Women On The Battlefield

[4588686]

Sorry wrong. Thanks for playing. Try again.   Christ was born of a woman, not a man.  Women give birth, not men. Women are far more intelligent, beautiful, nurturing, and caring than men, in general. Blessed are the peacemakers, the merciful, the humble. Usually, these are the women, not the men.

 

 

 

 

1 Timothy 2:12-15

New International Version (NIV)

¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;^[a] she must be quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵ But women^[b] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

[Basilisa Marie]

Whoooo I'm back!  Yay icky thread!  

 

There are true physical differences between men and women.  But we start running into problems when absolute blanket statements are made about the abilities of men and women.  "When women are hurt, their thinking abilities are impeded" - that's a problematic statement. What do you mean by "thinking abilities"?  What specifically about their sex makes it so that these "thinking abilities" are impeded?  How are they impeded? What kind of "hurt" are we talking about?  If we're talking about "hurt" are we talking about pain? Physical pain? Emotional pain?  "Women process pain differently than men" - that's a factual, neutral statement.  But I can easily twist "When women are hurt..." to mean "BM turns into an irrational monster when she's experiencing menstrual cramps."  And that's not true (usually, ha ha), and to say so is misogynistic - unjustly discriminates against me because I'm a woman.  On the other hand, a factual statement could be "Due to lower iron levels in her body, BM's analytical reasoning skills are slightly impeded while she's menstruating, as evidenced by the fact that she gets slightly lower test scores in calculus during that time, and so she takes iron supplements to make up for it."  You're right to say that statements based on facts aren't misogynistic - but we have to make sure we choose our language carefully, because language has important ideological ramifications.  I.E. people can twist your statements to mean whatever you want them to mean, and to support some not-good ideas.  

Take Groo's statement that women are the pinnacle of God's creation (sorry, I'm going to pick on you).  That's misogynistic because it places women on a pillar of virtue. Granted, it's good that he couched his terms in "generally" and "usually"...but the problem still remains that he's saying that the norm for women is to be more physically beautiful, more intelligent, nurturing and caring, (whatever that actually ends up looking like in practice), and his words imply that if a woman doesn't measure up to whatever mythical arbitrary standard of nuturingness or whatever, she somehow is less of a woman (Now, I'm sure he doesn't mean that, but that's a natural conclusion I can draw from what he said).  It's also wildly MISANDRIST, because the reverse can be implied.  It means that men somehow have less dignity than women, and that if a man is nurturing he is somehow less of a man. It also implies that he's assenting to the cultural standard for men, which is that they have to be physically strong, ugly, gruff, non-emotional (unless it's anger), and stupid. And that's a load of poo.  So holding women up as this paragon of blessed virtue that needs to be protected hurts women AND men.  
 

And ultimately, most of us here are civilians.  We aren't qualified to be making the decision of whether or not men and women should be in combat situations.  The Defense Secretary has ALREADY made the decision that women should be "allowed" in combat situations.  As of last April 139 women in service have died in combat and non-combat situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 800 have been wounded.  Only a few specialties were still closed to women as of 2011.  And almost every person in the military that has been interviewed about this has said that it's not about lowering the standard, but opening up positions to women who already meet that standard.

[Papist]

1 Timothy 2:12-15

New International Version (NIV)

¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;^[a] she must be quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. ¹⁵ But women^[b] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

 

Does this mean you will stop trying to teach us.

[beatitude]

Basilia is right, FP. There is no scientific data in existence that allows people to make generalisations about the thinking capabilities about men and women in the way that you have just done. There is only a strain of evolutionary psychology that tries hard to pass itself off as science, and which has also come up with such gems as the theory that women naturally like pink because in our primal hunter-gatherer days their eyes needed to be alert for the sight of juicy-looking berries in the forest, while the men went off and turned mammoths into cutlets. It is prejudice masquerading as reason. People sometimes seem to think if you stick a 'science' label on an idea, it's beyond reproach ("It can't be misogyny if it's science") but think about that for a moment - eugenics was used as a scientific means to teach racial prejudice. And it was widely accepted as true. As recently as the early twentieth century, 'science' was still being used to justify mutilating women's genitals on the grounds that removing the clitoris would prevent the oh-so-scientific medical condition nymphomania (a diagnosis that basically translated as 'woman who enjoys sex too much to be a proper lady'). 'Science' has been used to justify all kinds of racist and misogynistic ideas.

 

As for whether women should be in the front line, I'm not celebrating this event, although I suspect for different reasons than other people here. I don't see how giving women the opportunity to participate in what is essentially a patriarchal killing machine with an inherently sexist culture can be interpreted as an exciting move towards equality and empowerment.

Edited February 7, 2013 by beatitude

[Basilisa Marie]

I don't see how giving women the opportunity to participate in what is essentially a patriarchal killing machine with an inherently sexist culture can be interpreted as an exciting move towards equality and empowerment.

 

[dominicansoul]

the female of the species is deadlier than the male...

 

 

...maybe now we can finish our business in occupied lands and the troops will be able to come home and stay put...

[Fidei Defensor]

Sorry wrong. Thanks for playing. Try again.   Christ was born of a woman, not a man.  Women give birth, not men. Women are far more intelligent, beautiful, nurturing, and caring than men, in general. Blessed are the peacemakers, the merciful, the humble. Usually, these are the women, not the men.

 

However, God created both man and woman, and every human being is created in the image of God.  Besides, I'm pretty sure Jesus said something about peace and turning the other cheek. 

 

Edited February 7, 2013 by tardis ad astra

[Groo the Wanderer]

ok fine.   but wimmins smell better look better and sound better.

 

 

[Slappo]

ok fine.   but wimmins smell better look better and sound better.

Tell that to Hasan's sassy gay friend.

 

 

And the filter strikes again... "friend with homosexual tendancies that speaks with sass." i guess is an alternate wording...

Edited February 7, 2013 by Slappo

[Fidei Defensor]

ok fine.   but wimmins smell better look better and sound better.

 

No argument there.

[Honour]

 Also, men and women in the military are not given equal training. Biologically speaking, it is tougher for men (Because men are stronger, after all). But do we want women on the battlefield when we know they have inferior physical training?

 

Nope, that is terribly untrue.  Men and women are given the same basic training.  Specialty training is based on occupation and assignment, so women being assigned combat roles will receive the training they need prior to deployment.  Thanks for playing.

 

-A woman in the military (PS I had to demonstrate that I could lift 70lbs overhead to get my job, just like every man that applied did.)

[PhuturePriest]

Whoooo I'm back!  Yay icky thread!  

 

There are true physical differences between men and women.  But we start running into problems when absolute blanket statements are made about the abilities of men and women.  "When women are hurt, their thinking abilities are impeded" - that's a problematic statement. What do you mean by "thinking abilities"?  What specifically about their sex makes it so that these "thinking abilities" are impeded?  How are they impeded? What kind of "hurt" are we talking about?  If we're talking about "hurt" are we talking about pain? Physical pain? Emotional pain?  "Women process pain differently than men" - that's a factual, neutral statement.  But I can easily twist "When women are hurt..." to mean "BM turns into an irrational monster when she's experiencing menstrual cramps."  And that's not true (usually, ha ha), and to say so is misogynistic - unjustly discriminates against me because I'm a woman.  On the other hand, a factual statement could be "Due to lower iron levels in her body, BM's analytical reasoning skills are slightly impeded while she's menstruating, as evidenced by the fact that she gets slightly lower test scores in calculus during that time, and so she takes iron supplements to make up for it."  You're right to say that statements based on facts aren't misogynistic - but we have to make sure we choose our language carefully, because language has important ideological ramifications.  I.E. people can twist your statements to mean whatever you want them to mean, and to support some not-good ideas.  

Take Groo's statement that women are the pinnacle of God's creation (sorry, I'm going to pick on you).  That's misogynistic because it places women on a pillar of virtue. Granted, it's good that he couched his terms in "generally" and "usually"...but the problem still remains that he's saying that the norm for women is to be more physically beautiful, more intelligent, nurturing and caring, (whatever that actually ends up looking like in practice), and his words imply that if a woman doesn't measure up to whatever mythical arbitrary standard of nuturingness or whatever, she somehow is less of a woman (Now, I'm sure he doesn't mean that, but that's a natural conclusion I can draw from what he said).  It's also wildly MISANDRIST, because the reverse can be implied.  It means that men somehow have less dignity than women, and that if a man is nurturing he is somehow less of a man. It also implies that he's assenting to the cultural standard for men, which is that they have to be physically strong, ugly, gruff, non-emotional (unless it's anger), and stupid. And that's a load of poo.  So holding women up as this paragon of blessed virtue that needs to be protected hurts women AND men.  
 

And ultimately, most of us here are civilians.  We aren't qualified to be making the decision of whether or not men and women should be in combat situations.  The Defense Secretary has ALREADY made the decision that women should be "allowed" in combat situations.  As of last April 139 women in service have died in combat and non-combat situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 800 have been wounded.  Only a few specialties were still closed to women as of 2011.  And almost every person in the military that has been interviewed about this has said that it's not about lowering the standard, but opening up positions to women who already meet that standard.

 

Why was menstrual cramps your first thought? I would never have implied or said that even if that was what I was thinking. I was thinking about the battlefield. In the battlefield pain is usually caused by getting shot, stabbed, or blown up, not getting menstrual cramps. I didn't mean that they get crazy and angry, either. I know when my brother slaps me in the face I at least respond with some sort of anger in my voice, so that's pretty much a gender-neutral thing. What I meant was women can't think as straight -- they are more prone to panic or being too shell shocked and forget their training. Or this was the theory given to me, anyway. It could be wrong, and that's okay. I don't claim to be infallible on my scientific teachings. ;) If I was wrong, thank you for correcting me.

[Winchester]

You're right to say that statements based on facts aren't misogynistic - but we have to make sure we choose our language carefully, because language has important ideological ramifications.  I.E. people can twist your statements to mean whatever you want them to mean, and to support some not-good ideas.

Then the fault lies with the twister.

[Basilisa Marie]

Why was menstrual cramps your first thought? I would never have implied or said that even if that was what I was thinking. I was thinking about the battlefield. In the battlefield pain is usually caused by getting shot, stabbed, or blown up, not getting menstrual cramps. I didn't mean that they get crazy and angry, either. I know when my brother slaps me in the face I at least respond with some sort of anger in my voice, so that's pretty much a gender-neutral thing. What I meant was women can't think as straight -- they are more prone to panic or being too shell shocked and forget their training. Or this was the theory given to me, anyway. It could be wrong, and that's okay. I don't claim to be infallible on my scientific teachings. ;) If I was wrong, thank you for correcting me.

 

No, they weren't my first thought.  You're almost missing my point - my point is that you have to be specific when you're talking about stuff like this, and not ambiguous.  Which is what you did when you clarified. 

 

But your clarification is erroneous, too.  There's nothing that says that women are more likely to forget their training or get PTSD. Men are just as capable of responding in those ways.  It seems to me that this assumption comes from the idea that women are more emotional, illogical and fragile than men.  And again, this isn't true.  It's based off a negative stereotype.  And for what it's worth, one of the reasons why "shell shock" and "PTSD" were ignored for so long was because men were expected to be able to "tough it out" (or be were called cowardly).  Why? Because of harmful male stereotypes.  

And here's a study that says although there are twice as many victims of PTSD that are female (rather than male), and that the sexes respond to PTSD differently, the reason why there are twice is many women doesn't have to do with a biological weakness toward it or anything like that, and more likely because women are almost 10 times more likely to be victims of assault, and other experiences with a high risk of producing PTSD. 

Furthermore, "women with PTSD have less memory loss and impairment in cognitive function than their male counterparts."

 

Then the fault lies with the twister.

 

Nope, especially on the internet when you just have the bare words of what someone says.  That's like me punching you in the arm, and then gettin mad at you when you get angry because I hurt you.  So what if I meant it in jest? You still have a bruise, and I'm still responsible for it and have an obligation to apologize. 

[Groo the Wanderer]

women in combat - NO

 

women in the cockpit of an F-22 - oh yeah!