Yes, and they should be integrated with the males
Yes, but keep their units seperate from male units
No, but women should be given some basic infantry skills beyond basic training
No, women should never serve in a role where they may encounter combat
If a women can meet the same physical standards, she can join the infantry. Do you know how have, at least according to my Swedish counter-parts? Zero.
Are they being kept out for other less obvious reasons? I don't know, but I do know that Israel once allowed women in infantry roles and it no longer allows them, perhaps with good reason.
No kidding? What's your point? That women can't get physical enough for combat?Having served in Airborne, light, Ranger, and mechanized infantry units, I will tell you that infantrymen in all of them require intense physicality to gain and maintain an edge in combat.
So women can't hump a ruck through the mountains? Care to prove that point?Where do we use mechanized infantry?
Well, there is certainly Korea. Whose masive mountains require infantrymen, wearing the same combat gear, to scale the mountains either in conjunction with fire from the armored assets, or to pass assets through the mountain passes to attack the enemies main forces. Does climbing mountains qualify as physical? Does the armor in support make it easier?
Again, you're implying women in general can't do that. I want you to prove it.There is also the reality of the other extreme, open desert. Nobody walked to Baghdad or Kabul, but when the battle starts, and especially in the close quarters of Urban Combat, the battles range intense and physical. And M-4 might be a great equalizer, but you have to bring it to bear in a manner that takes advantage of your enemies positioning. You must be able to reposition faster and more effectively then your enemy, and the sheer environment of passing between floors, pushing through barricades and often hand to hand combat that result, regardless of how you were delivered to battle (Airborne, Air Assault, or Mechanized) the reality is often the same.
Some could and some men couldn't. I've already addressed this dynamic previously.Not too mention, having seen a few destroyed armored vehicles, are women going to be able to reach in and carry out a an injured comrade from a turret?
I didn't say that and you apparently have missed several of my other posts in this thread. I've already made this same case as to why we shouldn't integrate women into male dominated combat units. Reading if fundamental. Go back a few pages.That still does not address the sexual competition between the sexes. If you think that levels of discipline between infantry units and logistics units are the same you are flat out wrong.
It will also not prevent the inevitable gambit from emerging, "If Johnny goes through the door first, I'll get Suzie," and when such acts become obvious they will rip a unit apart.
The argument I am no engaged is countering the very foolish notion that women can't do the job. Some can in fact do the job. Conversely some men can't.
Why has no one even mentioned a "separate but equal" approach ?
Is it still the leftover racism baggage ?
What about an all woman specialized infantry unit ?
Any Thoughts ?
I think we are still not communicating right on the rest though. The goal of the standards now on the books is for overall physical fitness. Since women are different than men, they can have the same level of fitness, while being able to do things differently. Not sure if it is still used, but when I served, body fat standards where implemented(stupid system, easy to cheat, and highly inaccurate in way it was measured). Women had different body fat percentages allowed, not because women where special, but because women's bodies are different. Current PT standards are the same as this kinda. The idea is to get the same end result, but since women and men are different, the route there is different.
For combat/infantry, universal standards would have to be implemented though, and this is make or break, no compromise. Any speculation on whether this is achievable is just that, speculation. I would note though that the military is surprisingly good at getting results.
If they can't then you are basically giving a unit a weaker peer by giving them a woman and on the battlefield that is flat out unacceptable.
You can't argue it away by saying, "they're different so they do things differently," if the difference is brute strength it's an issue not to be poo poohed away.
Last edited by Voidwar; 05-27-09 at 02:42 PM.
Not at all.The approach you have attempted in this post is rather sad Jeff.
So? Generalizations have no place here when we are talking about allowing women to specialize in a particular MOS. You either meet the qualifications or you don't. Period.You see, Scarecrow's hypotheticals both spoke of the genders, as a group.
No, the gross generalizations are what is being discussed here. That's what I am taking issue with. And they are wrong. Why? Because of that fact that there are many females who do not fit his stereotype. That fact blows his generalization out of the water and with it any validation he thought he had about "groups." You are trying to frame my argument for me, it won't work. You should know this by now...every time you try it it blows up in your face.In both instances, you attempted to counter his assertions, with anecdotes about specific individuals. Individuals are not groups. Groups are what is under discussion here, as you can note in the thread title. You yourself, only switch back to the topic at hand, the whole group, in your end statement, which regards your preferred policy. So your policy on a group is being determined by data based on individual anecdotes.
And you were wrong previously.As I stated previously . . .