JCC Women in combat: US Ban to be lifted

So Joan of Arc is just a story with no actual facts huh?

And women are getting killed in combat anyway, just that it's usually as a result of them being ambused on support units, so if they want to be fighting on the front lines, I say they have that right. Not every woman is going to suddenly be rushing out to enlist in the military as a result of today's news.

 

Should have happened sooner. I don't see why woman can't fight for our country just like any guy can.

 

I hope in the future we see squad of female combat pilots calling themselves NachtHexen aka The Night Witches. A group of Russian women who piloted bombers during WW2. They got their name from the German guys who were bombed out of their barracks at night.
http://www.seizethesky.com/nwitches/nitewtch.html

 

Actually women have been allowed to fly in air combat missions for at least two decades now.

 

"Hey, Vasquez, anybody ever confuse you for a man?"

"No, have you?"

 

If anything, you're the one who's promoting baseline human actions by wanting humanity to reflect any base evolutionary traits such as men being in a hunter-gatherer role and the women a nurturer. Indeed, that is assuming that is an evolutionary imperative and not merely a cultural one.

Of course if you wish for humanity to merely reflect its baser evolutionary traits then go ahead, but personally I'd prefer it if humanity moved past that and embraced a society where women could choose to do what they wanted and actually engaged our higher brain functions to operate on a more rational level. Presumably these woman are physically capable having passed basic training well enough to be deployed in "support" roles. In that case, I can see no real reason why they can't be deployed on the front line.

 

I shouldn't have to answer this because I made it quite clear already...

from a strictly biological standpoint people have 1 main purpose, to procreate the species. now because we are more advanced and modern we, as a society have different functions other than just that. as humans we stand for more than base biological functions, but in evolutionary terms humans don't have to do anything but make babies.

and I am a believer that women and men can do the same things. By "same things" I mean things that use your brain and not brawn. Women can mentally do anything men can do, but physically women are not built to be able to do what men do..

sure there are exceptions to the rules, the few women who walk planet earth that are bigger than most men, but tat isn't the norm, nor will it ever be the norm... Biologically speaking women are not built to be physical fighters. the proof is in the pudding, women by nature are more docile and less physically aggressive than men.

 

see in society we live in a fantasy world in which we look to movies and comic books as examples of women being tougher than men...




you can take the most badass women on earth, hell take 20 of them and let them face this man, none of the women would leave the room standing.

 

its always easier to label someone something, sexist, mysoginist, bigot, racist, than actually form an argument based off of fact and real world applications...

by calling someone racist is like writing a term paper without doing any of the real work.. its the slow minded way of debating.

 

Dude if you are not gonna pick up a rifle yourself then put your woman hating attitude away.

 

I can't see any drill sergeant worth his salt passing a woman who was physically incapable for military service. Besides, combat has changed over the last several decades. Whilst obviously it is still a physically demanding role, I'd wager that the requirement for pure brute strength such as that required by pre-Industrial Revolution warfare has diminished somewhat.

 

The average female may be less physically capable than the average male, but aren't soldiers qualified for combat on an individual basis?

 

Yes in hand-to-hand combat women may well be at a physical disadvantage. Though I expect many female soldiers will have taught themselves some sort of martial arts or techniques to nullify that advantage at least somewhat.

But of course that misses the point that modern warfare is less about hand-to-hand, close quarters combat.

 

I can't be the only one who finds the thought of anybody's purpose in life being solely reproduction depressing, right?

 

Sexist? Yes.

Misogynistic? No.

"women fighting and killing is a step backwards on what separates us from more base line mammals."

He is clearly evidencing a belief that women are inherently more valuable than men on the basis of their being female. How horrid would it be for a female to die, right? But it's a man's job to die. The sexism cuts both ways, yes ("one of their main biological functions is to be the nurturer of children."), but the favor clearly skews towards women in this circumstance. Let's reverse the sexes.

"One of the male's primary biological functions is to be the nurturer of children."

"Of the the female's primary biological functions is to kill others and be killed by others for the benefit of society."

I'm certain that most people would view this as more misogynistic, as opposed to misandristic.

This isn't hatred of women; it's hatred of men. He considers women too inherently valuable to be placed in combat positions where they might be maimed and killed, and you have the gall to claim that this belief is primarily disparaging to women.


As for the topic in general, I would be inclined merely to go with the status quo, as in history, protecting fertility by not having women in combat situations, combined with the overall average advantage that men have over women in hand-to-hand and melee situations, the assigning of combat to men made sense. However, if women want to give up this status of privilege and be maimed and killed with men, who am I to object?

Maybe one day we'll have equality of the draft.

 

I'd say his viewpoint is simply anti-Enlightenment. An irrational concept that humanity is little more than its evolutionary basis and any concept that clashes or is deemed secondary to its biological imperative is of little or no importance.

 

Nope, not the only one.

 

He obviously considers the lives of women to be more valuable than the lives of men.

Apparently, that's what goes for misogyny these days.