Conservapedia:How should women serve in the military?
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| ! | THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting |
|
Conventional wisdom says combat is no place for women. Feminists say it's just fine and dandy. What do you think? (And why, if you can explain yourself.)
- Unlike most others here, I have actually served in real combat (not the armchair variety lol) and the gender of my comrades has never been found to be an issue. The fact is, if a soldier of either sex is unable to cut the mustard, they are re-roled. A lot of men phail at the sharp end too. I also have a daughter who has fought in real combat. She would put a lot of men I know to shame - I guess we raise em hard where I come from. Its easy for non-combatants/civilians to talk about the pro's and cons of female front-liners, but that is all it is - jaw jaw not war war. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 18:07, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
- Wow, hard to add anything as good as what Fox wrote, so I won't even try. Here are my two cents, though. When I read the statements about a woman's unsuitability for combat the reasoning was so thin and biased they reminded me of the arguments used to protest a racially integrated army prior to WWII. Racism or sexism, either way the bias is sad.
If conservatives really want the meritocracy they say they do, then let people do whatever they earn the right to do, and knock off misogynist nonsense.
What's especially sad is that while the US Military is issuing record numbers of felony waivers to applicants because they can't get enough qualified candidates, there are people who think that many talented, dedicated and motivated troops serving today shouldn't be there because they also happen to be women.
- Wow, hard to add anything as good as what Fox wrote, so I won't even try. Here are my two cents, though. When I read the statements about a woman's unsuitability for combat the reasoning was so thin and biased they reminded me of the arguments used to protest a racially integrated army prior to WWII. Racism or sexism, either way the bias is sad.
- How many US soldiers have avoided death or being wounded because Lt. Sara Piro is flying a combat helicopter in Iraq? No one can tell, but the fact that her comrades call her "Saint Piro" is a clue.--DinsdaleP 21:47, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, I believe that man and women should both meet the same basic criteria for a given role. As Fox pointed out above, men get re-assigned to different roles when they aren't suited to a given one, and the same would apply to women. That's a far cry from making a blanket statement that gender alone is grounds for being unsuitable for a given role - merit and ability are what count. --DinsdaleP 08:55, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
- So you would be against gender norming? And you agree that women in combat roles should have to fulfill the same standards as men, such as being able to carry a wounded comrade to safety? --Ed Poor Talk 10:43, 8 May 2008 (EDT)