Military Should Women Be Able To Serve In the Military?

[KilroywasNOTHere]

If your only barometer of the development of technology and the logistics to support it is science fiction, sure.

Artificial insemination: Uses, procedure, and risks

World’s first "test tube" baby born

science fiction huh?

You do know that currently nuclear weapons aren’t carried to their destination in an infantryman’s backpack?

my point is if they can find uses in one way, they'll find other ways to use it or apply the same princaples. Heck The preccsors of the internet and smart phones first existed for military use and now look at what it's become.

 

[ShieldWife]

I don’t necessarily object to robots replacing infantry, well there are pros and cons, but if or when the time comes for that then it may be necessary to adopt them. In the meantime though, with reality as it is now instead of what it may some day be, males are clearly better soldiers.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

science fiction huh?

Holy mother of goalpost shift batman! You go from "Humans will become extinct because clone babies are as vital and proliferable as the car" to "It is possible to create humans in a lab in an extremely limited context, therefore you're wrong!"


You seem to have "accidentally" replaced my argument with a strawman that said something like "Something something theres no such thing as creating people in a lab".

 

[ShieldWife]

Natural birth being replaced by test tube babies, like Brave New World, is something we all should dread. Natural parenthood is one of the last limiting factors on big government and establishment power. Take away that and they have their boots on humanity’s head forever.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Holy mother of goalpost shift batman! You go from "Humans will become extinct because clone babies are as vital and proliferable as the car" to "It is possible to create humans in a lab in an extremely limited context, therefore you're wrong!"


You seem to have "accidentally" replaced my argument with a strawman that said something like "Something something theirs no such thing as creating people in a lab".

if it's a goalpost shift I apologies. My point was that the gaps are closing and their closing fast we've seen that with the way war's fought I think we'll see that in the way people fuction. 100 years ago we were still fighting in the trenches and then suddenly all it took was a single press of a button to wipe out the planet. 50 years ago the idea of a computer that could fit on a desk was somthing out of science fiction.

I don’t necessarily object to robots replacing infantry, well there are pros and cons, but if or when the time comes for that then it may be necessary to adopt them. In the meantime though, with reality as it is now instead of what it may some day be, males are clearly better soldiers.

and I just don't agree. If we were talking Pre-viatnaum maybe but that's just not how wars are fought anymore. now it's all about the show and the bluff. I think it's like at least a good 90% of never see combat?

Natural birth being replaced by test tube babies, like Brave New World, is something we all should dread. Natural parenthood is one of the last limiting factors on big government and establishment power. Take away that and they have their boots on humanity’s head forever.

if your not strong enough to push the boot off that's a personal problem. I've had to learn this lesson the hard way. humanity can learn a thing or two from Trump.

 

[Zachowon]

I say everyone should fight. If they are able to do it why stop them?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

My opinion is that our military should stay a small, selective all-volunteer force. I do not expect or desire that it should be an "equal" gender ratio or racial ratio or any other demographic; I do believe that every American citizen should be eligible to volunteer, and that selection be purely on the basis of skill and talent. The current system of arbitrarily restricting the roles women can play *purely because they are women* is just as bad as the opposite extreme, and many of the current "fitness" exclusions are clearly absurd as well.

 

[Zachowon]

My opinion is that our military should stay a small, selective all-volunteer force. I do not expect or desire that it should be an "equal" gender ratio or racial ratio or any other demographic; I do believe that every American citizen should be eligible to volunteer, and that selection be purely on the basis of skill and talent. The current system of arbitrarily restricting the roles women can play *purely because they are women* is just as bad as the opposite extreme, and many of the current "fitness" exclusions are clearly absurd as well.

I disagree with it being small. We arnt the biggest either but we have the capability is what matters. To be the best means to have the numbers as well. The US military is understrength right now.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

I say everyone should fight. If they are able to do it why stop them?

Because real life isnt an RTS and the limiting factor in the success of our military is not "enough bodies".

 

[Zachowon]

Because real life isnt an RTS and the limiting factor in the success of our military is not "enough bodies".

It is an isnt.

Limiting who can fight will lead to your destruction faster then letting everyone fight.

 

[ShieldWife]

Only a tiny fraction of Americans can serve in the military, especially in any remotely realistic scenario, and each one requires a huge investment in resources and training. Why make that investment in a soldier who is significantly less effective and much more likely to get sick or be injured?

 

[Zachowon]

Only a tiny fraction of Americans can serve in the military, especially in any remotely realistic scenario, and each one requires a huge investment in resources and training. Why make that investment in a soldier who is significantly less effective and much more likely to get sick or be injured?

You make the front line fighting for men and the more administrative and medical for female.

Joining the Artmy is pretty easy. If someone who is massively autistic almost made it to basic anyone can if they Lie at MEPs

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Only a tiny fraction of Americans can serve in the military, especially in any remotely realistic scenario, and each one requires a huge investment in resources and training. Why make that investment in a soldier who is significantly less effective and much more likely to get sick or be injured?

Because the vast majority of recruits are hugely substandard to begin with, making the exclusion of women an arbitrary double standard.

You make the front line fighting for men and the more administrative and medical for female.

As I said, I'm fine with this being the *majority* situation; what I oppose on principle is that idea that "having a penis" is somehow a combat qualification in and of itself.

 

[Zachowon]

Because the vast majority of recruits are hugely substandard to begin with, making the exclusion of women an arbitrary double standard.



As I said, I'm fine with this being the *majority* situation; what I oppose on principle is that idea that "having a penis" is somehow a combat qualification in and of itself.

If you can od what it requires why be picky?

 

[Husky_Khan]

So far it seems the only argument brought forth to discount women from serving in the military is that they are more prone to joint injuries then males in a broad sense and that it "cripples our most patriotic women" and then this effect is compared to allowing the "terminally ill, crippled and mentally insane" to serve. I'm assuming that with those three categories the amount of individuals who cannot serve in the military or if allowed to, their washout rate would be close to 100%. I haven't seen any evidence that the washout rate for Women in general coming close to 100% and so the comparison between the two groups seems dishonest at best.

Also I haven't seen any evidence of women being "an order of magnitude" (thus I'm assuming a multiple of ten?) more likely to be crippled in military service then men. And even if that was true, I would be interested in seeing the overall percentages of women "crippled" by military service and if it's still some remarkably small number (and I doubt it's something approaching 100% like with the three categories it was compared to) then I still don't see it as a good reason to disqualify half of our "most patriotic" population from military service and all of the talent and skill and service that they can provide to the US military.

In regards to voting rights, while I know it isn't mentioned in the Bill of Rights, Voting Rights have basically been a de facto (I don't know fancy latin or legalese terms or whatever) right for about two hundred years with White people who weren't elite debt free property owner. By 1856 Universal Suffrage for White Males in America was pretty much set in place though there were regressions in the late 1800's. Plus we've had about five amendments to the Constitution which enshrine Voting Rights for Women, Ethnic Minorities, people between the age of 18-21, and paying poll taxes. Voting rights were also enshrined in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. So that's six Amendments in the Constitution that help establish that basis of the right to Vote in America. And you can add onto that the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Supreme Court cases that helped further define those rights to vote.

 

[ShieldWife]

You make the front line fighting for men and the more administrative and medical for female.

This isn’t an unreasonable argument. There are plenty of non-combat roles in the military that aren’t as physically demanding. If women are to be in the military, they should be in those roles.

Then again, if that is the rule then why not relax the physical standards on men doing the same thing?

Because the vast majority of recruits are hugely substandard to begin with, making the exclusion of women an arbitrary double standard.

As I said, I'm fine with this being the *majority* situation; what I oppose on principle is that idea that "having a penis" is somehow a combat qualification in and of itself.

Of course new recruits are often going to be out of shape and need training and exercise. The average out of shape woman is going to have far less physical prowess than the average out of shape man. Then once they are trained, the average athletic woman is going to have far less physical prowess than the average athletic man. We would have physically superior soldiers if we relaxed the physical standards on men a bit rather than allowing women in.

Also, what we have now is a double standard, women are held to far lower physical standards than men. If women had to endure the same PT standards that men did, there would certainly be far fewer women in the armed service. We are essentially treating the lack of a penis as a combat qualification, because if you lack a penis you can get by with less than half as many push-ups.

 

[Zachowon]

This isn’t an unreasonable argument. There are plenty of non-combat roles in the military that aren’t as physically demanding. If women are to be in the military, they should be in those roles.

Then again, if that is the rule then why not relax the physical standards on men doing the same thing?


Of course new recruits are often going to be out of shape and need training and exercise. The average out of shape woman is going to have far less physical prowess than the average out of shape man. Then once they are trained, the average athletic woman is going to have far less physical prowess than the average athletic man. We would have physically superior soldiers if we relaxed the physical standards on men a bit rather than allowing women in.

Also, what we have now is a double standard, women are held to far lower physical standards than men. If women had to endure the same PT standards that men did, there would certainly be far fewer women in the armed service. We are essentially treating the lack of a penis as a combat qualification, because if you lack a penis you can get by with less than half as many push-ups.

Everyone should have the same physical standard...
Which as I have proven before, they are with the new ACFT. It is not easy, as a in shape man, I was not getting super high in all categories. Hell there are events in it men are having trouble with.

If Women can do the physical requirements for the job let them do it. If they make it through Ranger school, let them join the RGT.

 

[Doomsought]

No, for the sole reason that they can get pregnant. There are other reasons not to bring in women based on logistic, or to never attempt to conscript women, but pregnancy alone causes too many problems logistically and morally.

 

[Zachowon]

No, for the sole reason that they can get pregnant. There are other reasons not to bring in women based on logistic, or to never attempt to conscript women, but pregnancy alone causes too many problems logistically and morally.

It isn't as big of an issue in roles that don't see combat