.

I'm more opposed to a draft where people are sent against their will. That violates ethics and morals.

Originally posted by mydog8mymac:
*sigh* and it's hard to believe we've been allowed to vote for 84 years.

Get back in the kitchen and make me some pie.

[/kidding]

[Sven G]

I must say that I prefer the military of some centuries ago (even if without women): at least, they apparently seemed to have a minimum set of values - even if in a negative context, of course, as also today.

Today, it only seems to be about idiotic discipline and "human combat machines": the military, especially after the beginning of the 20th century, really seem to have renegated themselves!

Anyway, IMHO, a popular militia - composed of both women and men, in complete parity of rights and duties, right down to the possible uniforms and haircuts (and only when absolutely needed by unfavourable circumstances) - would always be better than an institutional army...

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Dakar:
True enough, but they can't get pregnant without men.

True enough, it takes one man and one woman. The difference is that the woman is then tied up for 9 months plus, whilst the man can pair up with another woman.

So, in a world where there is one man and one woman, both are equally valuable. Any time the size of the female population is the limiting factor in overall population growth (ie any time the population is under carrying capacity and population growth is beneficial), the women are more important to the society than the men. Not infinitely so, one man can't impregnate 1,000 women no matter how hard he tries, but significantly so.

BG

[voyageur]

I have a hard time thinking about this issue because I don't like the idea of anyone fighting wars, male of female, and I can't imagine myself wanting to do such a thing. Call it the testosterone factor.
However, if men can join up for comabt, then women should be able to also, if they wish.

I really can't embrace the idea that one sex is more valuable than another in the modern world. As Dakar points out, in an over-populated world, it's hard to value someone more because they can bear a dozen kids; one could argue that those that can't add to the population are actually more valuable!

Am I more valuable than my husband? I certainly don't feel that way. In fact, one could argue that he's more valuable since he's smarter and needs less sleep, and therefore can work longer hours and contribute more to society .

[Sven G]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Call it the testosterone factor. [...]

... Which is also present in women: so, that's not the real difference (unless one only judges by quantity, as seems to be the case today, sadly).

Cultural factors are much more important, IMHO; and even on that front, the situation is not all that clearly defined! For example, in the past, many things, that in today's regressive context could be seen as "feminine" by some people, were actually quite "manly".

Eventually, it's all about being human, after all...

[itai195]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
True enough, it takes one man and one woman. The difference is that the woman is then tied up for 9 months plus, whilst the man can pair up with another woman.

Sure, but we do also live in a society that values (and enforces) monogamy. So this is a moot point, IMO. I think women should be able to serve in combat roles if they choose to. I don't know if they should be draft eligible -- theoretically I don't think anyone should ever be drafted, regardless of gender.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by Sven G:
... Which is also present in women: so, that's not the real difference (unless one only judges by quantity, as seems to be the case today, sadly).

Cultural factors are much more important, IMHO; and even on that front, the situation is not all that clearly defined! For example, in the past, many things, that in today's regressive context could be seen as "feminine" by some people, were actually quite "manly".

Eventually, it's all about being human, after all...

The quantity of testosterone is indeed important, and there is a huge difference between men and women (I work in a lab were we routinely measure it in our studies, btw). There's little argument that it affects aggressive behavior in the animal world as well has humans. But you are right that culture also plays a role, of course. And when we speak of differences between men and women, we are speaking of averages usually, so it's good to keep in mind that there is a whole spectrum of behaviors present in both sexes.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by voyageur:
[...] There's little argument that it affects aggressive behavior in the animal world as well has humans.

OK, if you say so... But aggressivity isn't something inherently "bad": I guess that if one puts it on the merely chemical level (something that I wouldn't do personally, anyway), one could say that it depends on the interaction between the "aggressive" hormones and the other substances in our bodies.

... Which is, after all, just another way to say that culture indeed influences our basic behaviour.

Personally, anyway, I indeed tend to like positive and constructive aggressivity, when motivated by some serious ideals - both in women and men...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
. . . one man can't impregnate 1,000 women no matter how hard he tries . . .

I found that it wasn't worth the effort. Too much chafing.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by Sven G:
OK, if you say so... But aggressivity isn't something inherently "bad": I guess that if one puts it on the merely chemical level (something that I wouldn't do personally, anyway), one could say that it depends on the interaction between the "aggressive" hormones and the other substances in our bodies.

... Which is, after all, just another way to say that culture indeed influences our basic behaviour.

Personally, anyway, I indeed tend to like positive and constructive aggressivity, when motivated by some serious ideals - both in women and men...

Did I say it was bad? I just pointed out that it existed, I think.
You are right that it can have both negative and positive consequences.

[dcolton]

What about other nations and their military? Does the UK allow women inthe military? What about France? What nations allow women in the military or allow women in combat roles?

[Sven G]

... Just a practical example of women perfectly integrated into a popular militia: maybe not exactly what the thread is about (institutional women militaries?) - but it all happened about 70 years ago, essentially before any (pseudo-)feminist liberation movement.

At least, it shows that, in times of revolution (more or less voluntary, more or less forced), people tend to forget and transcend the petty divisions of ordinary, everyday survival, in favour of real, shared life...

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Logic:
Lets put it this way.

1. Women spend 9 months having a baby. After that they spend 6-12 months breast-feeding the child. That makes the bond between women and children so much stronger than the bond between a father and a child.

2. One man can have almost as many children as he wants while a woman can only have a limited amount of children(10-15 being the maximum IIRC). Meaning that in case of war it is "OK" to lose men, because that will not have an impact on the rebuilding of the nation. Losing too many women on the other hand has a very serious effect on rebuilding the country.

3. I believe women are better at helping people who have experienced the horrors of wars(especially helping children) than men are. Hence I believe that women are an invaluable asset in the rebuilding phase after wars.

All I can think about at the moment. It's difficult to explain. Thing is that I value a woman's life much more than a man's.

Very well said,

Women should be free to join the military should they so wish, but, personally, I would discourage them from doing so.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by dcolton:
What about other nations and their military? Does the UK allow women inthe military? What about France? What nations allow women in the military or allow women in combat roles?

I believe Israel does.

[tie]

Originally posted by voyageur:
I have a hard time thinking about this issue because I don't like the idea of anyone fighting wars, male of female, and I can't imagine myself wanting to do such a thing. Call it the testosterone factor.
However, if men can join up for comabt, then women should be able to also, if they wish.

I don't think any Americans should have to fight wars. I am looking forward to the day when all our fights are prosecuted by intelligent drones which bomb anybody they see taller than 6 feet (might be Osama Bin Laden).

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Very well said,

Women should be free to join the military should they so wish, but, personally, I would discourage them from doing so.

Agreed with the caveat that you have to be careful about "discouraged." That can easily be taken to the extreme of hazing by overzealous discouragers.

BG

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by voyageur:
I believe Israel does.

Yup, it's compulsory for men and women to serve in the Israeli military.

And to answer dcolton's question, yes the UK does allow women to join its military.

[itai195]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Yup, it's compulsory for men and women to serve in the Israeli military.

I'm not sure that women are placed in combat roles, though.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Agreed with the caveat that you have to be careful about "discouraged." That can easily be taken to the extreme of hazing by overzealous discouragers.

True.

Perhaps 'advise against' would be better terminology.

[Logic]

In Sweden women are drafted like the men, but the draft system is a bit complex.

Short version.

First you are drafted and after that you'll have to take some tests. After that you are assigned to the job you shall do in the military.

The girls have to come in and take the tests, but they have to apply themselves for being assigned to a job. If they do they are treated just like the men and if they won't sign it they will only be drafted and trained in a case of emergency.

At least that's how I remembered it. When I was in the military no woman had yet passed the special ops tests. Don't know if someone has today.

[Millennium]

I'd rather see the draft taken down completely, but maybe that's just me.

Ahem. When it comes to your basic infantry soldier, your average woman will tend to require more intensive training to be as physically effective as your average man. If a woman needs and wants to go through this extra training then by all means she should, but she needs to understand that this extra training will be a bona fide requirement.

There are other types of combat roles where brute physical strength and such don't do much for combat-effectiveness, such as piloting fighter jets. There shouldn't be any problem at all with putting women into such roles; no need for any additional training.

[andi*pandi]

Women have the right to defend their country in the military. If they qualify for combat positions (ie, exams, physical tests) then by all means let them at it.

I have more problem with a draft, and both men and women with small children.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
Women have the right to defend their country in the military. If they qualify for combat positions (ie, exams, physical tests) then by all means let them at it.

I have more problem with a draft, and both men and women with small children.

Speaking of the draft... Does this mean that women need to register with Selective Service so they can be potentially drafted? It would only be fair.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Speaking of the draft... Does this mean that women need to register with Selective Service so they can be potentially drafted? It would only be fair.

Apparently not.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Apparently not.

That is jacked up. Equality without responsibility.

[andi*pandi]

If there has to be a draft, let everybody have to sign up.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
If there has to be a draft, let everybody have to sign up.

I agree 105%, but I'd rather see the draft abolished altogether.