Replies

Again, the example of the Soviets in WWII is no example. Why? Because the use of women at times, and in certain roles was a calculated propaganda tactic. Yes, there were women pilots and a sharpshooter and a bottle washer and ad infinitum...

The truth is they were desperate and they very nearly killed themselves by decimating their own officer core in the thirties and by the stupid tactics they consistently employed until the last year or two of the war.

I knew a Russian Colonel that always talked about the amount of killing they were obliged to do with their own troops to go into the German meat grinders or die by their officer's hand. We see the same desperation now in Iraqi forces.

The early Israeli struggle was an irregular war (terror campaigns) where a revolutionary group (not unlike the Soviets) sought to fight regular forces. Different conflict and tactics. Further, the Israelis do not employ women in combat roles today although Israeli women serve in many other roles.

"Apparently, though, it worked, considering both survived."

Frankly, a rational poster like you suprises me in that you would make such a stunning logic leap. This is NOT the reason the Soviets or the Israelis survived and, I believe, you know this. But hey, it is a rhetorical tactic.
Yesterday, my total diet consisted of one piece of toast, a couple of tacos, a candy bar and I drank some tea, water and whiskey. I survived as this post proves, but I would hardly attribute my survival to that dietary aberation and I sure as heck would never try to recommend it as a diet of champions. Yechhh!

I guess if you don't see the deeply foolish mistake in the argument to employ women in these roles, little can be said to make it clear. The "qualified" rationale is the key to social engineering strategies that have failed and/or are frought with problems that PCism is unwilling to acknowledge.

"However, those who are capable of living up to the necessary standards of ability should allowed to."

In most things, we would be in total agreement on this, but on issues as fundamental as national security and the nature of war, we can never be in agreement unless you awaken to the fundamentals of biology.

Social engineering is a failure in so many arenas that it is surprising that this topic would even be present on FR. On DU I can envision this topic being championed by 'equality' police and their minions.

Sorry, no possible agreement - ever.

I guess if you don't see the deeply foolish mistake in the argument to employ women in these roles, little can be said to make it clear. The "qualified" rationale is the key to social engineering strategies that have failed and/or are frought with problems that PCism is unwilling to acknowledge.

I would agree that most of the extensive uses of female soldiers as regulars has generally been in exceptional situations: Siege and other desperate times, revolutions (like the estimated 8,000 women on the front lines of the French Revolution), as camp followers or replacements for husbands (for example, Jemima Warner, who took her husband's spot after he died and, in turn died in combat, during the Canadian campaign of the American Revolution) or incidents where the men were absent (Prudence Wright and friends who defended a bridge and captured a British officer, during the American Revolution).

However, there is a rather extensive history of individual women who served, disguised as men. Considering almost all the cases were discovered after the woman in question was either wounded (Deborah Samson wasn't discovered, during the American Revolution (Can you tell the American Revolution is a specific area of interest for me? 8>)), until she had been wounded twice) or, sentenced to flogging, in the case of many British female tars, the historical/folkloric record probably underestimates the number of women who served in disguise.

we can never be in agreement unless you awaken to the fundamentals of biology.

This is an area where I split the difference between conservatism and P.C. views (in many areas). I believe that there are baseline fundamentals of biology that mean women, in general, are unsuited for combat. However, the variability and randomness of biology is such that there are exceptions -- individuals, who defy the baseline. I seriously doubt that women would (or should) be anything more 10% (and likely not that high), but those few women who are capable and willing should be given the chance.