So, let me see here. You don't want to study the current situations with women who are in combat, because it is the wrong type of combat and might not prove the point you want to prove. Why are you reacting so emotionally to something that should be analytical. You post a link to a way out of date study as justification for your position, I call for a new study with modern data, and you all of a sudden don't want to use actual, honest to god data, you just know you are right
It's not a matter of me 'wanting' to study the data available in combat, I just don't feel the data is sufficient to support a claim that women do not have adverse effects in combat when it was studied on a much broader level earlier. But according to you so much has changed in regards to warfare in the last 60 years that the data from that study is useless.
I am not reacting emotionally at all. It is frustrating however when I have to keep reiterating the same point over and over that you are seemingly failing to grasp, or are just ignoring. There is a huge difference between women serving as gunner in a convoy, or as a pilot etc.. than patrolling the streets as a designated infantryman.
As I stated before, that link merely highlighted some of the points I was making and articulated them in a different manner than I am. It was not the cornerstone of my argument, it was just a supporting piece. Read earlier posts please.
I don't 'know I am right about anything. I just don't see how a study of isolated incidents of women in a different type of combat is adequate enough to make such a broad change when there is a study that proved women in combat to be risky to the mission and puts the men involved at greater risk.
You are the one now using an emotional appeal. Show me data that states they all did an incredible job. Don't make the argument that everyone who has died for their country, male of female, in combat did an incredible job. I am not taking away from the memory of them or the sacrifice they put forth, but to say they all did an incredible job is false.Despite your dismissiveness of women who have fought and died in service to our country, they do an incredible job, in combat. There is no shortage of data that can be gained from this, and a logical decision made about the future of women in combat.
I suppose we could measure this by citations and awards given to females? Granted this would not be a completely reliable study, but it would give facts over your opinion that they all do an incredible job 'in combat.'
Once again I will point out your definition of combat is far different than one an infantryman would give. All combat is not equal, and although I know women have endured some horrendous circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have not been exposed to it day in and day out on the 'front-line' as the infantry have.
To say that this argument is similar to one of racial integration is illogical. There was no study or data that I am aware of that showed blacks jeopardized missions or were at any physical disadvantage when it came to combat.All the arguments seen so far all sound very much like why "don't ask, don't tell" was not going to work, and why blacks could never serve in integrated units, and so on. This raises questions for me, and makes me seriously want to have some good, modern data to make a decision off of, which is hopefully what the British are using to make their decision