Drat Hyd beat me to the SERE stuff and Clpo beat me to the physical diffrences

I'd like to begin my argument by stating that the US Military does not care about the Health and Welfare of it's troops. Their job is to fight and win wars, end of the story. All things that have to do with health and welfare come from congressional mandates. There are many laws out there that the military does not follow, because there is not an "in place" date assigned to them yet, just authorizations.

After stating this it should come as no suprise to Americans that women are being tasked to do the things that they are physically and mentally incapable of. 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 war combined. (yes there were female combatants back then, albeit to an extent unlawful)

While I do not mean to patronize women by this next fact, it is simply that, the fact. Congress in response to these 35 deaths, compared to the mens 2500+, are considering re-defining the meaning of "front line combat" to include such simple tasks as convoy drivers. Only thirty five women deaths are going to make congress motivated to do this, apparently there are women lobbying to congress to have women removed from all combat related duties. Congress doesn't just happen on it's own. They didn't show up to work one day and decide that it's a good idea to remove women from the combat zone. So why you feel that women can do any of these jobs that men can, in your internally impowered self, it is obvious that enough people feel like they can't.

I wish I had something to cite for this next part but it is a part of my military training. Imagine this, you are with a group of infantry out at a check point. You get over run by insurgents, and you are taken hostage with a female. First off your probably already injured or have been shot, so your resistance is nill already. 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, and it will make 9 out of 10 men break and spill everything they know to save her. At which point she will be taken away and continually raped while they tell you that she is safe, and as long as you keep talking she'll be ok. This particular process, not withstanding the psycological damage to the woman, but the men are 80% more likely to commit suicide, and 100% guaranteed to have serious mental health problems upon return to the US if they even get so lucky.

I have experienced this in a controlled situation. Mind you the woman was not raped, but it was bad enough to make my skin crawl with anger, and anger in men gets us killed. Imagine for a minute that you are standing naked in the snow while having cold water poured over you, and all your male commrads are standing there watching, completely helpless to stop it unless they talk. Is that a situation you want to put them in? If you think I am being dramatic, check out some of the things they do to us to prepare us for the real world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SERE

So far I have argued that women are apparently to great of a loss by American standards to have on the front lines. This argument is supported by congress. Also I have argued that women POWs can also be of great detriment to their male counterparts, as well as threats to national security through forms of interrogation.

Next up is a very controversial topic, you mentioned that men and women interact quite normally on a regular basis, doing just fine, laughing, playing, running through fields of flowers together while close quartered with one another. Some people would really beg to differ on that. While I do not excuse the mens behavior by any miniscule amount, I think it quite handily defeats your point.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0518-06.htm
That link will take you to some greusome stuff.
for those of you who do not wish to be nauseated or do not wish to read about rape and assult in various forms do not proceed to the link.

I've posted this before, it brought about a nasty discussion, but the fact remains that it's true, and it's the way things are:
I had the pleasure of being the student of a gulf war veteran for a year, and I worked for his contracting company for the summer. His largest complaint about women in the armed services was the fact that women didn't deal well with the desert and a lot of the things they were exposed to... Women unfortunatly have a lot going on inside. And when your in the desert the way you take care of human waste is to dig a hole and put a 50 gallon drum under an outhouse, when it gets full they remove the outhouse and burn the barrel... now women happen to have a lot of negative reactions to chemicals and they all, when camped together for any length of time tend to experience bloody tampon syndrom at the same time... this creates a really nasty mess that the men were responsible for cleaning and burning.

Women couldn't burn it, they couldn't be present when the burning occured because it makes them violently ill.

I'm going to turn it over to Amp for anything I missed.

Chill, I got college/work/internet problems. Give me a bit.

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

Does my argument mean nothing, TS? It's perfectly valid, unless it's not what you're looking for.

Hydrok, when are you going to post the arguments you have? is that it?

I don't want to answer more then once, so I'm going to wait until what you consider to be all of your arguments come out.

quote:

Originally posted by yogore:

quote:

But the fact still remains that for the most part, women are physically inferior to men.

I think that's true. There are a lot of strong women, but they're the exception not the rule. I think in modern combat gender doesn't matter because it's not hand to hand combat, it's with weapons and guns.

Actually it matters more now than ever before. We carry larger packs, we have larger, heavier weapons, and now we cant shoot anyone without being tried and given the death penalty, so we have to detain.

Detaining prisoners means you have to be able to overpower them, and you have to be able to do it on your own, because you can't always count on other people to help you out. Thats why women do not participate in raids.

quote:

But the fact still remains that for the most part, women are physically inferior to men.

I think that's true. There are a lot of strong women, but they're the exception not the rule. I think in modern combat gender doesn't matter because it's not hand to hand combat, it's with weapons and guns.

It's my opinion that women aren't, on average, on the same level as men in being physically capable in frontline combat roles. Deny it all you wish, but there are great physical differences between the genders. Men, in general, are stronger and able to carry more equipment for longer periods of time. Indeed, there are women who can match this, but the average military-trained woman doesn't possess as much strength or stamina as the average military-trained man.

Psychologically, there is little difference. It takes no more than intense training to cause a person, whether man or woman, that a merciless enemy deserves little mercy in return. When it comes down to firing a gun, I doubt woman are much less capable than men. There are ruthless women, just as there are sensitive men.

It's the physical bit that matters most. And perhaps this can be countered by intense physical training. But the fact still remains that for the most part, women are physically inferior to men. And that's nature's fault. Not men's.

I am going to do my all too famous breakdown to parry this one. You will note that it is filled with half truthes or refrences tho things that have nothing to do with front line combat.

quote:

Originally posted by toughshorty:

1. There are already are womyn in frontline combat situations, even if they aren't allowed on the frontlines, they already are there. I'm going to speed site this stuff and just say year and author name, if you want more spec sites, ask. But I'm really not motivated to do type that much.

Point one is handily defeated as shown by actual women commenting on their true role in combat. Straight from Military.com.

quote:

McGirk and Donnelly in 2006,
"A constant reminder that while the military officially bars women from combat, the insurgency makes no such distinctions "In Iraq females soldiers are in combat," she said, "we're out there."

Yes you are indeed "out there" on this statement because the pentagon says:

quote:

A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday: "The policy introduced in the U.S. in 1994 which prevented the deployment of women soldiers close to the front line no longer has a basis in reality. There are no clearly-defined front lines any more.

"A high proportion of the 250 or so supply convoys which criss- cross Iraq's roads every day come under attack. Many of the vehicles have females in their crews. Bases supposedly behind the lines also come under regular mortar and rocket attack.

He added: "It makes no sense to have to use male soldiers for tasks which could be done easily by their female counterparts when we are short of troops trained to close with and destroy the enemy."

Basically what we are seeing here is that women are indeed not being used to "close with and destroy the enemy" Instead they are being used to free up men to do that job instead.

Here are some other realistic things that women are doing in Iraq, according to USA Today:

quote:

The Marines' "female search force" was tasked with patting down the Iraqi women who came through checkpoints.

Again not considered front line combat action.
In short women are not kicking down doors, or going on raids, finding weapons caches, or even doing IED work. All of that is left to the men, so as you can see the notion that women are serving on the "front lines" whatever they may be is something of a farce. Furthermore you will note that over 2500 servicemen have died, compared to the womens 33... hardly comparable.

quote:

Captain Alice Parham in '06
"the federal statue banning women from combat aircraft was repealed over a decade ago, and in 1993 the sec of defense lifted the dod ban on the assignment of women as combat aircrew. Women have served as fighter pilots in the air force, navy and marines. The debate about women in combat frequently glosses over the fat that women are fully engaged in combat as fighter pilots, on combat naval ships and in other occupations. Women have successfully occupied combat positions for years"

What this proves is that while I concede that there is a ban on womyn specifically combating in the "front-lines" they are already there. They are already in combat, thus whatever claims Hydrok and Amp make about how it would be bad clearly aren't tru as it's already happening. However,

2. Women do have the power to increase readiness, and to participate in the military. In fact they are an essential part of combat now as the military is overstreched due to Iraq.

Bower in '02 program specialist in USDOJ
"Since combat finds women in today's front-lines combat environment the only useful purpose these resections serve is to deprive females of rising to the meaningful positions. No longer is it possible for the US to remain a formidable national power without integrating women in tho foremost military roles."

AND from the army itself
"our soldiers both men and women are performing magnificently. Like their male counterparts, women are an invaluable and essential part of the Army team. They play a crucial role in the war on terror and their sacrifices in this noble effort underscore their dedication and call to duty."

The only thing left for me to cover here is that combat aircraft is a much different world than ground combat.

quote:

What this means is that womyn are capable of participating in the military and on the front-lines and can be of great help to the military. They play an integral role in fact.

You haven't proved this. You have proved as I have that women are an integral part of freeing up male troops to do front line detail.

Forgive me but i am going to omit your redundant comments at the end as they are hardly worth commenting on.

Now tommorow I will post my argument.

quote:

well, actually he's a mod so he can delete it...

He's not anymore. And I''m a mod anyway so there's not really much he could get away with.

quote:

I'm sorry yogore, would you like me to start a thread that is more sensative to your effeminate side?

Grow up. If you feel a need to throw insults based on masculinity that only shows how insecure you are.

ok, I will, my coaches would be displeased with me for using my debate ev in this frivolous fashion. Good thing they don't know about this site or they may freak. hmm... I now must find a wombat aff on my compy... hmm... yeah, ok nm, I'll go to my bedroom. ok, here we go

1. There are already are womyn in frontline combat situations, even if they aren't allowed on the frontlines, they already are there. I'm going to speed site this stuff and just say year and author name, if you want more spec sites, ask. But I'm really not motivated to do type that much.

McGirk and Donnelly in 2006,
"A constant reminder that while the military officially bars women from combat, the insurgency makes no such distinctions "In Iraq females soldiers are in combat," she said, "we're out there."

Captain Alice Parham in '06
"the federal statue banning women from combat aircraft was repealed over a decade ago, and in 1993 the sec of defense lifted the dod ban on the assignment of women as combat aircrew. Women have served as fighter pilots in the air force, navy and marines. The debate about women in combat frequently glosses over the fat that women are fully engaged in combat as fighter pilots, on combat naval ships and in other occupations. Women have successfully occupied combat positions for years"

What this proves is that while I concede that there is a ban on womyn specifically combating in the "front-lines" they are already there. They are already in combat, thus whatever claims Hydrok and Amp make about how it would be bad clearly aren't tru as it's already happening. However,

2. Women do have the power to increase readiness, and to participate in the military. In fact they are an essential part of combat now as the military is overstreched due to Iraq.

Bower in '02 program specialist in USDOJ
"Since combat finds women in today's front-lines combat environment the only useful purpose these resections serve is to deprive females of rising to the meaningful positions. No longer is it possible for the US to remain a formidable national power without integrating women in tho foremost military roles."

AND from the army itself
"our soldiers both men and women are performing magnificently. Like their male counterparts, women are an invaluable and essential part of the Army team. They play a crucial role in the war on terror and their sacrifices in this noble effort underscore their dedication and call to duty."


What this means is that womyn are capable of participating in the military and on the front-lines and can be of great help to the military. They play an integral role in fact.

3. Don't listen to any evidence they bring up, studies show that most of the claims that people who are against womyn in combat make are based on stereotyping generalizations.

Brwone in '01 (Women at war, law review, lexis)
"A recent study concluding that stereotypes bias the evaluation of women's leadership performance reveals how difficult definitive studies can be in this area. The study examined evaluations of leadership competence of a group of male and female army captains at two different times."

Also to whoever is judging this, consider my evidence to be superior as it is from qualified sources.

ah a leud (duel backwards for those of us slow on the uptake) this shall be intresting, TS you may have the first strike

Yes someone else is using the term "Feminazi"!

Feminazi?! Oh no, TS is merely a feminist.

actually... if my file is here on my drive I'll begin the debate now... as I'm clearly not working on my national service shit that I should be working on and I can on some level justify this as it is technically useful to practice...

EDIT: hmmm... sorry, I only have my wombat neg files here, if you're looking for the sources that'd support your args Hydrok I've got files of them... but unfortunately for you my aff files are still at my home.

Alas, chivalry is dead.

and Yogore, I don't give a shit, post away. If Hydrok doesn't like it... well, actually he's a mod so he can delete it... so yeah, deal with it at your will. I'm not getting in to that fight.

excuse me, I don't believe that is fair, I don't want those terms. IF I win, you have to do something more then just not call me a femnazi, as it really don't bother me to be called a femnazi, and WAY more people then you two call me that. And further, I would have to change the language I use every day. b/c it's not just on here I spell womyn with a y, it's everywhere. In fact, I spell it like that without even thinking about it now. And further, the spelling has NOTHING to do with wombat (womyn in combat).

Perhaps the agreement should simply be that whoever loses has to admit that the other person is right and then type an article for YN about the other sides perspective. I think that'd be a good arrangement.

Oh, I will present my case when I get home around 8... I want my files, much easier as I've already done a load of reading on this considering it was about half of the debates I had at camp this year...

I'm sorry yogore, would you like me to start a thread that is more sensative to your effeminate side?

Green Lantern, if you could do me a favor and remove this seeing how King Yogore has spoken. It seems that the lameness of the thread is painful to him yet legitimate enough for him to make a comment on.