In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Yes. I suppose I just reject the contention that being a woman (and ignoring every other characteristic) is itself sufficient to be a disqualifying factor because no woman in the entire country is capable of being part of an effective, efficient fighting force.
it has nothing to do with individual capability.
Phatboy if you had any balls I'd meet you at the AFA Boxing gym and have Coach Weichers put some gloves on us.
First, even today's announcement doesn't open up women to every role in every unit in every branch of the military. In fact, the DOD has until 2016 to list the positions it still thinks women shouldn't be allowed into.
Second, I think you're wrong about Israel.
Third, apparently a number of countries (Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, and Sweden) allow women in "close combat roles," defined as "engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile forces personnel."
Fourth, it's not like women aren't already on the front-lines in various capacities. Something like 100,000 women serve in the US military and hundreds have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, my point exactly. I agree that the ban on all women has nothing to do with their individual capability. That's partly why I don't have a problem with this decision (even though this is hardly some huge issue for me, the discussion on this thread notwithstanding).
People should be judged on, and given opportunities based on, their individual capability. If doing that means that we as a society have to go through some struggles, then so be it. We've survived worse and we'll survive women defending our country side by side with men.
This post was edited by terps99 15 months ago
really hundreds? There have only been 6500 or so deaths total in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe 100-150 thanks to roadside bombs.
We can have women who can engage the enemy if necessary but frontline, tip of the spear combat units should not include females at this point.
I personally feel that with as much scrutiny as the military gets now thanks to enhanced coverage from media outlets this would make it even tougher. The first time a mother of two is shot in the throat and the media gets wind of it the American public will be up in arms.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by jgdomino 15 months ago
Pic Sigs are for losers.
From the Congressional Research Service:
Over the years, more than 283,000 female servicemembers have been deployed worldwide. In approximately 10 years of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 800 women have been wounded and over 130 have died. According to the Department of Defense (DOD), as of February 29, 2012, over 20,000 female members have served or are serving Afghanistan and Iraq.
the existing policy isn't in place because of a backwards social agenda. it is in place because it is effective. this has nothing to do with judging people.
That's never been said before.
I think you're assuming that women haven't actually died in combat already, even in violent ways.
In any event, I've never found "the American public will be up in arms" to be a compelling argument either when it comes to these types of issues.
When Specialist Devin Snyder, a 20-year-old from the Southern Tier of New York State, was killed by a bomb planted on a highway near this town in eastern Laghman Province on June 4, she became the 28th female American soldier to die in Afghanistan.
Servicewomen have died in all of America’s wars, but usually they were support personnel such as nurses and clerks. In Afghanistan, most women who have died were killed in combat situations, as Specialist Snyder was, despite the military’s official prohibition on women in combat jobs.
The same has been true in Iraq, where 111 female soldiers have died, according to data compiled by icasualties.org, an independent organization that tracks military fatalities. In both wars, 60 percent of those deaths are classified by the military as due to hostile acts.
Wars with no clear front lines have put women in harm’s way more than ever before, blurring the boundaries between combat jobs that are outlawed for women, and support jobs that are often as dangerous and in some cases even more so.
Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Specialist Snyder’s death, however, was how little anyone noted that there was anything unusual about it.
“Out here, there is no male gender and no female gender,” said Staff Sgt. Vincent Vetterkind, one of her fellow platoon members. “Our gender is soldier.”
While there is still a debate back home about the role of women in the military, here on the ground that battle seems to have been largely, if quietly, won during nine years of deployments where women have increasingly shared the same risks as men.
Women soldiers in the Army have quietly nullified the argument that they are not fit for combat. More women are risking their lives on the front line.
Do you believe gays should serve in the military?
so 13 women a year have died... Not saying there death is not tragic or anything but you made it seem as if it was some huge number and they were playing a huge role in combat operations. Support units are full of women and thats fine, the stress is less and the chance of combat is less. I would not be comfortable with a woman as the person supposed to save my ass if shit hit the fan on a daily basis. I'd be interested to hear from our combat vets.
a gay guy can be as strong as any other man.
LOL. Nice multiple edits of your posts on female casualties after my last two posts.
That wasn't my point (which was about the arguments made re: unit cohesion), and I'll respond to phelix if/when he answers that question, but as to your point:
Some women can be as strong as the average male soldier. Or do you honestly think there isn't a single woman in this entire country who is physically strong/fit enough to be a soldier?
it was just one edit to move it from tens and tens to 100-150 which is correct.
not saying that there aren't but how many are? 1%? what physical test are you going to use?
We are talking about an outright ban on ALL women. For argument's sake, sure, let's assume only 1% of women would qualify. Fine, then have that 1% of women join.
If you want to argue about specific physical requirements, that's an entirely different discussion. This discussion isn't about what tests to use, what percentage to admit, or anything else. This is about a blanket prohibition on all. And to argue for a complete ban based on physical limitations (which is a different argument than the unit cohesion ground), you'd have to argue that NO woman is physically capable ... an argument I would reject.
yes. but that doesn't mean they don't create an additional burden. you already acknowledged that opening combat roles to women has logistical consequences. thinking that those consequences aren't worth it doesn't make one a neanderthal.
exactly. our only two Military rivals in the world Russia and China use women in support roles only. If our fighting force is even 1% less effective because of this then its not worth it.
Well, I'm not sure I've accused anyone of being a neanderthal, although I do think some of the arguments made against allowing women in the military assume that men will continue to behave as neanderthals (see, e.g., the arguments that basically suggest that men won't be able to control themselves around women).
Anyway, the reason I asked whether you supported gays in the military is to counter your argument that all of these efforts at integration aren't part of the exact same spectrum. As a logical matter, I don't see any difference in the arguments being made. At their core, all of them turn into some version of "I don't hate gay people [or women] ... it's just about unit cohesion!"
OK, fine, maybe it is solely about unit cohesion. And I acknowledge that these efforts might hurt unit cohesion a bit, and maybe they create some burdens, but my personal view is that freedom and equality require dealing with those burdens.
does freedom and equality extend to people who are colorblind? i have chronic migraines that kept me from being a pilot. were my civil rights violated?
By the way, in further support of my belief that all of these arguments are pretty similar (gays in the military, women in the military, etc.), I submit that I could probably pull 10 quotes on these various efforts at integration and people wouldn't be sure which integration efforts they relate to ... you could literally cut/paste some of these same arguments and make them about gays in the military and vice versa ... that's how similar the arguments are.
and it'd be lazy and dishonest for you to do so.
It's not lazy and dishonest. What's the distinction? You're telling me this argument about unit cohesion can't be about gays in the military as equally as women? It's the exact same argument!
To maximize the chances of battlefield success, military organizations must overcome the paralyzing effects of fear on the individual soldier and what the famous Prussian war theorist Carl von Clausewitz called "friction" and the "fog of uncertainty."
This they do by means of an ethos that stresses discipline, morale, good order and unit cohesion. Anything that threatens the nonsexual bonding that lies at the heart of unit cohesion adversely affects morale, disciple and good order, generating friction and undermining this ethos. Congress at the time and many today, including members of the military and members of Congress from both parties, believe that service by women poses such a threat.
Winning the nation's wars is the military's functional imperative. Indeed, it is the only reason for a liberal society to maintain a military organization. War is terror. War is confusion. War is characterized by chance, uncertainty and friction. The military's ethos constitutes an evolutionary response to these factors—an attempt to minimize their impact.
Accordingly, the military stresses such martial virtues as courage, both physical and moral, a sense of honor and duty, discipline, a professional code of conduct, and loyalty. It places a premium on such factors as unit cohesion and morale. The glue of the military ethos is what the Greeks called philia—friendship, comradeship or brotherly love. Philia, the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together, is the source of the unit cohesion that most research has shown to be critical to battlefield success.
Philia depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism. Favoritism and double standards are deadly to philia and its associated phenomena—cohesion, morale and discipline—are absolutely critical to the success of a military organization.
The presence of women in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros—which unlike philia is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive—will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by terps99 15 months ago
Arguments about gays being weaker is dumb and homophobic, arguments about women being weaker are real.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports