I’ve read that the best infantry men aren’t the big muscle guys. It’s the smaller guys that can force march 75 miles in the mud with full packs. Then fight like all get out for days and days with almost no rest and limited chow. The big guys also make big targets.
As for women in the infantry. Natural selection doesn’t play favorites. The strong survive and the weak die. There will be a lot of women in body bags. Guaranteed. There’s no getting around the difference in muscle mass. Thats why a women boxer wouldn’t last 5 rounds with a male boxer with equal experience. Put Andy Roddick and Serena Williams in a tennis match. See who wins.
I do agree that in our current wars women may do ok. We’re not asking troops to force march 75 miles anymore. They ride in trucks or helicopters. They don’t fight non-stop for weeks like they did at Iwo Jima. Lets just hope we continue to fight insurgents and not a real, professional army. Like China. Heck things are getting more unstable in N Korea. Putin is rebuilding the Russian army right now. We may have to fight a real war again someday.
I never delineated in my previous statement that it was a constitutional right. For some reason— boredom, stupidity, ignorance, whatever—the term “constitutional” was inserted into your reading of my statement. So let’s pop over to Wikipedia (everyone’s favorite illegitimate info source) and see what they define as "rights"
All those words and nothing that denotes the Constitution of the USA? How shameless!
Given what you’ve already said here, what does that matter?
You understand that more than 100 female soldiers have died in Iraq and a few dozen more have died in Afghanistan, right? There are already women in body bags. Do you have some kind of actual reason to think female soldiers will be more likely to die?
Well, one major reason for re-instituting the draft would be that we get in a hot war in Asia or get invaded by Brazil or something, and need to mobilize a LOT of combat soldiers, very quickly. If women are now qualified to be infantry, why shouldn’t they get drafted as infantry?
Exhaustion. Put a 70 lb pack on a woman soldier, have her march with the men for 60 miles. Then go into battle for 8 days and spend her sleepless nights getting shelled. Exhaustion will slow down her reflexes and the chances of getting killed go way up. Guys get tired too, but even the smallest edge in stamina may keep them alive.
Everyone assumes the days of the real infantry are over. That our troops can drive to the battlefield and get dropped off. If things get bad then close air support will blast the enemy. The battle ends after only a day or two.
But what happens if we have to fight a professional army? One that may be more fit and better trained than us?
I am not in the US, but I am in the military and in Canada we have allowed women in combat for some time (also openly gay/lesbian and transgendered, but I digress). I participated actively in the other thread mentioned earlier.
Women are expected to achieve the standard of fitness and readiness for their trade and position within the Forces. I am not going to try and convince anyone that every woman can achieve battle standard, but neither can every man.
It’s not a job for everyone. Not everyone passes every level of training, that’s why it’s designed that way, to weed out those that are not suited.
But, I also think that it’s foolish to say that someone couldn’t do it just because they happen to be a woman anymore than every man should be able to just because they have a penis. If a woman wants to be an infanteer or a Special Ops, they achieve the standard for that position, same as anyone. Therefore, they should be allowed, regardless of gender or orientation, to apply for those jobs.
Ok, we all know you just sit in threads and talk to yourself in posts that do nothing to respond to anything anybody else has said. All the things you mention here impact a male’s reflexes and “chances of getting killed”. I guess war stuff is hard for everybody, huh? :rolleyes:
You seem to like “Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.” And yet you seem to feel “political correctness” isn’t in play with women in combat? Now that’s fascinating!
Legal? I know of no Supreme Court decision promising combat assignments to women. Ethics? Ethics would probably more likely find anyone serving in combat to be wrong. So we’re down to social convention. If social rights aren’t dictated by political and social correctness, what does determine them?
Lot of soldiers dying of exhaustion these days, are there?
…oh, you mean they all get incredibly exhausted (that’s a given and they train for it) and that the average woman might be a bit more exhausted. Theoretically that might be true, but we’re not talking about average people here. I have to say- you haven’t really explained the problem here. You’re just kind of saying “Well I sure hope this doesn’t happen! 'Cause that would be really bad!”
No, you’re wrong here. The whole reason we discuss things like ethics is because certain things might be considered ethical in some situations and not others. Killing people is generally unethical, but in some circumstances in war, it isn’t. Or war might be considered wrong, but deliberately killing civilians or prisoners is considered less ethical than killing other soldiers. So yes, there is an ethical issue. If we’re taking the Constitutional point of view, one might argue this is an equal protection issue.
Yes, I seem to like to go with definitions of words since they then explain their meaning. It helps lubricate conversation instead of assuming points of view not even espoused. You should really fucking try it. It’s fascinating.
Yet you might have heard about Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta making it legal. (See first post of thread you are posting in.) You seem to need to use some more google-fu to understand this wacky confounded legal system.
Yeah, those unethical people trying to (wait for the Godwin) free people from the Nazis.
No we’re not, since both of your prior points are oddly pointless.
If you want to start another thread I would argue that many armies out there are more professional and/or better trained than we are and some of whom have had women in combat positions/assignments for ages. Some haven’t tried yet but I cannot think of a case where it was a failure.
What you envision is the first part is beyond Bastogne or Patton’s rescue; that is the closest battle I can think of to the scenario. And few of the men in that battle could have passed the “test” you give. Truth is, none of us really know what we are capable of until we’re actually in a furball and fighting our way through it. Maybe a small advantage in size could offset the stamina thing? (assuming its true)
At one point, to borrow an expression, infantry broke things and killed people and that was pretty much it. MAYBE. That’s another debate. But those days of infantry are long over. Your average rifleman today needs to be everything from a killer to a cop, politician to teacher, builder and breaker. Mostly he or she has to be an example to others - abroad and here at home as well. And women can do that just as well as any of us.
I dunno, I work with a lot of women athletes. Some of them could clearly kick the ass of any guy who came down the pike. I say, if the Israelis can do this, we can too.
No, she couldn’t. And she knows that, too - when someone brings up the possibility of her playing against a man, she ducks the subject. And well she should because she’s one of the best players in the history of her sport and her ability to play against men isn’t relevant. But the fact that King in her prime was able to beat a 55-year-old retired player doesn’t mean Serena could beat one of her male contemporaries.
Beyond that we could continue to debate points - such as the Department of Defense actually making “legal” decisions and the press using proper language in its reporting - but we would keep coming back to the same points much as when people debate the “right to smoke” or many other great debates.
Serena was beaten by a guy when she was 15, which may be why she ducks the question. I still don’t think you can say definitively that she couldn’t ever.
