Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 42:
Line 42: − − However, as Dinsdale suggests above, we can improve the article by dividing it into: − *How woman do help men win wars - and historically have helped them. − *Why women ought not serve in combat − − Anyone (say, Dinsdale) with a keen appreciation for women's service to their country could write the "women helping men" article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:58, 2 May 2008 (EDT) Line 56:
Line 50: + + + + + + +
Reverted edits by BMoore (Talk); changed back to last version by DinsdaleP
#Lack of parallism in the "myths" section. I couldn't tell whether it was meant to be a list of assumptions found to be false, or what.
#Lack of parallism in the "myths" section. I couldn't tell whether it was meant to be a list of assumptions found to be false, or what.
#It read like a lawyer's brief: completely one-sided, intended to support the feminist desire to put women in combat.
#It read like a lawyer's brief: completely one-sided, intended to support the feminist desire to put women in combat.
:: The legitimate source I cited in the paragraph you deleted was a study commissioned by Congress to determine the suitability of women for military service, based on objective medical testing and research. The goal was to provide fair evidence either way in deciding if and how women should serve, instead of relying on opinion alone as had been done in the past. It did dispel many myths, and at the same time it acknowledged that some accommodations in equipment and training were required due to the physiological differences between women and men. That reality in no way means that women are unfit to serve, even in combat roles. In an all-male army, people are still assigned to roles based on their abilities - shorter men with less muscle strength are not going to do as well as a guy built like a linebacker, but no one's telling him he'd be a bad fighter or that he couldn't hold his own in the field. Since the study showed that there's no difference between the abilities of stronger women and weaker males when both met the qualifying standards of enlistment, then there's no reason to exclude on gender alone.
:: The legitimate source I cited in the paragraph you deleted was a study commissioned by Congress to determine the suitability of women for military service, based on objective medical testing and research. The goal was to provide fair evidence either way in deciding if and how women should serve, instead of relying on opinion alone as had been done in the past. It did dispel many myths, and at the same time it acknowledged that some accommodations in equipment and training were required due to the physiological differences between women and men. That reality in no way means that women are unfit to serve, even in combat roles. In an all-male army, people are still assigned to roles based on their abilities - shorter men with less muscle strength are not going to do as well as a guy built like a linebacker, but no one's telling him he'd be a bad fighter or that he couldn't hold his own in the field. Since the study showed that there's no difference between the abilities of stronger women and weaker males when both met the qualifying standards of enlistment, then there's no reason to exclude on gender alone.
::What I'd suggest instead is that it's appropriate to have the article dedicate a section to the question of roles where women may or may not be suitable for, but those roles need to be defined better than generic terms like "combat". After reading the article about Captain Piro, I'd challenge you to claim she's not a skilled and valued combat veteran. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::What I'd suggest instead is that it's appropriate to have the article dedicate a section to the question of roles where women may or may not be suitable for, but those roles need to be defined better than generic terms like "combat". After reading the article about Captain Piro, I'd challenge you to claim she's not a skilled and valued combat veteran. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:55, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
However, as Dinsdale suggests above, we can improve the article by dividing it into:
*How woman do help men win wars - and historically have helped them.
*Why women ought not serve in combat
Anyone (say, Dinsdale) with a keen appreciation for women's service to their country could write the "women helping men" article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 14:58, 2 May 2008 (EDT)