User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 56

  1. #1

    Default Why is there opposition to women in combat roles?

    I dont understand why there is opposition to women in combat roles, if they are serving at all they are likely to be killed or to have to defend themselves and kill others doing so.

  2. #2
    redundant descriptor netzealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    231

    Default

    I'm confused... are you saying you don't know why people oppose women in combat roles or why people oppose keeping women out of combat roles?

    "All jobs should be based on qualifications, not gender." - Darlene Iskra, who is the first woman ever to command a Navy ship (still a non-combat role)


    I disagree with Darlene Iskra. Combat, unlike society, is not prone to politically correct pressures of equal rights for women in the "workplace". The issue here is not gender equality, but rather gender qualification. In combat, the two are not separate as they are in the civilized work environment from which this movement draws it's leverage from.

    I don't believe women should be allowed in combat. Look at the PST chart for basic entry into every service... there are two charts, one for men and one for woman. That right there tells you that qualification will be impacted by gender and when lives are at stake, having a lower standard for women to qualify isn't helping anybody.

    I have seen interviews with female police officers and from what I can tell, that is about the extent of their ability to deal with violent offenders effectively despite being smaller and weaker on average. Combat roles delve into an entirely deeper level of violence where being a woman really could put their life and the lives of teammates in danger. The fact the military already maintains a lower physical standard for women proves that they can't perform the same and that means more needless causalities--if physical ability wasn't an issue in this regard then it wouldn't be a requirement to join combat units in the first place, so it is relevant.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LevelZeroHero View Post
    I'm confused... are you saying you don't know why people oppose women in combat roles or why people oppose keeping women out of combat roles?

    "All jobs should be based on qualifications, not gender." - Darlene Iskra, who is the first woman ever to command a Navy ship (still a non-combat role)


    I disagree with Darlene Iskra. Combat, unlike society, is not prone to politically correct pressures of equal rights for women in the "workplace". The issue here is not gender equality, but rather gender qualification. In combat, the two are not separate as they are in the civilized work environment from which this movement draws it's leverage from.

    I don't believe women should be allowed in combat. Look at the PST chart for basic entry into every service... there are two charts, one for men and one for woman. That right there tells you that qualification will be impacted by gender and when lives are at stake, having a lower standard for women to qualify isn't helping anybody.

    I have seen interviews with female police officers and from what I can tell, that is about the extent of their ability to deal with violent offenders effectively despite being smaller and weaker on average. Combat roles delve into an entirely deeper level of violence where being a woman really could put their life and the lives of teammates in danger.
    I'm really glad that no women were killed in 9/11, wait!

  4. #4
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Its a combination of misguided chivalry and (exaggerated concerns about) practicality, such as unit cohesiveness and physical reliability.

  5. #5
    redundant descriptor netzealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    exaggerated concerns about practicality, such as unit cohesiveness and physical reliability.
    If they are exaggerated then why are they also the de-facto basis of membership for combat groups which are exposed to the heaviest combat... the same combat groups which women will supposedly be allowed to be a part of?

    Are they going to create a separate PFT chart for these groups? Maybe they can have the women pin them to their flak jackets... and if the violence gets to be too much they can hold up their cards and say "I qualified by a lower standard, so take it easy!"

    I have no problem with women being allowed to apply for combat roles... it just makes no sense to give them lower standards of entry when physical standards have are the most basic form of differentiating who will perform well in combat and who will not. It is not always the case (see: BUD/S hell week, some high performing people wash out due to combat-style stress) yet it is still a more basic requirement. When a lot of soldiers are packing 100+ pounds on their daily walkabouts, physical ability is a very reasonable concern as to whether someone can perform up to par once combat breaks out.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    For the same reason there is opposition to children in combat roles, some people are just better suited biologically for warfare.

    I mean, if a woman wanted to fight, I personally would allow it, though it might be kind of like letting a dog run into the pasture to chase the bulls just because he wants too.

    Actually, I am opposed to all warfare whatsoever, as I think other means should be employed to hasten the end of destructive conflicts, these problems resulting from not apreciating one another's point of view.

  7. #7
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LevelZeroHero View Post
    "I qualified by a lower standard, so take it easy!"
    Who said anything about lower standards? If it so happens that a woman is unable to meet the minimal physical requirements, then she shouldn't be allowed into a combat position.....but she should not be excluded altogether on the basis of her sex.

  8. #8
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    If they were using greatswords, I'd understand the "strength" argument. Anyone can use a gun though. Anyone, with the right training, can handle the carryload a typical soldier is strapped with. Most people go a little (or a lot of) batshit from combat. Hell doesn't differentiate genders.

  9. #9
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    If they were using greatswords, I'd understand the "strength" argument. Anyone can use a gun though. Anyone, with the right training, can handle the carryload a typical soldier is strapped with. Most people go a little (or a lot of) batshit from combat. Hell doesn't differentiate genders.
    Clearly you've never held a M249 SAW and all the ammo to feed it.

  10. #10
    redundant descriptor netzealot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    231

    Default

    When combat roles are given only to the individuals who physically excel over their peers, pulled only from the a pool of males which physically excels over females, and then such individuals are pushed to their limits in actual combat (hence all the base requirements) then why would a women be a reasonable applicant?

    I think a more reasonable alternative would be to provide waivers for women who want to apply. This is what they do for any other case where someone falls outside the expected ability to perform based on their age, height, weight, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Clearly you've never held a M249 SAW and all the ammo to feed it.
    The sub-conscious assumption is that you'd simply give that weapon to a guy and let the woman have an carbine instead... and that is my point. You can't conceivably integrate someone into a combat element who is, on average, weaker, and maintain the same performance without raising the workload of everyone else... or simply performing worse on average (which, in combat, means people die or are left behind). Maybe a woman can carry a full combat load and keep up... maybe. But if SHTF and she's gotta drag someone out of danger... I could see a highly conditioned soldier muster up that kind of strength but not a woman who is already carrying 50-150 pounds.


    What I see happening here is 1 of 2 things... either a lower standard of entry is allowed for women, or the same standard is maintained. If they have a different standard of entry, you'll see many able to get into basic training and a high rate of attrition once they enter phases with any amount of rucking (which is where the majority of males wash out).

Similar Threads

  1. Why is there hatred in the world?
    By danseen in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-21-2013, 06:07 AM
  2. Is there an "MBTIc Cleavage in Avatars" compe*tit*ion?
    By MacGuffin in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 354
    Last Post: 01-07-2010, 01:13 PM
  3. What type is most likely to fall in love?
    By Mole in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-30-2008, 12:14 PM
  4. Why is it wrong to oppress people?
    By Journey in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 04-14-2008, 01:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO