Slickdeals User Survey 2017 We are giving away 200 gift cards worth $25 each! See More
Forum Thread

Women in Combat Roles

NotEasyBeingSavage 7,753 21 January 24, 2013 at 07:58 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24....html?_r=0

Quote :
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is lifting the military's official ban on women in combat, which will open up hundreds of thousands of additional front-line jobs to them, senior defense officials said Wednesday.

The groundbreaking decision overturns a 1994 Pentagon rule that restricts women from artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles, even though in reality women have frequently found themselves in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, where more than 20,000 have served. As of last year, more than 800 women had been wounded in the two wars and more than 130 had died.

Defense officials offered few details about Mr. Panetta's decision but described it as the beginning of a process to allow the branches of the military to put the change into effect. Defense officials said Mr. Panetta had made the decision on the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I think this is a good step toward equality. I hope that women have to pass the same physical readiness test as men to keep this truly equal. Also, for full equality they can follow this up by overturning the 1980 SCOTUS decision that women do not have to sign up for selective service. Clearly, since women are now considered capable of filling any role in the armed services, we would not want to gender discriminate in our other practices. If this happens, it will greatly weaken the long held precedent that we should be able to gender under any circumstance.

For those that aren't sure if I'm being sarcastic or not, I am not being sarcastic. I often bring up inequality in the selective service laws as a potential justification for other gender discrimination by law. Usually, in those cases I am playing devil's advocate and simply pointing out how the US sees gender discrimination. Specifically, this would greatly undercut the argument I have made for allowing states to ban same gender marriages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg

Quote :
In the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote "[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them."

176 Comments

1 2 3 4 5

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Nov 2006
L10: Grand Master
7,878 Posts
410 Reputation
#16
Quote from nobama View Post :
Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant at home...
No shackles? Or do you just keep the doors bolted from the outside?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Oct 2009
$trange but true
5,545 Posts
170 Reputation
#17
to be honest, to those that are against this, i just don't see how you care.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Rumble, young man, rumble. These are interesting times we live in. Punctuation is key. Fruit is nature's candy.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZI0kUOu...ding_scene
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y24E-W4...1-cast.jpg
Joined Jul 2010
... and so does Rodgers!
6,335 Posts
1,451 Reputation
#18
Quote from thikthird View Post :
to be honest, to those that are against this, i just don't see how you care.
The feeling is mutual.

Is there some problem with our "front lines"? Are the men not getting the job done? Why subject more people to the possibility of death? I would think this qualifies as "caring". I care that the armed forces should use as small an amount of personnel they deem needed to complete an objective. I care that the less people exposed to harm, the better.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Quote :
Never trust a dead Warlock.
Joined Apr 2006
L10: Grand Master
22,696 Posts
4,149 Reputation
#19
Quote from Favrerox View Post :
The feeling is mutual.

Is there some problem with our "front lines"? Are the men not getting the job done? Why subject more people to the possibility of death?
Wouldn't the 140+ women who have already died in Iraq or Afghanistan demonstrate that they already experience such a possibility of death?

The only problem with our "front lines" (to the extent such a thing even exists anymore) is that they discriminate against qualified women soldiers who *want* to be there.
Quote :
I would think this qualifies as "caring". I care that the armed forces should use as small an amount of personnel they deem needed to complete an objective. I care that the less people exposed to harm, the better.
Why do you assume that opening these roles to women will automatically mean more overall roles to fill?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." -- John Morley

"I just helped your mother kill someone. That 'old lady' enough for you?" -- Tara Knowles
Joined Aug 2010
L11: My Level Goes to 11
7,753 Posts
21 Reputation
Original Poster
#20
Quote from thikthird View Post :
to be honest, to those that are against this, i just don't see how you care.
Being against this makes perfect sense if women are subject to easier physical requirement than men to have combat roles. We should not sacrifice the quality of our infantry for the sake of "equality". I do not know if they will be subject to easier physical requirements or not.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
If I appear to be ignoring your posts, it's probably because you are on my ignore list.

Xuéxi zhōngwén
Joined Jul 2010
... and so does Rodgers!
6,335 Posts
1,451 Reputation
#21
Quote from smegalicious View Post :
Wouldn't the 140+ women who have already died in Iraq or Afghanistan demonstrate that they already experience such a possibility of death?

The only problem with our "front lines" (to the extent such a thing even exists anymore) is that they discriminate against qualified women soldiers who *want* to be there.
Yes. And as some have expressed, they have the same potential for being killed.

If they do this, they may want to start with separate units; ie all men, all women.


Quote from smegalicious View Post :
Why do you assume that opening these roles to women will automatically mean more overall roles to fill?
I didn't mean more overall, only "more" potential people to be in harms way. I think there is a reason why 5 star generals don't occupy battlefront positions.

I'm not really fundamentally opposed to it, but I don't see the need for it. The women that are qualified are respected by their male counterparts. Those that think otherwise will be in for a quick reality check.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by Favrerox January 24, 2013 at 11:48 AM.
#22
Quote from bonkman View Post :
The strongest woman vs the strongest man? sure.

But there's a lot of overlap in the distributions. I know plenty of women who are far faster/stronger/more athletic/smarter than most men. And I know plenty of men who are faster/stronger/more athletic/smarter than most women.
Very few women are as strong as the average man even in the military. Plus, you have different psychological attributes which may also hinder women in combat.

Quote from bonkman View Post :
You are correct that men can't give birth. But what that has to do with this is beyond me.
It's about equality. Pure and simple. A man cannot give birth and a man certainly cannot give the same level of care as a woman can to a baby or a toddler (and in most cases, even a child). Thus, man and woman are not, nor will they ever be, equal. The denial of such by so many people, IMO, is a burden to society.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Apr 2006
L10: Grand Master
22,696 Posts
4,149 Reputation
#23
Quote from charles052 View Post :
Very few women are as strong as the average man even in the military. Plus, you have different psychological attributes which may also hinder women in combat.

It's about equality. Pure and simple. A man cannot give birth and a man certainly cannot give the same level of care as a woman can to a baby or a toddler (and in most cases, even a child). Thus, man and woman are not, nor will they ever be, equal. The denial of such by so many people, IMO, is a burden to society.
Who needs facts & logic when there's stereotypes against entire groups of people!

Whee
Joined Jul 2010
... and so does Rodgers!
6,335 Posts
1,451 Reputation
#24
Quote from charles052 View Post :
Very few women are as strong as the average man even in the military. Plus, you have different psychological attributes which may also hinder women in combat.

It's about equality. Pure and simple. A man cannot give birth and a man certainly cannot give the same level of care as a woman can to a baby or a toddler (and in most cases, even a child). Thus, man and woman are not, nor will they ever be, equal. The denial of such by so many people, IMO, is a burden to society.
I believe both are made in His image, so I would say equal is true to some extent. "Same" is the issue. Men and women are not the "same".
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#25
Quote from smegalicious View Post :
Who needs facts & logic when there's stereotypes against entire groups of people!

Whee
It's rather funny how those "stereotypes", more often than not, fit like a glove.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Dec 2008
L5: Journeyman
649 Posts
118 Reputation
#26
Quote from Favrerox View Post :
The feeling is mutual.

Is there some problem with our "front lines"? Are the men not getting the job done? Why subject more people to the possibility of death? I would think this qualifies as "caring". I care that the armed forces should use as small an amount of personnel they deem needed to complete an objective. I care that the less people exposed to harm, the better.
Yes, the problem with our "front lines" is that they aren't 100% perfect, therefore you try improve when given a chance. If you increase the overall talent pool that you draw from by 50+%, you stand a good chance of improving any group's performance. Maybe you don't get a 50% better group, but you might get something.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#27
Quote from Favrerox View Post :
I believe both are made in His image, so I would say equal is true to some extent. "Same" is the issue. Men and women are not the "same".
If a fellow male soldier falls in battle, what are the odds that a female soldier can carry or drag him to safety? What are the odds that a female can fight off a male, enemy soldier in hand to hand combat? Odds are that they cannot perform near as well as a male soldier can in such situations.

Sorry, but using the term same is almost exactly like using the term "equal" in this case.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Jul 2010
... and so does Rodgers!
6,335 Posts
1,451 Reputation
#28
Quote from charles052 View Post :
If a fellow male soldier falls in battle, what are the odds that a female soldier can carry or drag him to safety? What are the odds that a female can fight off a male, enemy soldier in hand to hand combat? Odds are that they cannot perform near as well as a male soldier can.

Sorry, but using the term same is almost exactly like using the term "equal" in this case.
Well in their defense, all accounts indicate that the women will need to meet the current (male) standards for "frontline" units.

The problem with equal vs same is this:

In a marriage both husband and wife are equal, but (their role is) not the same.

In football, say, a star QB and a star WR are equal, but not the same.

In an OR, a surgeon and an anesthetist are equal, but not the same.

It is the continued push for "same-ness" that is confusing and detrimental to many. There are reasons for the differences between men and women, to ignore that is a belief with no foundations.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Oct 2009
$trange but true
5,545 Posts
170 Reputation
#29
Quote from Favrerox View Post :
The feeling is mutual.

Is there some problem with our "front lines"? Are the men not getting the job done? Why subject more people to the possibility of death? I would think this qualifies as "caring". I care that the armed forces should use as small an amount of personnel they deem needed to complete an objective. I care that the less people exposed to harm, the better.
i don't know if there is a problem or not. i think this addresses the problem, if it exists or not. this is not subjecting more people to the possibility of death, it's just subjecting different people.
Quote from Xygonn View Post :
Being against this makes perfect sense if women are subject to easier physical requirement than men to have combat roles. We should not sacrifice the quality of our infantry for the sake of "equality". I do not know if they will be subject to easier physical requirements or not.
i don't know if they will or not either. really i don't know if that makes a difference as far as quality of the infantry or not.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Jan 2004
L10: Grand Master
15,227 Posts
1,143 Reputation
#30
Quote from charles052 View Post :
If a fellow male soldier falls in battle, what are the odds that a female soldier can carry or drag him to safety? What are the odds that a female can fight off a male, enemy soldier in hand to hand combat? Odds are that they cannot perform near as well as a male soldier can in such situations.

Sorry, but using the term same is almost exactly like using the term "equal" in this case.
This is why I have to say that in general it's a bad idea. Nevermind the shots of women being killed in action that the American population at large isn't ready to see. Nevermind the harassment and likely physical assaults that will happen at the hands of our own soldiers. There is more but you get it....

If I'm on the front line I want to know that the people I'm with have my back and can hopefully take care of me if I get in trouble. I want the best I can get around me. Now, if that means some buff ass hardcore chick instead of some scrawny guy then fine but generally speaking most women aren't as strong as the average male soldier. They better not lessen the standard so that women can meet them and to frank the standards they have these days are minimum standards. As a soldier on the front line I wouldn't want my squad to have just met the minimum standards I'd want them to have well exceeded them.

It's really simple. Women can't do everything that a man can do equally as well and the same is true vice verse. A lot of things yes, but not everything. I was watching snowboarding this past weekend and in the half pipe the guys were going crazy. Then came the women and it was boooooooooooring. Even the broadcasters knew it as they literally only showed one or two runs and then back to the men. Give it up already. Men and women aren't equal. That's not the say the opposite sex can't do something the other can do but embrace your strengths while at the same time recognizing your short comings and enough of this so called equality.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 2 of 12
1 2 3 4 5
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2017. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Link Copied to Clipboard