Polynikes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 163
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Now you are going beyond what is stated in your linked article. These are not the issues mentioned from the 1948 study. I do not see anything in your list that women are incapable of handling.
It isn't a matter of the women being unable to handle it, except for the physical aspect, which I don't believe they could. But simple physical fitness tests could determine whether they are capable of this.
It is the men who 'can't handle it' that the study indicates. They are the ones jeopardizing the mission. So this begs the question of "Well, men can learn to deal with it."
But should lives have to be lost in order for women to feel equal to serve in combat to find out this answer?
Now this is the study I am questioning. It's outdated and needs to be re-examined. Note this is not saying it is wrong, only questionable. If we do not continually question past assumptions, we will fall behind, no matter what the topic in question is.
I agree, we should always question past assumptions and 'authorities on matters.' This however isn't a study of going out and examining mating habits of rabbits, people would lose their lives in order to find conclusive results.
No, but the people and equipment of combat have.
Yes, they have, but how does this validate your point or negate any of mine? Exoskeletons aren't widely used yet to support the heavy loads, and we haven't yet implemented mind controlling measures in soldiers for them to be able to block out traumatic experiences during battle and affter. Yet being a key word.