- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 19,965
- Reaction score
- 7,360
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?
OK a rather valid point. Now based upon that I would be supportive for a lower standard for overall military entrance, with certain ratings/billets/whatever having higher standards to enter into OR anyone who cannot meet a certain standard, is not allowed in a combat role. Very similar, but applied differently.
I'll be quite honest, I am one for allowing even handicapped individuals into the military. Granted there would be a certain limit to the roles they could fulfill, but I see no reason not to have a paraplegic as a DK or a YN or their equivalents in the other branches, with maybe limits to the CONUS bases. The military has many roles that need to be filled. Set the standards for each role and who ever can meet then can have them, regarless of any status.
Of course you can call for whatever you want. Doesn't make it any more realistic. To have 50% of the front lines be women, you would need 50% of the military to be women. If you are not calling for a forced service military then the 50% number is unrealistic.
Having equality for women doesn't mean that an equal number of women will want to fill the same roles as men, or even join the military for that matter. It means that any individual women who wants to try for the same role as a man typically get has an equal change to try and make it. And personally that means at the same standard. You are trying to look at women as a whole, or at least the is the impression you are giving. Not every man who enters into the military wants combat and will choose ratings/billets to reflect that. Look at the chefs. They are non-combatants, yet military. They are not going to be on the front lines. Sure they may have to fight if the fight comes to them, but then so will the women who are also there in the support capacity and some who have already shown that they can hold their own.
I'll put Laila Ali up against most NFL players. I'll be she can hold her own there. I'll grant you that you are right as a rule, but I've seen some of the female body builder that put professional sports players to shame. If they want to tough it out with them on the gridiron, then by all means they should be allowed. Either they can keep up or they are off the team. You can have both equality and strength as long as you count your equality by a standard (which could leave some men in the dust) and not by numbers and percents.
My beef is men don't get a choice......They have to meet the physical standards in boot cam.....Women have a much easier physical standard to meet.
OK a rather valid point. Now based upon that I would be supportive for a lower standard for overall military entrance, with certain ratings/billets/whatever having higher standards to enter into OR anyone who cannot meet a certain standard, is not allowed in a combat role. Very similar, but applied differently.
I'll be quite honest, I am one for allowing even handicapped individuals into the military. Granted there would be a certain limit to the roles they could fulfill, but I see no reason not to have a paraplegic as a DK or a YN or their equivalents in the other branches, with maybe limits to the CONUS bases. The military has many roles that need to be filled. Set the standards for each role and who ever can meet then can have them, regarless of any status.
No, I can call for whatever I want. Weather I get it or not is another thing. However, I believe it will always be mostly men because, as I have mentioned before, women don't want equality, they want entitlement. 50% of the frosting without having to sacrifice for it like many men do who are called up to go overseas and die. When women pull their weight and become 50% of that, then I will take them seriously when they say they want equality. So far, all I can see is them saying they want 50% of the candy but 5% of the bullets, RPG's, Mortars and IED injuries and deaths. You can't ask for 50% of all that is good without people asking you to do 50% of the work to earn it.
Of course you can call for whatever you want. Doesn't make it any more realistic. To have 50% of the front lines be women, you would need 50% of the military to be women. If you are not calling for a forced service military then the 50% number is unrealistic.
Having equality for women doesn't mean that an equal number of women will want to fill the same roles as men, or even join the military for that matter. It means that any individual women who wants to try for the same role as a man typically get has an equal change to try and make it. And personally that means at the same standard. You are trying to look at women as a whole, or at least the is the impression you are giving. Not every man who enters into the military wants combat and will choose ratings/billets to reflect that. Look at the chefs. They are non-combatants, yet military. They are not going to be on the front lines. Sure they may have to fight if the fight comes to them, but then so will the women who are also there in the support capacity and some who have already shown that they can hold their own.
It sounds more that your problem is with women.
As for equality, nothing is absolute. You will hear the word equality, but the courts will still favor a mother over a father and will still gut a man's paycheck to support her through life. Sure a women can drive a truck. Can pilot a plane. Can lead a nation. Can run a marathon. But the unspoken truth is that we are unequal. Again, I refer you to the NFL or any sport where gender is segregated. When's the last time you saw an Olympic track and field meet where the men and women raced each other? This truth about physical inequality is more than accepted. It is celebrated in our sports for the sake of sportsmanship. Would you care to see a Football game where one side was all women? Guess who would win. How would you like to see the Marines go head to head against an army of women? Unless you wish to see a slaughter, its impractical. There is a weaker sex, whether feminists admit it or not.
But let's not voice for the weakening of our infantry just because you have an ax to grind against women. Until our society places women in the NBA, NFL, MLB or NHL....what do you think people want for their infantry - Equality or strength?
I'll put Laila Ali up against most NFL players. I'll be she can hold her own there. I'll grant you that you are right as a rule, but I've seen some of the female body builder that put professional sports players to shame. If they want to tough it out with them on the gridiron, then by all means they should be allowed. Either they can keep up or they are off the team. You can have both equality and strength as long as you count your equality by a standard (which could leave some men in the dust) and not by numbers and percents.