Women in the Infantry?

You just twisted my post into something that I did not say. I definitely did not say that some people are more expendable than others and I definitely did not imply that in any way.
Click to expand...

I would say it was an accurate representation of your post since you seemed to elevating women above men saying they were too precious to lose. It seems like you were saying they alone are the thing holding out civilization together.

Explain how a population of any nation sees no change after a war that drastically drains it of lives?
Click to expand...

There is changes, however, I have yet to see the casualties of a war cause the nation's population to collapse.

You failed to consider the effects of greater scale conflicts. Your numbers are meaningless if the big picture changes. During WWII, the % of our population employed by the military was almost 13%, and a very tiny fraction of that were women. If another world war erupts, heaven forbid, the assimilation of women in our military would spell disaster for them and America's families, as I mentioned before.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as I stated if another war of that scale broke out with today's technology, women won't be safe at home either. That would be the least of our concern considering the whole world would be endangered.

Women have different physical and medical needs than women. You are erroneously comparing the assimilation of minorities, who also happen to be male, to the assimilation of women, which is a completely different story. Many of our generals today are expressing their opinion that the military is simply unready for such changes to the military's living quarters, redistribution and redesign of equipment, and other logistical problems facing a large influx of a different gender in the military, not to mention the costs.
Click to expand...

They may have different needs but that doesn't mean they cannot serve in combat. If men's needs can be catered to why can't women's? Minorities was a good comparison since the same arguments you are making against women were made against minorities in some shape or form. ie "women are weaker" vs "minorities are dumber" (before assimilation). Both those statements were backed by averages in tests.

You are missing the point by a mile. Would you consider the situation of men and women together in a battlezone in a world war the same as the situation of men and women together in an office cubical? When both are thrust into highly destablized, chaotic situations, it is much more likely that rape can occur than male and female coworkers chatting over their morning coffee at the workplace.
Click to expand...

Rape within a unit is the fault of the aggressor. You're saying women should be excluded because men simply can't control themselves due to instinct? So men can do whatever they want and blame it on instinct so the laws must be catered to them? I believe men are in the wrong here, not the women. They shouldn't be barred from service simply because some people cannot control themselves. Those people belong in jail, not in our military.

That is not the problem of a male soldier. You cannot "train" men to suppress their sexual instincts as much as you can "train" men to shoot a weapon. We are not taking away anyone's rights here. Females and males alike have to consider the consequences before deciding whether to fully "equalize" society, as in destroy traditional gender roles by allowing women into the military.
Click to expand...

That is not the problem if the male soldier? You must be joking. Humans have the power to suppress instincts. Suppressing self preservation in itself shows they can suppress any other instinct if they wanted to. The belief that you are a slave to your instincts and have no control over them is simply not true. I am sure some men are too weak willed to do it can be done.

If you truly believe this then you surely believe women should be removed from the entire military since they would be given preferential treatment by us Neanderthal males who cannot evolve past mere instincts.
 
goaliedad said:
While I wouldn't go as far as to require women to take assignments in the so-called "dangerous" MOS, I would not restrict them from doing so, if qualified to carry out the job.
Click to expand...
That is the only thing that I am looking for. I do not understand how allowing qualified women the option to try to be in the infantry translates to draft all women, regardless of their physical fitness and military background.

I am enjoying the debate and hearing points from both sides, though. :thumb:
 
SVG said:
That is the only thing that I am looking for. I do not understand how allowing qualified women the option to try to be in the infantry translates to draft all women, regardless of their physical fitness and military background.

I am enjoying the debate and hearing points from both sides, though. :thumb:
Click to expand...

That is the best part of being here. Glad to be a part of it. :smile:
 
Ive just read through this entire thread and its a really interesting topic. Ill start off saying that Im just a cadet with NO experience on AD, in infantry, or combat. Also, Im a 20-year old white male. If that inherintly makes me biased, Im sorry.

Having just read through this thread I noticed that it started off with a question of the Army's current policy. SVG thinks that any women who meet standards should be given a shot. In theory, I absolutely agree. And I dont see how any rational person couldnt agree with that. But...

That takes me to one of my favorite military terms: cost-effectiveness. To make the policy change to put women in infantry, subs, special forces its going to cost alot. The question in my mind is whether or not its worth it. With the small amount of women who are able to meet the physical demands of being an infantry marine, I just don't see the numbers adding up. Also, for subs. Its going to cost a lot to convert those vessels to include separate facilities for sleeping, showering, etc. just for a the few women onboard. Is it worth it? Im not an expert. I dont have the answer, just an opinion.
 
nick4060 said:
But...

That takes me to one of my favorite military terms: cost-effectiveness. To make the policy change to put women in infantry, subs, special forces its going to cost alot. The question in my mind is whether or not its worth it. With the small amount of women who are able to meet the physical demands of being an infantry marine, I just don't see the numbers adding up. Also, for subs. Its going to cost a lot to convert those vessels to include separate facilities for sleeping, showering, etc. just for a the few women onboard. Is it worth it? Im not an expert. I dont have the answer, just an opinion.
Click to expand...

I do realize that cost-effectiveness is important but I see it as another excuse to prevent the assimilation of women into infantry, special forces, etc. If something is going against women's rights of equality then cost should not be a major factor. It's another excuse to not push policy that would require some work. I'm not claiming to know the financial effects of this change but I don't think it should prevent the change. To me equality is worth it.
 
RascalFlatts5858 said:
To me equality is worth it.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is worth just as much as mine. I just don't like the idea of turning the military into a battlefield for political debate. It seems like congressmen and the media use issues like this to benefit a larger political agenda rather than the military's interests.

If policymakers find that changing the policy makes the military more effective, then Im all for it. But if they're just trying to use the military to push a bigger issue, then Im against it.

Dont get me wrong. Im all for equal rights in terms of gender, race, religion or anything else. IMHO the military's priority should be defending the nation and not serving as a tool for national social progress.
 
nick4060 said:
Ive just read through this entire thread and its a really interesting topic. Ill start off saying that Im just a cadet with NO experience on AD, in infantry, or combat. Also, Im a 20-year old white male. If that inherintly makes me biased, Im sorry.

Having just read through this thread I noticed that it started off with a question of the Army's current policy. SVG thinks that any women who meet standards should be given a shot. In theory, I absolutely agree. And I dont see how any rational person couldnt agree with that. But...

That takes me to one of my favorite military terms: cost-effectiveness. To make the policy change to put women in infantry, subs, special forces its going to cost alot. The question in my mind is whether or not its worth it. With the small amount of women who are able to meet the physical demands of being an infantry marine, I just don't see the numbers adding up. Also, for subs. Its going to cost a lot to convert those vessels to include separate facilities for sleeping, showering, etc. just for a the few women onboard. Is it worth it? Im not an expert. I dont have the answer, just an opinion.
Click to expand...

Good point, but nobody made a plan on how assimilation would work. Instead of having to transition currently existing vehicles and equipment it can all be kept the same. Newly made equipment could be made for both genders making the cost effectiveness argument not matter. As you said, not many women would join so it wouldn't take long before enough equipment exists for all of them.

In principle, even if it was costly, I believe money is no reason to allow unequally.
 
nick4060 said:
Dont get me wrong. Im all for equal rights in terms of gender, race, religion or anything else. IMHO the military's priority should be defending the nation and not serving as a tool for national social progress.
Click to expand...
Social progress aside, capable women could serve as a valuable asset, if they are fit for the job. Just because they are female does not mean that an extraordinary women would not improve the quality of our fighting forces, as would an extraordinary man. (Not arguing that men are more valuable than women, merely some women are more capable than some men, as some men are more capable than some women)
 
SVG said:
That is the only thing that I am looking for. I do not understand how allowing qualified women the option to try to be in the infantry translates to draft all women, regardless of their physical fitness and military background.

I am enjoying the debate and hearing points from both sides, though. :thumb:
Click to expand...

Hopefully you'll be able to share this great advice to you daughter also :thumb:
 
gunner1zeus said:
Beat NAVY:
Becarefull with thinking like that or posting your opinions, some of them may not meet with approval of team MOM and it"s leader JAM if that happens you will become a uninformed, knucke dragging, neanderthal white male. you must march in lockstep with team MOM or you will be labeled as a despised male.:yllol:
Click to expand...


At some point, if we got to be on the team MOM roster, we in all probability found one of you "uninformed, knuckle dragging, neanderthal" men somewhat attractive. Just sayin'.:smile:
 
caroline said:
At some point, if we got to be on the team MOM roster, we in all probability found one of you "uninformed, knuckle dragging, neanderthal" men somewhat attractive. Just sayin'.:smile:
Click to expand...

I used to be called a "chauvinist" back in the day :cool:
 
Maximus said:
I used to be called a "chauvinist" back in the day :cool:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I figured Gunner just didn't know how to spell "chauvinist" so he went with the long, dragged out version.:yllol: (so wishing there was something that displayed even greater glee than this smilie!)
 
caroline said:
That is EXACTLY how I picture Gunner in my head. Not that I do that. Just for argument's sake. Jeez, I shouldn't have had anything to drink tonight, I just keep digging myself in deeper and deeper!!!
Click to expand...

Caroline:

My hair is not that long and I'm not nearly that articulate.
I don't have to know how to spell chauvinist that is what spell check is for.:cool:
 
Wow! A blast from the crypt - a zombie thread straight outta 2009.
 
gunner1zeus said:
SVG:

I just read about a movie that might interest you, it's title ARMY OF ONE (2005) Its about 3 young people who join the army after 9/11. 2 males and 1 female one of the men becomes an alcoholic and contemplates suicide the other male deserts on goes back to his gang life in Chicago.
The female finds a life she was born to and is quickly promoted to an elite position with the 82nd airborne and goes to Iraq. For the rest you will have to go see the movie.
it was written and directed by SARAH GOODMAN of NYC.
if you don't believe me google it. quite a coincidence don't you think:confused:
Click to expand...
3 people of any gender isnt exactly a statistical sampling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top