In my opinion, the primary reason women do not play in the NFL is one of choice. The few who might consider entering into something that will likely lead to bodily harm (as it does for large men), likely come to the conclusion they would be hard pressed to perform at a level required to be drafted.
Until a woman has proven her ability at college level, she would not be considered in the first place unless politics and public perception forced the system to discriminate in her favor. Once in the game I find it probable she would suffer injury within the first quarter and shortly end the career.
There are quite simply situations when lower upper body strength, a smaller bone structure and frame, less muscle mass and bulk, and the inability to train these things for maximal punishment become a detriment to the ability to perform as required.
I personally, would make a terrible gymnast...I can accept that.
Hard pressed to perform at a certain level? Why woould anyone care about performance levels, isn't this a discriminiation issue?
Exactly.
I concur. The injury possibly life threatening.
That true in the military too?
Me too. My point being a good analogy could be the DoD ending the 'ban' on male gymnists performing on the balance beam. These decisions aren't being made in the efforts to establish the best fighting force, these efforts by the DoD considering women in combat is a fairness endeavor. Imo.
The problem with your argument is that women were already in (unauthorized) combat situations and have proven to have a higher tolerance for pain and tend to be better shots. This is nothing more then de facto becoming de jure.
"Proven" to have a higher tolerance for pain...meaning what exactly?
And tend to be better shots?
Big difference on a gun and rifle range and in combat situations, David, I think a little more research on this subject is obviously needed on your part. Thanks for the comments though.....I guess.
That was all just icing on the cake, the point was that this was already de facto. This was a logical move by the DoD whatever your opinions on the matter.
Logical move in that it improves our combat ranks....makes them a more deadly fighting force? I don't believe you truly believe that your opinion politically rather than logically driven.
Logical in that it was already the reality. All they did was make it legal so none of the COs would get in trouble.
Do you understand the difference between being a truck driver who comes under fire and being in a unit whose mission is to close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver?
Sure but when it's a daily thing and when women are covering for personnel shortages that point loses it's relevance. Everyone gets the same weapons and basic tactics training, it's specops that get the extra training otherwise it's just a difference of experience.
Icing on the cake?
More like
oop: on the bottom of your shoe. The move is political, not logical.
In any volunteer military force, that may indeed be true. As long as we don't budge qualifications and performance requirements, many women have served honorably in many militaries across the world.
What happens should we need a draft? Wouldn't then "logic" require that we draft women and men on an equal basis, equal %? If women are just as solid a soldier, if like David claims they're better shots and have a higher tolerance for pain(I don't know what he uses to back that up, so far it's absolutely nothing), then we should draft 50% women should a US military draft ever again be required.
That a good idea?
1 - One qualification for front-line combat that both genders must meet. So long as an applicant is qualified for a position, one’s gender is arbitrary.
2 - The problem with women in the US Military is not their physical or mental preparedness, nor is their most immediate threat any enemy they must face in combat, it's Rape from within. Source 1 - The U.S. military's 'rape epidemic' - The Week , Source 2 - Documentary unveils rape in US military with testimonials - U.S. - Stripes and Source 3 - ?Invisible War? documentary examines rape in the military - Washington Post
3 - The topic of drafting women is a good one and deserves its own thread.
I would disagree.
So their gender IS NOT arbitrary
Doesn't need its' own thread. Relevant here as a draft is probably going to happen again, policy must be implemented with a draft in mind. And then do we discriminate against men and draft mostly men just because they're more physically qualified on average? Or do we lower standards and make sure we've a 50/50 fairness on gender?
If women are better shots....if they have a higher tolerance for pain....if they can do anything men can do....let's haul them in at 18 and send them all through boot camp....and send them off to war...we've done it to men for centuries, time for women to step up.
Why would the draft be happening again? where's the political will? Who is seriously talking about it? Why would a draft be implemented while recruitment quotas are being exceeded?
Reply to Stonewall
“I would disagree”. - So be it.
“So their gender IS NOT arbitrary” – I’m not sure I understand this reply. In addressing the topic of whether a female is qualified for a combat position, all things being equal, if she can fulfill the same requirements of the male combat soldier, then she should be allowed to act in that capacity.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta only allowed this after a lawsuit was filed by four service women and the ACLU, (Women in the U.S. military and combat roles: Research roundup ? Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center ) in conjunction with NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-111hrpt491/pdf/CRPT-111hrpt491.pdf) which mandated the US military to do a feasibility study of allowing women in combat. As the study did not provide any bona fide legal objections to this, the lawsuit was needed to force the issue as the military; specifically the Marine Corp, has been seen as dragging their feet on this issue. ( Marines study shows resistance to women in combat - CBS News )
So gender is in fact arbitrary, again, all things being equal.
My parenthetical inclusion of rape, as other problem women in the military face, is apart from the issue of qualifications.
“…..Doesn't need its' own thread…..” – The entire idea of a conscript military is indeed an entirely different topic and is not logically or reasonably related to whether a female is qualified for a combat position. There are a multitudinous amount of questions that need to be asked beyond the narrow list you mentioned, in regards to a draft which would include women.
“If women are better shots...”. – I wouldn’t know anything about that.
“I would disagree”. - So be it.
“So their gender IS NOT arbitrary” – I’m not sure I understand this reply. In addressing the topic of whether a female is qualified for a combat position, all things being equal, if she can fulfill the same requirements of the male combat soldier, then she should be allowed to act in that capacity.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta only allowed this after a lawsuit was filed by four service women and the ACLU, (Women in the U.S. military and combat roles: Research roundup ? Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center ) in conjunction with NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-111hrpt491/pdf/CRPT-111hrpt491.pdf) which mandated the US military to do a feasibility study of allowing women in combat. As the study did not provide any bona fide legal objections to this, the lawsuit was needed to force the issue as the military; specifically the Marine Corp, has been seen as dragging their feet on this issue. ( Marines study shows resistance to women in combat - CBS News )
So gender is in fact arbitrary, again, all things being equal.
My parenthetical inclusion of rape, as other problem women in the military face, is apart from the issue of qualifications.
“…..Doesn't need its' own thread…..” – The entire idea of a conscript military is indeed an entirely different topic and is not logically or reasonably related to whether a female is qualified for a combat position. There are a multitudinous amount of questions that need to be asked beyond the narrow list you mentioned, in regards to a draft which would include women.
“If women are better shots...”. – I wouldn’t know anything about that.
Who is Driving the Trucks
You represent a challenge. How does one reach someone who knows so very little? And further the things you know are not so.
Do you believe that truck drivers go out on ten day patrols to seek out and destroy the enemy? If so who is driving the trucks?
You represent a challenge. How does one reach someone who knows so very little? And further the things you know are not so.
Do you believe that truck drivers go out on ten day patrols to seek out and destroy the enemy? If so who is driving the trucks?
Do you believe that we have seen an end to mass national armies from this day until the end of the nation?
Similar threads
