This is the thread where TS will attempt to prove that women are just as capable as men in a front line combat role. I wish her mountains of good luck. After the debate has finished we will ask a panel made up of men and women to decide which side has the better case. Anyone can feel free to support TS, however I would ask that you leave the other side to Amp and myself. If you have ideas please NOISEmail them to me.

The selection process for the judging can not include any of the participants, there will be four judges, two men and two women, and will be agreed upon by the major participants of Amp, myself, TS, and her second should she find one.

If it is decided that women in fact do not have the capacity to fill a front line combat role TS will have to remove the term "womyn" from her vocabulary on this site. If in fact TS manages to win this Amp and I will refrain from calling TS a "feminazi". Does anyone find these terms to be unnaccptable?

quote:

Originally posted by yogore:
That would be sexism.

So what? Thats my opinion, and congress seems to agree seeing how they are willing to re-write legislation that further removes women from anything combat related. I mean, you can only do so much before they are non-deployable, and then they become a liability and ultimatly a recruiting nightmare.

quote:

Originally posted by Meagan87:
Would guys be as likely to protect a woman who was getting the crap kicked out of her by another woman? Or does the sex of the attacker matter as much as the sex of the victim?

I'd like to think that, if I could, I would make an attempt to stop an assault regardless of who was attacking whom.

quote:

Honestly... Yes. And what part of you thinks that America has gotten "used" to male casualties? If anything we have become less tolerant as a nation of ANY casualties.

That would be sexism. you can't prove that all females are incapable of surviving in the military. Women are equal to men and they should be treated as such.

As for being "used" to casualities, I obviously meant it in comparison. Youwere the one that claimed everyone was overdramatic about female casualties, but obviously that doesn't happen for male casualties. Eventually it'll even out. Then people can be upset about the casualties, not the gender of the casualties.

quote:

Originally posted by yogore:

quote:

It also does not account for American societys' apparent unwillingness to have any great amount of loss of female life.

Well, America will just have to get used to it like we've gotten used to male casualties.

Are you advocating that females not be allowed in the military?

Honestly... Yes. And what part of you thinks that America has gotten "used" to male casualties? If anything we have become less tolerant as a nation of ANY casualties.

quote:

It also does not account for American societys' apparent unwillingness to have any great amount of loss of female life.

Well, America will just have to get used to it like we've gotten used to male casualties.

Are you advocating that females not be allowed in the military?

I wasn't talking about two people "going at it."

I was more thinking of random acts of violence, where, for example, a woman gets mugged by *gasp* another woman. It's not all that common...but it does happen...

*sigh*

sorry everyone, I've been a bit busy, I promise to do this before the end of the week. I have a practice round tomorrow that I have to prep for before I go answering non debate debates.

Women on Women violence is up to them, would you intervene if two men were going at it toe to toe?

Okay...this is kind of off topic, although I think it best fits in here.


Earlier, the guys here made it clear that they would feel the need to intervene if a woman was being physically abused. I stored this piece of information in the back of my mind. While it still bothers me a bit that men still feel the need to protect women, I realize that this means you are a bunch of great guys, and I love you all for it.

(This next part starts off a little slow...I apologize...)
Today, in my Intro to Law class, we began discussing the Good Samaritan laws. To introduce this concept, my professor started off by giving us a few hypothetical situations and then asked us what we would do if we were put into that situation.
The first was if we saw someone stealing a car. Most of us said we would take down as much information we could and call the cops. No one said that they would take physical action to prevent the theft.
The next was if we saw a woman being attacked/raped. At this point, the females in the class mostly said it would depend on all of the factors in play. The male consensus was that they would physically intervene, no questions asked.
(I don't actually remember how my prof then linked this to the Good Samaritan laws...but it doesn't really matter for my thoughts here...)

So then I'm driving home processing the information from the day, like I typically do...and then a question developed: Would guys be as likely to protect a woman who was getting the crap kicked out of her by another woman? Or does the sex of the attacker matter as much as the sex of the victim?

I don't know where I'm going with this, I'm certainly not trying to attack anyone...just thinking out loud...any thoughts on the matter?

You noted that athletic women, women under stress and lacking proper nutrition skip periods... well first of all they are not mal-nourished. Let me ask what other problems do women generally have when under high stress... and dont assume women in the army are amazingly fit either.

I'll get to it...

Meanwhile...can you please clarify "uncontrollable physical issues" so that I know how best to proceed?

Still doesn't account for uncontrollable physical issues nor does it account for effects on unit cohesion, such as the issue I brough up with confinement as well as the sexual assult cases. It also does not account for American societys' apparent unwillingness to have any great amount of loss of female life.

I'm basically with Meagan. Of course your average male is going to be phyiscally stronger than your average female, but if you hold every person, regardless of gender, to the exact same rigorous physical and psychological standards, what's the problem?

I didn't mean only by rules, I meant socially. During Vietnam women were still mostly housewives. We're now in a period where women are independant so that's why they can be in the military. I didn't mean that all of a sudden womenw ere allowed into the military, but because of social changes we're seeing an increase in female enlistment.

Okay...I've been observing for awhile and I shall now put in my two cents...three against one isn't fair no matter what sexes we're talking about.

Frankly, I think the first thing that needs to be considered is the type of women who would choose to go into combat, if it was an option for them. For the most part, these women are physically and psychologically stronger than your average woman.

If you really want to focus on physical characteristics...up the physical requirements. Heck, get rid of the double standard and require the same for both men and women desiring to go into combat.

As far as the whole period thing...athletic women have less period problems than non-athletic women. In fact, I've read from no less than a dozen sources that women who are athletic, under overwhelming stress and/or lacking proper nutrition frequently SKIP periods. (Nature's way of telling them they shouldn't be bearing children...) Thinking about the types of conditions that these women will be exposed to, I don't think periods will be an issue.

As far as the violently ill part goes...I disagree. You get a heck of a lot more females as home health aides, and that can be one of the world's most disgusting jobs...

***Key point: Yes, there are physical differences between males and females. Instead of writing off all females though, why not be more picky about physical requirements and at least give those interested a chance to prove themselves?



I have a response to the psychological part as well, but I feel it would be best to leave you with this to think about...plus I'm still trying to figure out how to put my thoughts into words in the least confrontational way possible...give me a day or so...

Honestly yogore, a womans role in combat has not changed much since Vietnam, you just see more women enlisting into those positions and a shortage of troops pusing women into those rolls, it doesn't mean that they couldn't hold them before. And it really has not changed at all since 1994.

quote:

The War on Terror in just Iraq has produced over 35 female deaths to date, more than all of our previous female combatants dating back to the revolutionary

That's probably because this is the first time women can really be involved. Ofcourse there are going to be more deaths now that women can be in more dangerous roles.

quote:

Second they are going to take that woman and rape her, torture her and all of this right in front of men. They will make us watch,

I think people should feel the same whether it is a man or woman in danger. The problem is everyone keeps thinking they have to look out for the women and take care of them. Women can take care of themselves.

Frankly war and all that military training disgusts me. I have respect for anyone, man or woman, that can complete it.

quote:

well apparently according to the first post you're not included...

[ And that's dumb. You should respond to everyone.

Eh, the bit about rape as a form of interrogation disturbed me greatly...I could never be in the military.

ok, are you both done? I will answer tomorrow