[TREE FITTY]

Alrighty,

Let's not play Slaystation 3 in this one, as this discussion actually helping a lot with my project

I've decided to re-vamp what I want to do with this thread. Hence the new title- Freedom Thread. Let's post some of the main debates to spur conversation in a FRIENDLY manner- topics that, when discussed, end up consulting the fundamental rights that are embedded in this nation.

First topic was women in the infantry, so let's try to finish this one up and hopefully, when it concludes, someone will come up with a new topic for discussion.

Here's what I currently believe.

- The ban on female infantry is fairly legitimate, and comes only into quarrel with the pursuit of happiness. I am still debating this within myself to find out what I truly believe. The definition of the pursuit of happiness may be different depending on where you look, but the idea is the same- the right to pursue any vocation that does not deprive others of their rights. Is infantry a vocation? Yes. So the ban would be unlawful on this level, but is there more to be considered? Did the founding fathers intend that women could pursue military careers? In their day, as Gilla messaged to me, it was considered "Laughable." Love that word. Anyways, females would have never seen the uniform, especially infantry. I believe that time's have changed since then, and females do have particular skills that males do not possess, so possibly they could become an asset to many military jobs. Is infantry one of them? Do we necessarily need females in the field of infantry? Shall return for an answer to that question... Although I already feel that yes, they have a position. Two words- Combat Interrogation.

- The ban helps to weed out unmotivated individuals. I believe that with this ban and the fair amount of paperwork necessary to get attached to an infantry battalion, the strongest and brightest females are the only females who make it. I am not saying that females do not belong. I am saying that there are some who dream of it that really don't want it; there are both males and females who pursue it simply because they played a video game or thought they'd be some kind of hero. There's no passion involved, just a "hey lookkatt mee!" kind of notion.

- Could we provide quality servicewomen to infantry jobs without this ban? Yes. We can. But I believe in a universal set of standards, as many of us in the other thread agreed upon.

Thoughts and comments, debates, ensue!

EDIT-

Original Question, probably should include it. I believe it was something along the lines of "Is there any fundamental rights infringed upon when the federal government puts a ban on women in the infantry? What right? How so?"

MORE EDITING!- Original thread problem fixed, I thank SOF.

This post has been edited by TREE FITTY: 26 May 2010 - 08:59 PM

[Gilla]

Second, back in the days of the drafting of the Constitution, the idea of women serving in uniform was laughable. To have a women "serve*" the army was as far as it may have gone. The idea that they may ever don a uniform would get you clapped in the stockade for a public flogging. So to think that we have moved to women being able to serve in uniform in extremely dangerous positions in the military in 200 years is pretty a quick change. It will take a long time, and a change in the government to new blood to allow any further 'enlightenments.'

Public opinion will also have to change. It's bad enough to hear my mother moan and sweat about my nephew in Iraq, despite my assurances that he'll be fine, the idea of her worrying about my neice in Iraq, much less the "front" in Iraq. My congressmen and senators would be getting an earful everyday until they brought her home. All the older generations would disparage the placement of a female on the front lines for the reason that bushyboy mentioned.

THE HORRIBLE, INCONCEIVABLE, CHANCE THAT THE ENEMY MAY RAPE ONE OF OUR FEMALE SOILDERS!

How would we respond to that? How ould we respond to it? Her unit would be off the grid, killing every enemy they found, combatant or otherwise. The call to the white house would be outrage and shock and disgust. How could we make amends to the soldier? How could we get past the shame that this violation happened to one of ours?

As sexist as this sounds, guys brag about scars. "I got this one fighting a VC in the bush" "I took a bayonet in the gut protecting my LT." (my favorite to explain my appendectomy scar. ;D)

How would that go over "He's the product of 3 weeks of torture and rape while I was a POW."

I don't know, I can't reconcile the two paragraphs.

Maybe I'm just to old school. I would not want to be the lawmaker that signed a bill that may allow that to happen one day. And believe me, I fear the day some country may try it. because if it was me at the switch, I be tempted to flip it.


By "serve" I was implying that they would feed them and wash uniforms, it was not intended to mean "the oldest profession in the world," ladies I do apologize.

I'm sorry, what was the question?

[TREE FITTY]

Did editing on original post for clarification and posted the original ?

[bushyboy]

hey i would just like to apple-ogize for getting your previous thread closed, i left for a while and came back and it was gone, my bad.

[TREE FITTY]

Wasn't a big deal, wasn't closed, it is what it is. Everyone said something small that added to a big deal. we'll keep it calm in this one.

[HeadshotPhantom]

I personally would not want a woman watching my back in combat. While there are always exceptions to every rule, women are naturally more compassionate. The higher estrogen levels naturally present in females would cause a greater chance of hesitation on the trigger finger due to sympathy and remorse. Men are naturally stronger, have better endurance, and have minds more adept to the specific stresses of combat due to natural testosterone levels. Having a less-qualified gunman, or gunwoman, watching my back is infringing on my right to live, lol. Now in no way am I sexist. I know PLENTY of women that could destroy a lot of guys. While simple anatomy may play out differently from person to person giving women ample reason to go infantry, there is one problem that is based entirely on gender. The fact that she is female will cause her to lose respect, and could also cause "disruption" in operations. No testosterone pumped Marine or soldier is going to want to listen to a woman in combat. Not only do women have added "hygienic issues" that need to be dealt with in combat, that same "issue" could cause a distraction to the completion of missions. Also after this said "issue" is involved, then comes jealousy. Its simply a bad idea. What we have now, works....why fix it? There are plenty of jobs females can do if they want to play in the big sandbox, but combat doesn't need to be one of them.

[Teddy K]

One of the main reasons the actually do not allow females into combat is because men naturally are more protective over women...so while its rough for a man to see a man dead and mangled in combat its much rougher for a man to see a woman mangled.

The Israelis used to allowed women into frontline combat but they soon noticed the effects listed above and since then thats pretty much why there is no way women will ever be allowed into frontline combat.

Although women do end up in combat at times, MPs and others can get attacked while on convoys, so there are women in the current military with CARs and the equivalent.

[MurderDeathKill]

HeadshotPhantom, on May 26 2010, 09:26 PM, said:

I personally would not want a woman watching my back in combat. While there are always exceptions to every rule, women are naturally more compassionate. The higher estrogen levels naturally present in females would cause a greater chance of hesitation on the trigger finger due to sympathy and remorse. Men are naturally stronger, have better endurance, and have minds more adept to the specific stresses of combat due to natural testosterone levels. Having a less-qualified gunman, or gunwoman, watching my back is infringing on my right to live, lol. Now in no way am I sexist. I know PLENTY of women that could destroy a lot of guys. While simple anatomy may play out differently from person to person giving women ample reason to go infantry, there is one problem that is based entirely on gender. The fact that she is female will cause her to lose respect, and could also cause "disruption" in operations. No testosterone pumped Marine or soldier is going to want to listen to a woman in combat. Not only do women have added "hygienic issues" that need to be dealt with in combat, that same "issue" could cause a distraction to the completion of missions. Also after this said "issue" is involved, then comes jealousy. Its simply a bad idea. What we have now, works....why fix it? There are plenty of jobs females can do if they want to play in the big sandbox, but combat doesn't need to be one of them.

I don't *want* to call you out, but I think I have to... there are *PLENTY* of deadly mothers flying combat missions in fighter jets, including close-air support and heavy bombing. I don't really buy the "naturally compassionate" argument. And even if I did, personally I like my compassionate commanders way more than my poop shooter commanders. But what do I know, I'm Chair Force....

[TREE FITTY]

I redeem the Chair Force but substituting a name for those in the Chair Force who are actually bad ass and kick butt and incinerating names with a plethora of bombs. I dub thee the Bear Force.

Anyways, the Lioness Program has really caught my attention in this debate.

After reading that article I'm certain that though combat arms may not fully require the assistance of females, interrogation and intel gathering/support would definitely be a place where females could show off some skills.

[Warpaint]

Just saw a Military Channel episode on snipers...the Russian Army deployed about 200 women snipers in WWII...a couple of them had over 200 kills each...one had over 300 kills including more than 70 German snipers. One of those German snipers she killed had over 400 kills credited to him. Again, role assignment should be determined by demonstated competence, not gender.

Freedom has a lot to do with self-determination...if a person, regardless of gender, has demonstrated their competency in a given and chosen role, then denying them assignment to a role they have proven themselves capable of and qualified for solely based upon preconceived notions and incorrect presumptions with regards to their gender is denying them their freedom, or right to self-determination.

This post has been edited by Warpaint: 05 June 2010 - 07:36 AM

[Cuy'val Dar]

MurderDeathKill, on May 26 2010, 11:30 PM, said:

HeadshotPhantom, on May 26 2010, 09:26 PM, said:

I personally would not want a woman watching my back in combat. While there are always exceptions to every rule, women are naturally more compassionate. The higher estrogen levels naturally present in females would cause a greater chance of hesitation on the trigger finger due to sympathy and remorse. Men are naturally stronger, have better endurance, and have minds more adept to the specific stresses of combat due to natural testosterone levels. Having a less-qualified gunman, or gunwoman, watching my back is infringing on my right to live, lol. Now in no way am I sexist. I know PLENTY of women that could destroy a lot of guys. While simple anatomy may play out differently from person to person giving women ample reason to go infantry, there is one problem that is based entirely on gender. The fact that she is female will cause her to lose respect, and could also cause "disruption" in operations. No testosterone pumped Marine or soldier is going to want to listen to a woman in combat. Not only do women have added "hygienic issues" that need to be dealt with in combat, that same "issue" could cause a distraction to the completion of missions. Also after this said "issue" is involved, then comes jealousy. Its simply a bad idea. What we have now, works....why fix it? There are plenty of jobs females can do if they want to play in the big sandbox, but combat doesn't need to be one of them.

I don't *want* to call you out, but I think I have to... there are *PLENTY* of deadly mothers flying combat missions in fighter jets, including close-air support and heavy bombing. I don't really buy the "naturally compassionate" argument. And even if I did, personally I like my compassionate commanders way more than my poop shooter commanders. But what do I know, I'm Chair Force....

When your women launch a missile, or maichine gun another plane do they see the expression the other person's face? do they see his/her mangled body? no. I'm not trying to say that the women in the Air force aren't damned fine soldiers, but air combat and infantry combat are very different.

This post has been edited by Cuy'val Dar : 25 June 2010 - 04:59 PM

[MurderDeathKill]

Cuy, on Jun 25 2010, 04:59 PM, said:

When your women launch a missile, or maichine gun another plane do they see the expression the other person's face? do they see his/her mangled body? no. I'm not trying to say that the women in the Air force aren't damned fine soldiers, but air combat and infantry combat are very different.

If you're curious sometime, and a little sadistic, youtube up some gun-camera footage. I'm not linking any because *I* don't even like to look at it. Suffice it to say, you see the hell out of the mangled bodies. So..... not really buying that argument.

[TREE FITTY]

To me, being aware of the act is enough to throw your mind off balance. Whether you're a chopper gunner, a scout sniper, or a standard infantryman, the fact that you're taking a life when you squeeze that button or trigger. Female commanders... There's always someone for the job, be it man or woman. Men are more likely to fulfill that job, but just like civilian jobs, women are rising. I just think there's too many meat heads for a woman to handle. The men will be perverted and tempted, or simply think the woman is inferior, disrespect her, etc. If we want women leaders, we need more intelligent men to follow those leaders. That's something I don't see happening; Military assignments keep a lot of people out of jail.

[Warpaint]

To any one who thinks women are shy on intestinal fortitude...I'd like to hear your opinion on that subject after you've squeezed a 6 lb to 10 lb bloody, mucous covered, squirming load from between your legs. After you see a woman go through childbirth, you'll have a whole different level of respect for them. Yeah, women are more sensitive than guys, and don't have the same muscle mass as men, but that don't mean they ain't tough, especially when it comes to stepping in between danger and a loved one. I seen plenty of Does turn into Grizzlies when the situation was grave.

[Puzuma]

Freedom.... Everyone knows the word and thinks they understand it. Yet time and time again people prove that individual concepts of freedom clash.

Everything you say or do in the name of freedom has an impact on what I can say or do in the name of that same concept.

If you want an example, take a look here in Canada at the G20 protests in Toronto. Everyone has the freedom of expression, if you want to protest, go right ahead.

The problem is with people that feel they have the freedom to destroy to be heard. Various anarchist groups have shown up and done a lot of damage in '"protest". Yet they've never declared any kind of cause. Their only declared goal is to breech the security of the G20 location.

So... Is this really a form of freedom or is it terrorism? Is there such a thing as too much freedom?