I think he's mistaken in thinking that all those male soldiers at Fort Hood somehow failed, because on military bases only military police are allowed to have weapons. That that woman who happened to be an MP brought down Hassan isn't an indictment of everyone else who was unarmed.
Second, a ban on women in combat isn't in place merely because of physical differences between gendes: it's also in place because of psychological differences between men and women as well.
Also: the men of a society are more disposable than its women. Women only have a limited number of eggs where as men have billions of sperm. Which one should be put at risk? That's why no society in history ever used women in combat.
Additionally, suppose a woman gets captured in combat. Suddenly the war becomes all the more emotionally and psychologically unbearable for everyone.
In Israel they actually tried to put women in combat and discovered that male soldiers were prone to atrocity reprisals when the female soldiers got hurt/killed.
William Saletan is wrong, period.
Also, here is a reason why having women in the military is a bad idea, period:
quote:Second, a ban on women in combat isn't in place merely because of physical differences between gendes: it's also in place because of psychological differences between men and women as well.
Given your current dismal track record with sexual psychology, you'd better define and source what these psychological differences are.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Second, a ban on women in combat isn't in place merely because of physical differences between gendes: it's also in place because of psychological differences between men and women as well.
Given your current dismal track record with sexual psychology, you'd better define and source what these psychological differences are.
Imagine placing just one woman among a male squadron, and imagine that she happens to be about 20 years old and fairly attractive. Imagine that she favors a fellow grunt. Suddenly, in the eyes of everyone, that grunt has gained status at the expense of the commander. And if these two actually develop a relationship, their emotions put everyone at risk. Why create such a situation in the first place?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
That same sort of reasoning has been used unsuccessfully in other fields, such as police and firefighters. The question "why create such a situation in the first place?" is, embarrassingly, the same logic that middle eastern countries use to keep women disallowed from driving or appearing in public without full veils. They must be protected from being allowed the opportunity to put themselves in adverse situations because of their sexual appeal, etc etc.
Same thing with what you're crudely positing here: we have to protect the poor women from being allowed to put everyone's emotions at risk, the poor dears.
But I asked for a definition and a source about what the psychological differences you were referencing actually were, not an informal hypothetical example
Do you want to actually answer my question?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A delicious chocolate chip cookie to anyone who doesn't respond to the troll! For those who don't like delicious chocolate chip cookies, you will receive a voucher for a different type of delicious cookie, redeemable in this thread.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That same sort of reasoning has been used unsuccessfully in other fields, such as police and firefighters. That same sort of reasoning has been used unsuccessfully in other fields, such as police and firefighters. The question "why create such a situation in the first place?" is, embarrassingly, the same logic that middle eastern countries use to keep women disallowed from driving or appearing in public without full veils. They must be protected from being allowed the opportunity to put themselves in adverse situations because of their sexual appeal, etc etc.
So? Just because a form of reasoning can be misused doesn't mean it's always incorrect. There's nothing wrong with women that can prevent them from driving or being cops. However, in a combat, mixing men and women might be an inherently bad idea. Also, a woman can get captured and, if she is in her fertile years, might get raped. How can an army and a country in war put itself in such a situation?
quote: But I asked for a definition and a source about what the psychological differences you were referencing actually were, not an informal hypothetical example
Do you want to actually answer my question?
No human society has ever used women successfully in combat. Placing women in combat would be an experiment. Perhaps it should be those who want to do it who should be presenting evidence for why it would succeed.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, it isn't women who are rushing into burning buildings. How many female firefighters died in 9/11?
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A delicious chocolate chip cookie to anyone who doesn't respond to the troll! For those who don't like delicious chocolate chip cookies, you will receive a voucher for a different type of delicious cookie, redeemable in this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A delicious chocolate chip cookie to anyone who doesn't respond to the troll! For those who don't like delicious chocolate chip cookies, you will receive a voucher for a different type of delicious cookie, redeemable in this thread.
What do you suppose is the most popular type of cookie, after chocolate chip?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What do you suppose is the most popular type of cookie, after chocolate chip?
Hmm, that's an excellent question. And it's something I need to know, considering there are bound to be a few and I'll need to have them on hand.
I suspect it's probably a chocolate chip and some sort of nut cookie, and in the area of completely non-chocolate chip cookies I'd guess sugar.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to have to go with oatmeal, if that's on the menu. They're so good. My mom's homemade oatmeal are like the best cookies in existence.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love chocolate chip, but I'm incapable of resisting white chocolate macadamia nut. I'll be expecting mine soon.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ooh! I make a great chocolate chip cookie with coconut and pecans...yummy! But I'm a chocolate snob so they have to be with high quality chips.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my classmates once brought ginger chocolate chip cookies to class. They were incredible.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: So? Just because a form of reasoning can be misused doesn't mean it's always incorrect.
Thankfully, where it is pertinent is that your reasoning is incorrect.
It also seems based on factually incorrect statements like "no human society has ever successfully used women in combat."
Anyway I am glad to know you are now officially running away from answering the challenge about sourcing the issue about psychological differences between men and women which reinforce the necessity of a ban on women in combat. Thank you for being entirely expected!
quote:Also, a woman can get captured and, if she is in her fertile years, might get raped. How can an army and a country in war put itself in such a situation?
oh no! we had better keep them home in the kitchen where they are safe! keep them safe, clive. they might get raped. they need your protection from their own ambition to serve their country.
posted
An oatmeal chocolate chip cookie might just be the best possible cookie. The chewiness of the oatmeal, plus a bit of chocolate.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I like oatmeal butterscotch without the chocolate chips -- the chocolate is overkill on that one.
My personal favorite> If I were a cookie, it would be oatmeal with butterscotch chips. Wholesome but a little kinky.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That same sort of reasoning has been used unsuccessfully in other fields, such as police and firefighters. That same sort of reasoning has been used unsuccessfully in other fields, such as police and firefighters. The question "why create such a situation in the first place?" is, embarrassingly, the same logic that middle eastern countries use to keep women disallowed from driving or appearing in public without full veils. They must be protected from being allowed the opportunity to put themselves in adverse situations because of their sexual appeal, etc etc.
So? Just because a form of reasoning can be misused doesn't mean it's always incorrect. There's nothing wrong with women that can prevent them from driving or being cops. However, in a combat, mixing men and women might be an inherently bad idea. Also, a woman can get captured and, if she is in her fertile years, might get raped. How can an army and a country in war put itself in such a situation?
quote: But I asked for a definition and a source about what the psychological differences you were referencing actually were, not an informal hypothetical example
Do you want to actually answer my question?
No human society has ever used women successfully in combat. Placing women in combat would be an experiment. Perhaps it should be those who want to do it who should be presenting evidence for why it would succeed.
The Soviet Union widely and successfully employed women in combat roles during the Great Patriotic War as both soldiers on the front as foot soldiers and as skilled snipers (Ludmilla Pavlichenko with 309 confirmed kills), also widely used them as tank crews and commanders as well as front line combat pilots contributing several aces. http://english.pobediteli.ru/ shows several interviews with female officers and soldiers who fought for the Soviet Union.
Chinese history as well is LOADED with Chinese female warrior-poets who fought in battles and led large formations of troops also of note is the Chinese Japanese war of WWII and the Chinese Civil War that had a wide use of female soldiers, also the Chinese People's Liberation Army today has Universal Conscription for both sexes and has a number of high ranking female officers.
Societies throughout history have widely used females in war to success, this is a criminally blind disregard for academic integrity and trollish behavior at worst and naive, misunderstood ignorance at best.
As Oscar Wilde would say, Pwned Bitch.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Also Heinlein would argue that no state has the inherent right to survive unless its citizens are willing to step up to the plate and be willing to sacrifice themselves and convenience for the greater good of the survival of the nation. As such the reason why a state would put females in a position that might get them raped by enemy troops is because the alternative is national destruction and that all resources, all manpower, must be bent to the effort of ensuring the survival of the nation.
IP: Logged |
quote:That's why no society in history ever used women in combat.
Women in the Military. Click on the historical era links; they go back to 1600 b.c. There's a lot of listings. Before you decide that these are all somehow mythical, note that the Bible also lists some: "Deborah, Judge of Israel, traveled with Barak, who led her army, on a military campaign in Qedesh, according to Judges 4:6‑10."
Captured male soldiers can also be raped, by the way.
Men and women are not easily judged as "all men are" and "all women are." Some men are not temperamentally suited for warfare. Some women excel at it. It's said that they often make better fighter pilots due to faster reflexes, but I haven't heard this verified.
And yes, when our population gets so low that we have to think of our breeding stock, then the "women have the eggs" argument makes sense. Come back when that happens and we'll try this again.
<== Sorry, not a cookie fan.
By the way, little advice? You'll always be considered a troll when you barge into a forum, declaring bold statements and basing your arguments on "facts" that are easily disproven. Had you started a thread to express your opinion as to why you feel it isn't a good idea to put women in combat positions, this might have been an actual conversation.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Heinlein makes a good argument for the dissolution of states, then.
Not really whats the inconvenience of a few to protect the many? If one female soldier somehow gets raped in the course of the conflict but by her and countless other female soldiers fighting in the trenches so to speak manage to win the war wasn't the sacrifice necessary?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Heinlein makes a good argument for the dissolution of states, then.
Not really whats the inconvenience of a few to protect the many? If one female soldier somehow gets raped in the course of the conflict but by her and countless other female soldiers fighting in the trenches so to speak manage to win the war wasn't the sacrifice necessary?
That's a harsh thing to accept, mate. You seriously expect to console a person who has been raped by saying, "It was for the good of the country."?
Women in combat is a difficult issue for me to wrap my head around. On the one hand, I don't think we should institutionalize a prejudice that seems to say that women are less fit to risk their lives than a man. It's this kind of protectionist mentality that seems somewhat dehumanizing. If a woman is equal to a man, why can't she risk her own life as a man does? On the other hand, I also see the statistical realities that a woman is prone to abuses that men in the same position don't face. What's more, there is well documented cases of discrimination and harassment against women from their own side. (At least here in the US.) That's not to say that all women are discriminated against or that the military is an organization of only pigs.
But ultimately I err on the side of letting women serve in combat positions in the military with a caveat. Because we have an all-volunteer military force, a woman would choose a position where she could be placed in combat. A woman would know the risks associated with a more dangerous position in the military and while any attacks against her based upon her sexuality are horrendous and should be dealt with severely, she 'knew the risk.' As does anyone who enlists.
The caveat is that we currently have an all-volunteer military force. The reason women can't be drafted comes from the supreme court case Rostker v. Goldberg. The supreme court ruled that because women don't serve in combat positions, they don't serve the same purpose as men in the military and therefore aren't subject to the draft. What this means is that if we were to place women in combat positions, it would undermine the justification of the supreme court case and mean that women could theoretically be subject to the draft. Given the heightened risks a woman is subject to in combat positions and also given my opposition to the draft anyway, I'd be all the more opposed to women being conscripted in combat positions. Then again, I'm just falling under that protectionist 'man save woman' mentality. I don't know what to think.
ETA: I like cake, by the way. Sorry.
ETA2: I'm not secure in my opinion on the matter. I'd ask for some compelling arguments to help me come to a better informed opinion. (Which ever way it goes.)
ETA3: For women in combat, that is. The cookie lovers can just deal with it. I'm a cake man.
posted
Ya you cant have your cake and eat it to, and I'm generally a rude thoughtless person so to me, the hypothetical of "one 19 year old girl got raped during a conflict, but thanks to the efforts 90,000 other girls fighting in the landing grounds, the fields, in the streets and the hills against the enemy and through these efforts win the war or at least delay the enevitable then by god YES they should fight and be subject to the draft. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
I'm a harsh person, if women want equality then they will have to accept that the world isn't nice and if they want the same rights then they need to step up and fight for the same things men do, the right to be conscripted and thrown into battle on the front lines regardless of how overwhelmingly the statistics might say there might be abuse. There. Is. Always. Abuse.
You can't fix it by avoiding it but have to face the problems head on.
Regardless of a volunteer army or a draft women should be allowed but if nessasary forced into combat roles the moment they are old enough to vote.
This is where me and Heinlein differ in opinion he is against conscription seeing it as no different from slavery and that all nations who rely on it are doomed to failure, this has been proven wrong by history, a draft/conscription is nessasary for a state with a large all purpose military to have access to high quality personel in both peace and wartime.
A large country with a small army can get away with a volunteer force, not a large country with a large army without degradation eventually.
IP: Logged |
posted
See, I just don't get the point of a draft post-Vietnam. If all the soldiers who didn't want to be there had just had themselves a sit-in, the draft would be off the books because we'd have bankrupted the military putting all the draftees in jail. We sent something like 2.6 million troops (Veterans Hour), 25% of whom were drafted. If 648,500 people just sat down and said "no", I maintain there's no way to stop them. We'd have had to stop the war just to process all the people we'd arrested.
Plus, as high tech as the military's become, a draft makes no logical sense. Random, average 18 year old is not your best bet to learn to use all the doohickies we need to fly planes, monitor unmanned aircraft, program smart bombs, slip in and paint targets, etc. And in the nation building age, we need more translators and engineers to strengthen community ties and improve the neighborhoods we wrecked. We've created a highly skilled machine. Dumping random cogs in it would just junk it all up.
I wouldn't be surprised if the draft gets officially removed when we do allow women into combat. On purpose. Not like they don't occasionally end up there as is.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, a woman can get captured and, if she is in her fertile years, might get raped.
Why in the world do you think this is something that only happens to women? Men get raped when they are taken prisoners too. That isn't speculation, rape is one of the most common abuses of male POWs.
And to get back to the topic, why hasn't anyone mentioned "Monster Cookies" (peanut butter, oatmeal, M&M, chocolate chip cookies. They are uberyummy and naturally gluten free.
quote:That's a harsh thing to accept, mate. You seriously expect to console a person who has been raped by saying, "It was for the good of the country."?
Sorry, I had to laugh at this.
Yes, it would be a harsh thing to say to a woman--"Sorry for the rape thing, but it was for the good of the country."
But then, it is a harsh thing to say, "Sorry for the lost legs dude, but it was for the good of the country."
or
"Sorry for the lost parents kid, but it was for the good of the country."
or
"Sorry for the lost genitalia guy, but it was for the good of the country." (Just read "The Sun Also Rises.")
Wars are like that. You are forced to say harsh things to people who gave too much in the line of duty.
You do realize that women who are deployed know what they are risking. Women who are not trained to go to war, but who find themselves involved in it by invading male soldiers find themselves often sexually assaulted. Of course then its never rationalized as being "good for the country."
Sorry. I'm trying to cut down, so I went with troll meat instead of cookies.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Plus, as high tech as the military's become, a draft makes no logical sense.
A draft makes perfect sense for the condition it is intended for (dire peril to country theoretically necessitating the military service of able-bodied individuals). it's a contingency.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point about female soldiers being potential victims of rape when captured isn't that rape itself is bad but rather the effect their being captured and vulnerable to rape would have on the military forces and country that's using the female soldiers.
Imagine if in Vietnam America had used female soldiers, and they got captured. They would most certainly have gotten raped. But if that was the end of it, so be it. Instead, the female soldiers getting raped would have driven everyone else insane.
quote: Captured male soldiers can also be raped, by the way.
Female soldiers would probably be more attractive targets for rape than male soldiers, human nature being what it is.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe no one has mentioned Milanos or Thin Mints. Or Mint Milanos, which are the ultimate cookie.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: The point about female soldiers being potential victims of rape when captured isn't that rape itself is bad but rather the effect their being captured and vulnerable to rape would have on the military forces and country that's using the female soldiers.
Imagine if in Vietnam America had used female soldiers, and they got captured. They would most certainly have gotten raped. But if that was the end of it, so be it. Instead, the female soldiers getting raped would have driven everyone else insane.
Wow, you *completely* stopped making ANY sense.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh good heavens. Lisa, I'm with you on this one. Mint Milanos and Thin Mints are the absolute greatest of the cookies
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |