[cpbell0033944]

I am rarely serious.

As I thought! ;D
My view on this, though, is that, just like the attitude of hard-line Christians on homosexuality, their stance on the role (and even dress) of women is based on the Old Testament.  Now, I'm not saying that I agreed with everything he said (because that's not true) but, in his Channel 4 TV two-parter The Root of All Evil, Richard Dawkins pointed-out that there is a passage in the Old Testament where some robbers bang on a man's front door and tell him that they will rob him unless (I think) he gives himself up for slavery.  Instead, he tells them that his daughter is in the house and that they can have their way with her, and it is presented as being the correct and righteous thing to do.  I refuse to accept that women should not serve in the military based on a book that also says that, if you are threatened with burglary, let the robbers rape your daughter instead. >:( 

[Number6]

I DO, however, object to…:

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".

I've seen this one before; it's common to many arguments used by religious Christians (and probably lots of other people–religious or otherwise–too), and it's a logical fallacy…I can't remember the proper name for it, but I remember it colloquially being called the "True Scotsman" fallacy.  Goes something like:

Person 1: Scotsmen don't eat porridge.
Person 2: My good friend Angus is from Scotland, and I've seen him eat porridge.
Person 1: Ah, but no TRUE Scotsman would eat porridge.

Basically, it's a way to take a correct definition (a person from Scotland is Scottish), and by making a particular modification to that definition, create a new definition that is claimed to be a "truer" definition (in this case, the "true" Scotsman is from Scotland AND doesn't eat porridge).  As you noted, it's used to make some new, arbitrary definition that they've created seem somehow more desirable (or "more correct") than the actual, correct definition.
And also as you noted, many of the statements on those sites made claims with little to no supporting evidence or arguments (not outside Bible quotations, anyway); while the counterpoints made in this thread do.
My advice (not that you asked for any  :P): the people that wrote the articles at those sites are not worth the effort of raising your hackles…most of their arguments would boil down to "things should be this particular way because that feels 'right' to us"…as you've said, they have every right to express that; but for me I find it's easiest to exercise my own right to ignore their speechifying (and feel free to do the same to me, I have a tendency to ramble on sometimes).

[cpbell0033944]

I've seen this one before; it's common to many arguments used by religious Christians (and probably lots of other people–religious or otherwise–too), and it's a logical fallacy…I can't remember the proper name for it, but I remember it colloquially being called the "True Scotsman" fallacy.  Goes something like:

Person 1: Scotsmen don't eat porridge.
Person 2: My good friend Angus is from Scotland, and I've seen him eat porridge.
Person 1: Ah, but no TRUE Scotsman would eat porridge.

Basically, it's a way to take a correct definition (a person from Scotland is Scottish), and by making a particular modification to that definition, create a new definition that is claimed to be a "truer" definition (in this case, the "true" Scotsman is from Scotland AND doesn't eat porridge).  As you noted, it's used to make some new, arbitrary definition that they've created seem somehow more desirable (or "more correct") than the actual, correct definition.
And also as you noted, many of the statements on those sites made claims with little to no supporting evidence or arguments (not outside Bible quotations, anyway); while the counterpoints made in this thread do.
My advice (not that you asked for any  :P): the people that wrote the articles at those sites are not worth the effort of raising your hackles…most of their arguments would boil down to "things should be this particular way because that feels 'right' to us"…as you've said, they have every right to express that; but for me I find it's easiest to exercise my own right to ignore their speechifying (and feel free to do the same to me, I have a tendency to ramble on sometimes).

Nicely put, (I'll remember the "True Scotsman" fallacy for future reference) and your point about what feels right to those of a Christian inclination is apt, because, to me, the concept of muscular women feels right, and who's to say that what feels right to them is less right than what feels right to me, and, indeed,vice versa?

[The Highlander]

And just as a small point, I am a Scotsmen and live a very similar life to most other westerners (and I do eat portage, sometimes).

[cpbell0033944]

And just as a small point, I am a Scotsmen and live a very similar life to most other westerners (and I do eat portage, sometimes).

Portage? ???

[Michael Pouliot]

[url=http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/women_in_the_military/what_kind_of_nation_sends_wome.aspx]http://www.visionforumministries.org/…/url]

It's this type of crap that makes your run-of-the-mill libertarian distance themselves as far as they can from Lew Rockwell and his minions.  For every reasonable piece of analysis out of LR and friends there's another giant turd like this.

Anyhow, regarding the topic, set the physical/mental performance bar and stick to it.  I don't see why sex has anything to do with it.  Someday, well have a Starship Troopers (the movie) styled military where men and women troops shower together, fight together, and fuck together, and don't think twice about ancient outdated notions of chivalry.

[Holiday]

The article is old and pointless. It's the media's fault for exaggerting Jessica Lynch's story. These days it's very likely for a serviceman to die in a training accident outside of combat. I don't think it was a male officer whose plane cut the cables that brought a cable car down in the snowy Alps years ago. And physical prowess had nothing to do with the those who mistakenly transported live nukes across America. But they got punished for it anyway.

[GWHH]

The guy who wrote that article needs to leave the 19 centuary and enter the 21 centuary!!

I'm sure we've discussed the concept of women in combat before, but I have just read an article that caused me to pause to consider the issues.  I certainly have strong opinions in respect of the article, and I will post them here in due course, but I'd first of all like to hear your opinions.

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/women_in_the_military/what_kind_of_nation_sends_wome.aspx

[GWHH]

I argee with that.  If women what to be equal let them sign up for the draft also at 18.  You know that joke women make about women rights, I'm for women rights until it works againts me. 

Either women and men are equal or they are not. 

If they are equal then, there should be no barriers to members of either sex, no pay differences, no extra leave for women for maternity, no differences in qualifications, obligations, protections, or responsibilities for a given job, no differences in obligations, protections, or responsibilities to society, etc.

The reality is that for many jobs, including the military, fire departments, EMS, and police departments of many western countries, there is a double-standard when it comes to the obligations and responsibilities of men and women.  Many will deny that there is.  This is because most have either lowered their physical standards or no longer have any physical standards.  Consider — How large would a fireperson need to be to pull you from a burning building?

There have been at least six women in the U.S. who have been cleared of murder charges because they claimed that PMS caused them to murder their spouses.

In the U.S. it is much easier for a woman to adopt a child than for a man to adopt a child.  Custody battles tend to favor the Mother over the Father.

There have been several cases brought by women in the U.S. military regarding alleged discrimination when it comes to promotion.  Typically the women in such cases allege that it was more difficult for them to be promoted because they were women.  The military typically counters that the women did not have adequate combat experience to warrant promotion.  Consider — Would you want to be commanded by someone who has never been in combat?  How effective would such a commander's leadership be?  Her troops would automatically know that she was sending them into a given battle scenario with absolutely no first-hand experience of her own.

Would I want any of the women in my life to see combat?  No.  But, I would also expect them to not scream "discrimination" if any of them received less pay or had more difficulty gaining rank because of such unequal protection.

Is it equality that in the U.S. eighteen year-old men (but not women) must register for Selective Service or forfeit any chance of obtaining student loans, etc.?  How about eliminating the mandate altogether and instead make registration optional for all and give tuition credits or other incentives to those men and women who do register?

I can argue "equality" one way or the other and I can support either position, however, I can not support hypocrisy or double-standards. 

Either women and men are equal or they are not.

Tschuss!
Hunter

[GWHH]

Read a great book called :  On Killing

It talks about women in combat and how man and women learn to kill in combat.  Basicaly, he says that women in a front line combat unit causes it to be LESS able to kill the emeny.  Short version of this:  man are less as aggressive when women are around.  So they can't let ther anicent killer instinct out 100%, because it will make them look bad in front of women.  Call it the all sex difference.

The Israeil military.  Quit after 1948 war putting women in direct combat operation and mix sex unit.  Because several times male Israeil upon seeing there female soilders getting killed.  Went off the deep end.  And killed all the Arbas they could get to.  Also the Arbs did not surrender to women (boy how times don't change).

But they did put there women in support compaines.  And up until recent events.  Nearly all supports units were 100% women.  If freed a man to fight. And increase the manpower they have.  Moden western armies are shot on man power and need to use women anyhow. 

Also the war we are in now.  Works great.  Women are mostly in support area units.  This is having the affect of making our enemies sick to there stomach.  They can't believe that women are charge of them in POW camps and behind the lines area.  Remeber the Isam people think women are no better than chair or car.  You own it and use it.  Nothing more and nothing less.  And it makes more sucidie bomber baies also.  And it also show THERE women that they can have right and be in charge of man.  Proably, not the goals people who wanted women in combat thought of when they did it.  But it working great. 

Women can and will be combat.  But they should be in support unit only!!  A women sure can kill and hurt with the best of us guys.  We see it everyday in the news.  So lets give them equal rights.  But only for the ones who are able to handle it. 

[Author]

Posts