Vanpool debates round 2

It seems that a guy named Mike in our vanpool really likes to bring a new topic for debate each day in our vanpool. Two days ago there was a debate about what constitutes good music. For instance can Rap be considered music, or Country? Yesterday the topic for debate was women on the frontline in the military. As far as I could understand it, women are not presently allowed to fight on the front lines, instead they are clerks and maintenance workers like Jessica Lynch. Should they be allowed to fight alongside men in the infantry and air force?

This was the result of our debate: three people, one being a woman herself, gave a staunch no, I voted for a soft, moderate no, and one person was a moderate yes.

Some of the points that were made were: one, women are almost physically capable as men. Two, would they be a distraction for the men, not in a visually pleasing way, but in an inert instinctual way where the man feels a overwhelming need to protect the woman closest to him from harm. Would this instinct cause problems with a mission? Three, women tend to be more alert of their emotions, would they be able to cope with the stresses of being fired upon by suppressing their emotions? Four, in the case a fellow female infantryman is injured, could a male feel comfortable enough to assist her without feeling that she could file a sexual harassment charge against him? Five, warfare has changed recently, frontlines are beginning to blur, and war is not fought using battalions, but small groups of men using wits, surveillance, and distance. Could this new definition of warfare allow women onto the blurry frontline?

The End