@Mavalance We aren't arguing that women should be in non-front line rolls we are arguing that they shouldn't be in front line rolls. That is what the article that sparked this conversation off was about.
@4SidedTriangle I wouldn't want women to be in the army, simply because of what it entails. But i cannot refuse the freedom of the individual. If the individual women is just as capable as their male counterparts, then i see no reason for why they shouldn't be allowed. This would also go for everything about them. Including physicality and mentality
It's quite funny, those that are calling for more women in front-line combat will be the FIRST to say they need to be removed once a few are captured, raped, tortured, killed and then displayed to the world.
"But i cannot refuse the freedom of the individual" You can when it harms those around them, degrating combat effectiveness and putting lives at risk @Mavalance
@Mavalance I see your argument as I am quite libertarian minded however here we have the rights of the individual conflicting with the responsibility of the government to protect the people as a whole and I am coming down on the governments side of the issue. It's simply that I am being a pragmatist and looking at what is best as a whole for society rather than the choice of the woman in question, the stakes are simply to big.
@Nathan James 123 I whole heartedly understand your argument here. Which is why i do believe that it is not just that women be given an easier way into the military when they are not just as suited for it (as a whole).
@Mavalance Also from what you said to Nathan you are looking at this from a purely mechanical point of view. Even a woman who is for the sake of argument identical to the average male recruit physically still wouldn't be as well suited since they don't have the psychology for it. Women are more prone to sympathy and caring as well as being more susceptible to psychological trauma.
