Americans largely back combat role for women: poll (Reuters)

Really? I guess I have completely lost touch with my fellow Americans. Isn't bad enough we send our sons to fight and die in these honorless wars, but now we want to send our daughters to the most dangerous roles in these wars? 66%? Wow.

Quote:

---

Sixty-six percent of those polled said they support letting women serve in ground units that engage in close combat, while 26 percent are opposed, according to the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Washington Post.

---

http:// http://www.reuters.com/artic...90S0N520130129

Just people being overly PC. I'd be one of 26% that is opposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pacodever

Really? I guess I have completely lost touch with my fellow Americans. Isn't bad enough we send our sons to fight and die in these honorless wars, but now we want to send our daughters to the most dangerous roles in these wars? 66%? Wow.

---

Pretty disgusting, but the words used here matter quite a bit. It is not "we" doing it. The use of the word "we" is used to make you feel responsible, when you may not agree at all. Just like "we are leaving our children in debt" is often a large lie, meant to make an average american feel responsibility and guilt. (and is in fact, a lie otherwise too.)

I know you can make a reasonable intellectual argument that "we" are involved because "we" are not stopping it, but I think one of the first steps to stopping it is getting people to acknowledge that they are not part of the "we" making these things happen in the first place.

I suspect it was asked in the sense of 'if a woman wants to do you think she should be able to if she is capable?' they always slant to get the result they want. Ignoring that most woman might think it is a ludicrous idea for themselves personally. I wonder if they asked THAT what answer they would get?

My problem would be the involuntary part I am sure will follow. I suspect they would give 'community service' outs, but it would just lead to Rahm Emmanuel's 100% draft for the state idea, I suspect. I don't like them exerting more control.

As to the women, if they are nuts enough to want it, and if they capable of doing the job, I guess it would be their choice and consequences From what I have heard, however, the consequences can be far worse than just 'not pretty'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pacodever

Really? I guess I have completely lost touch with my fellow Americans. Isn't bad enough we send our sons to fight and die in these honorless wars, but now we want to send our daughters to the most dangerous roles in these wars? 66%? Wow.

---

Women have served on the front line in war after war. The only difference coming is that in the future women might be in special elite units that travel to other countries are murder people the CIA or President don't like. Though, it is possible that it has already happened. If you were in the military, something that has been the norm for over a decade wouldn't be a shock to you.

I think the chick in that video that got tazed should definitely go.

I have no issue with women in combat. I have a serious issue with men and women TOGETHER in combat. Two different things entirely. Men think and behave differently around women.... Not to mention all the sexual dysfunction that would result from the mix. No. I have no doubt on a woman's ability to fight. Have all women combat units if they wish to fight, but putting men and women together in an ACTUAL war (ala WW2) and people many would die.

How about we just dont have wars anymore so no need to have female combat units? Eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jllundqu

I have no issue with women in combat. I have a serious issue with men and women TOGETHER in combat. Two different things entirely. Men think and behave differently around women.... Not to mention all the sexual dysfunction that would result from the mix. No. I have no doubt on a woman's ability to fight. Have all women combat units if they wish to fight, but putting men and women together in an ACTUAL war (ala WW2) and people many would die.

How about we just dont have wars anymore so no need to have female combat units? Eh?

---

While I agree with this, especially the not have any more wars in the forseeable future part, my views are just more old fashioned I suppose. I think it shows how morally sick we have become to one, fight these unjustified, evil wars, and two send our women to fight, period. Men do battle. As much as I hate to see men ripped to pieces by shrapnel it really boils my blood to see women placed in that situation. (I know they are already there) I really don't care if they want to fight or not. The time for women to fight a war is when an enemy rolls up on our shores. (And I would argue the same for men, in many instances) JMHO.

Poll comes as no suprise , most Americans are brain dead.Look at the Senate , most Americans voted for most of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465

While I agree with this, especially the not have any more wars in the forseeable future part, my views are just more old fashioned I suppose. I think it shows how morally sick we have become to one, fight these unjustified, evil wars, and two send our women to fight, period. Men do battle. As much as I hate to see men ripped to pieces by shrapnel it really boils my blood to see women placed in that situation. (I know they are already there) I really don't care if they want to fight or not. The time for women to fight a war is when an enemy rolls up on our shores. (And I would argue the same for men, in many instances) JMHO.

---

That's very similar to how I feel. The idea of middle aged men sending 18+ women to get shredded on their behalf is just screwed up. I'd very much respect women willing to show up to the party as a last resort.

I hope it is a manipulated poll because that just sucks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickyJ

I hope it is a manipulated poll because that just sucks!

---

I doubt it , probably votes by people who will not have to themselves , kind of like the polls that show dumbass Americans supporting higher taxes for the "rich" , so stupid they forgot that is who employs them.......

Hell ya I support women in combat. If feminists are going to demand equality, then let them have real equality.

But no, I don't support the wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oyarde

I doubt it , probably votes by people who will not have to themselves , kind of like the polls that show dumbass Americans supporting higher taxes for the "rich" , so stupid they forgot that is who employs them.......

---

You got it...I hate how these polls are always presented as "Americans want/believe, etc", based on some poll of 500 people, or less. Get the fuckouttahere with that shit.

How the fuck can you oppose letting women fight? Aren't libertarians supposed to believe in equality and judging people as individuals? Either you opposite it because you think women wouldn't be good at it, which is not judging people as individuals, or you think that for some reason a women's life is more valuable than a man's. Sexist either way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandRevolution

How the fuck can you oppose letting women fight? Aren't libertarians supposed to believe in equality and judging people as individuals? Either you opposite it because you think women wouldn't be good at it, which is not judging people as individuals, or you think that for some reason a women's life is more valuable than than a man's. Sexist either way

---

Easy.

Accepting the known biological truth about the differences between men and women and their suitability and effectiveness for front line combat is not sexist, it is fact. Judging one individual female's suitability from a group of females, will not change that. There are a plethora of medical and biological reasons that make men more suitable for combat, not to mention the additional burden (financial and combat effectiveness) on a unit or the armed services there would be caring for these medical issues.

I would say that from a biological perspective and a cultural perspective as well that, generally, a woman's life is more valuable than a man's. I don't see a lot of guys bringing a baby to terms and breastfeeding it. Meanwhile, women have a limited supply of eggs which are relatively valuable when compared with the sea of sperm men produce(compare approximately 400 to 400 billion over a lifetime.

History is full of examples of wars waged to deal with a large population of unmarriable men. Examples of Women fighting in combat was far more rare and usually out of necessity, not springing from gender equality.