If someone can pass eight weeks of boot camp and is willing to get their guts ripped out on a battlefield for the good of their homeland, they are soldiers as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of what's between their legs.
Military Should Women Be Able To Serve In the Military?
- Thread starter almostinsane
- Start date
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
Why doom a woman to a probable crippling when there are men volunteering to do the job with a fraction of the risk?
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Keep in mind that as time progresses, more of our military actions are against unconventional enemies, including fighting guerillas or terrorists, and technological advances tend to favor quality over quantity. Also, I would hope, we can avoid pointless military conflict in the future as we've mostly done under Trump, but not so much under his predecessors.
I'm thinking and hoping that we won't need so many soldiers to throw into the meat grinder that we need women in the military. Though, if we really did need more soldiers, maybe it would be better to lower male physical standards instead of letting in females. It seems more reasonable, for example, to reduce the push ups required from 40 to 30 for men than to let women in who can only do 17 pushups.
I'm thinking and hoping that we won't need so many soldiers to throw into the meat grinder that we need women in the military. Though, if we really did need more soldiers, maybe it would be better to lower male physical standards instead of letting in females. It seems more reasonable, for example, to reduce the push ups required from 40 to 30 for men than to let women in who can only do 17 pushups.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
because who's going to stop us from trying?
ShieldWife
Marchioness
I don't know what "skeky" means.
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
I dont see how this actually connects to what I said.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
Did you mean Sketchy
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
you ask why, my answer is "Why not"? especially if you think measure of a person is by his ability to kill. Which def seems to be the case for hummanity as a whole. Look at what we parade around as reality television, baby mommas childish debates, homoerotic gladiatorial matches between two overly roided guys...
ShieldWife
Marchioness
I don't find the subject particularly uncomfortable. In certain times and places, women fighting may be necessary, but it's something that should be avoided when possible and I think that this has been the prevailing thought in almost every civilization that has existed through history. Is it uncomfortable for me because I'm a "shield wife" and I oppose women fighting? I don't oppose women fighting, I think that every adult should know how to fight and kill if necessary, including women. I don't think that women should be involved in the military as it functions now in the modern world, as we would reduce the effectiveness of the military and our own ability to contribute to society would be reduced as well.
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
Actions that require the input of effort or resources are justified against the respective state of their inaction. This is a basic function of the human brain that we call "decision making".
I dont think anyone here is saying that.
Ah yes, a fair and total description of modern human experience. Reality television.
D
Deleted member
Guest
1. Women are critically important to counterinsurgency operations.
2. Women can deescalate conflict so their presence in Military Police units has value.
3. Women deal with extremely cramped close quarters for long periods of time very well.
4. Women handle some physiological situations better than men.
So clearly there is a role for women in uniform which would degrade military effectiveness to not have them present. I believe women can perform any role in the military effectively, the question is whether or not it is best performance, in a circumstance when the best performance is mandatory.
In some circumstances like submarines, if we have enough for separate training courses and promotions, gender-segregation would be the best course of action.
In others like MPs and counterinsurgency specialist deployments having mixed gender units is absolutely necessary for mission success.
In many rear-area positions it’s a simply irrelevant question. People flying drones from an office in Colorado Springs, DLA administration folks—etc.
For the women both capable of meeting male standards and wanting to do so and being psychologically fit to work with men, historically these women always showed up in uniform anyway. Austria-Hungary and Russia had no formal policies for instance in WW1. Just give them an exemption. But make it clear it’s a discretionary exemption, not a standard policy.
The only reason we try to enforce single universal standards is because our society is under pressure from SJWs. A normal society that isn’t, is capable of making decisions on the basis of individuals.
2. Women can deescalate conflict so their presence in Military Police units has value.
3. Women deal with extremely cramped close quarters for long periods of time very well.
4. Women handle some physiological situations better than men.
So clearly there is a role for women in uniform which would degrade military effectiveness to not have them present. I believe women can perform any role in the military effectively, the question is whether or not it is best performance, in a circumstance when the best performance is mandatory.
In some circumstances like submarines, if we have enough for separate training courses and promotions, gender-segregation would be the best course of action.
In others like MPs and counterinsurgency specialist deployments having mixed gender units is absolutely necessary for mission success.
In many rear-area positions it’s a simply irrelevant question. People flying drones from an office in Colorado Springs, DLA administration folks—etc.
For the women both capable of meeting male standards and wanting to do so and being psychologically fit to work with men, historically these women always showed up in uniform anyway. Austria-Hungary and Russia had no formal policies for instance in WW1. Just give them an exemption. But make it clear it’s a discretionary exemption, not a standard policy.
The only reason we try to enforce single universal standards is because our society is under pressure from SJWs. A normal society that isn’t, is capable of making decisions on the basis of individuals.
Because they know the risks and it is their choice. Besides, no one joins the army for an easy life.
That is because we live in one of the most bizarre times in history where peace has been brought by the United States's overwhelming military and economic might, whilst Europe spent itself in the World Wars and Russia destroyed itself via Communism. This is not a period set to last, especially with America withdrawing from World Police role. In my view, it'll be 18th century 2: Electric boogaloo in terms of warfare, a resurgence of conventional war between peer powers.
That aside, if a woman feels that strongly about their country and passes basic, why should they be stopped? I'd rather a woman be a proud soldier instead of a feminist HR manager.
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
Yes but the army has the choice of who to take. They don't need everyone. Not selecting a woman (who will become crippled) does not cost you a soldier, it just means you'd take a man (who is much less likely to be crippled) instead.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Why not just require ever citizen to know how to fight *Cough Cough israel Cough cough*
ShieldWife
Marchioness
The idea that in the near future we’ll be involved in such massive casualty inflicting wars that being able to have female soldiers is going to be a significant benefit pretty much flies in the face every every trend in warfare as well as social trend going back decades. If America, or any western nation for that matter, gets involved in such catastrophic wars that we’ll have millions of casualties and start running out of men then we’ll have bigger problems than women in the military.
If an eighty year old feels strongly about their country and wants to serve, why should they be stopped? Or someone extremely obese, or a quadriplegic, or blind person? All of those people can love their country and have just as many rights as anybody else. The thing is, there is no right to join the military. The military isn’t a jobs program, it’s not a scholarship foundation, it exists to protect the existence of our nation and the military should only pick those people who increase the military‘s ability to fight nations and actors who threaten us.
Also, a woman who joins the military is a feminist of sorts. She demands that one of the most important, and necessarily uncompromising, institutions in our society bend over backwards to accommodate her and her deficiencies so that she can achieve success by a male standard rather than a more appropriate female one. If a woman wants to defend her country, to further her culture and civilization, she shouldn’t play soldier she should have babies.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
why didn't you just start with this and end the conversation there? Also who's going to enforce this?
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Why start with that or end the conversation with it? I think that everything I’ve said is pertinent to the topic.
As for who enforced banning women from the military? The armed services would enforce that prohibition just as they would enforce any other regulation that they have regarding membership.
Regarding having babies, that should not be forced, I only suggested a way women could help protect their nation.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
fair enough.