Women in Combat – opinions please

Seldom – was that reply tongue-in-cheek or serious?

Interesting thoughts, there, Hunter.  I broadly agree with you, though I would suggest that the sexes are equal mentally and psychologically but not often physioloically.  Therefore I feel that there should be full equality in jobs which do not include an element of strength or, but that one cannot therefore say that the sexes are equal physically.  Though I would love it not to be true, the fact is that men are generally stronger than women.  That being said, my view is that reducing physical test thresholds to get more women in is wrong.  It weaken the strength of the group and is ultimately patronising the women.  If a woman can pass the same tests as the men, then she should be welcomed with open arms as an equal.  If not, she should be rejected for that role.

However, and this is where I take serious issue with the authors of these articles, to pretend that women are "weaker vessels" (how fricking offensive is that phrase, BTW?:o >:() and that the strongest woman is no stronger than the weakest man, is utterly ludicrous.  A cursory piece of actual research in something other than the Bible would tell these authors that these Victorian views are patently wrong.  Take, for example, Johanna Dejager.  A natural FBBer – no steroids, just good diet, supplements and the sort of workouts that would defeat a lesser person have produced a woman who could tie a pencil-necked guy in knots.

I have no beef with Christianity.  I don't object to these people holding very strict views on the roles and correct behaviour of the sexes, though I strongly disagree with most of what they say about how women should act.  As a liberal I support their right to express their views.  I don't have to listen, and I am entitled to disagree.  I DO, however, object to two things:

1.  The way in which these guys have stated cases, studies and supposed "facts" without any shred of supporting evidence.  Perhaps it's my scientific training, but it's intellectual laziness and, to me, renders their arguments irrelevant.  How can I reasonably debate or challenge them if I cannot disprove some of their supposed facts?

2.  The way in which they state that a "real man" would not let a woman he cares for serve in the military.  By extension, the only "real men" are conservative Christians.  As a liberal agnostic, therefore, I am apparently not a "real man".  I take great offence over this.  Again, my logic and principles mean that I support their right to tell me that I am not a real man, but I cannot stop my heckles from rising.  In all honesty, the flippant side to my character says that, if they are real men, then I am glad that I am a "feminised man".

Well firstly during WW2 the red army employed whole regiments of women as front line fighter (infantry, tank crew, pilots etc) with (as far I know) little or no problems. Several countries today have women serving in front line roles (Israel and Norway to name two off the top of my head). And as for his arguments about religion, I have only one thing to say. Joan of Ark.

The key thing is that while men and women are physically and mentally different, that does not mean that any particular person can or cannot do a job based solely on their gender. While say 40 out of 100 men could make a good solder as opposed to say 5 out of 100 women, there is no reason why those 5 women could not be as good as any of the 40 men.

To site just one example, my dad used to manage a livestock farm, cows and sheep (lots of hard, messy work). In the time I spent there (23 years) out of all the farm hands he had working the two women were some of the best he had.

PS
To cheer yourselves up, just imagine whoever wrote those articles meeting some nice large female solder and having the s*** beaten out of him.

Very nicely put.  You've made the point I was going to make, and you've almost certainly made it better than I could have, which is that I don't care if, of the women in the US who want to join the army there are 10,000 that are capable physically, or if there are 1000, 100, 10 or 1. That woman/those women should be given a fair chance.  Israel indeed shows that women can be in front-line roles.  My only caveat is that I fear that periods would mean that women may not be able to join elite covert assault brigades such as our own SAS here in the UK – they have to bag and carry their own s*** to avoid detection – can you imagine the problems that blooded sanitary equipment would cause?  Other than these few situations, I think it should be entirely open.