Should women fight in war? (on the frontlines) page 28

832 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I saw it. That’s why I referenced you in my post.

As I understand it, if the US ever invaded Pakistan, male POWs would be in just as much danger of getting raped as females.

Yeah. Sexual assault is not and never was the exclusive action of males doing it unto females. Females can sexually assault males. Males can sexually assault males, females can sexually assault females.

Pretending that it can only happen with a male assailant and a female victim, does justice to nobody. Rwb’s argument is based off of the additional fact that women can get pregnant after being assaulted in such a manner whereas most males cannot. What it fails to address are a few minor points:

  • Not every female can get pregnant even if she wishes to.
  • We can stop a pregnancy occuring via basically what amounts to a simple insulin pump loaded with a different chemical, which prevents the menstrual cycle from taking place. If no egg is released by the ovary, then there is no egg for the sperm to fertilize in the first place.
  • Not every sexual encounter results in an automatic pregnancy anyay.
  • Even if such takes place, we can always chemically abort it anyway.

There is absolutely no reason to ban females who wish to fight from fighting, using the case of “well, this might possibly happen if you do. Slim chance, so better be safe and not allow you to have the same right to fight on thefront lines, as a man would have.” as your main argument.

There are individual barriers such as the woman not being fit enough or strong enough to meet the requirements of the job, but if so then it disqualifies that woman only, not all women automatically. After all, would we disqualify all men from serving in the millitary just because one was too tubby to pass the fitness test?

As you point out Janton, its not even a hypothetical exercise. Other countries have done it, and hard data is going to be available on what they have found.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I saw it. That’s why I referenced you in my post.

As I understand it, if the US ever invaded Pakistan, male POWs would be in just as much danger of getting raped as females.

Yeah. Sexual assault is not and never was the exclusive action of males doing it unto females. Females can sexually assault males. Males can sexually assault males, females can sexually assault females.

Pretending that it can only happen with a male assailant and a female victim, does justice to nobody. Rwb’s argument is based off of the additional fact that women can get pregnant after being assaulted in such a manner whereas most males cannot. What it fails to address are a few minor points:

  • Not every female can get pregnant even if she wishes to.
  • We can stop a pregnancy occuring via basically what amounts to a simple insulin pump loaded with a different chemical, which prevents the menstrual cycle from taking place. If no egg is released by the ovary, then there is no egg for the sperm to fertilize in the first place.
  • Not every sexual encounter results in an automatic pregnancy anyay.
  • Even if such takes place, we can always chemically abort it anyway.

There is absolutely no reason to ban females who wish to fight from fighting, using the case of “well, this might possibly happen if you do. Slim chance, so better be safe and not allow you to have the same right to fight on thefront lines, as a man would have.” as your main argument.

There are individual barriers such as the woman not being fit enough or strong enough to meet the requirements of the job, but if so then it disqualifies that woman only, not all women automatically. After all, would we disqualify all men from serving in the millitary just because one was too tubby to pass the fitness test?

As you point out Janton, its not even a hypothetical exercise. Other countries have done it, and hard data is going to be available on what they have found.

Why bother going through installing those pumps(they are installed right?) and all other shinanigus? I mean if all male army is doing alright and there is no need for additional soldiers, why bother?
Of course when time comes, train the women too just like russians did at stalingrad.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Why bother going through installing those pumps(they are installed right?) and all other shinanigus? I mean if all male army is doing alright and there is no need for additional soldiers, why bother?
Of course when time comes, train the women too just like russians did at stalingrad.

What makes ya believe that a duel-gender armed force couldn’t be even better?
Few (NONE?) of the reasons offered thus far have even an inkling of merit….beyond very isolated, small incidents—likely on a comparative level as w/ men—which would be simply dealt w/ and probably simply discounted//eliminated.

Then there is the very fact that some women might desire just as much as their counterparts to serve their nation in the same capacity….for all (or even more) of the same reasons.

Did this really need to be pointed out to ya?
Do ya believe ya’re playing some kind of “Devil’s advocate” on this issue?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Why bother going through installing those pumps(they are installed right?) and all other shinanigus? I mean if all male army is doing alright and there is no need for additional soldiers, why bother?
Of course when time comes, train the women too just like russians did at stalingrad.

What makes ya believe that a duel-gender armed force couldn’t be even better?
Few (NONE?) of the reasons offered thus far have even an inkling of merit….beyond very isolated, small incidents—likely on a comparative level as w/ men—which would be simply dealt w/ and probably simply discounted//eliminated.

Then there is the very fact that some women might desire just as much as their counterparts to serve their nation in the same capacity….for all (or even more) of the same reasons.

Did this really need to be pointed out to ya?
Do ya believe ya’re playing some kind of “Devil’s advocate” on this issue?

What’s Devil’s Advocate?
My point here is, if an all male army is sufficient then why bother putting females in uniform and their special issues?

 
Flag Post

Well, T-pun….ya’ve just spoken volumnes.

Here ya’re sittin’ at a computer,,
and ya want ME to do something for YOU,,
which should be second nature for ya at this point.
LOOK UP the term…learn it…profit from the effort.

I guess I’ve also discovered one of two things about YOU.
Either you aren’t any too “bright”,,
or..ya’re just a troll.

I’ll reitterate my reply to YOUR ORIGINAL “point” re an all-male army:
What makes ya believe that a duel-gender armed force couldn’t be even better?

It is YOU who has proffered the point….
it is YOU should should explain it.
I’ve challenged it.
I’ve even challenged ALL of the other positions against a duel-gender armed force,,,
by saying those postions are: few (NONE?) have an inkling of merit.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Well, T-pun….ya’ve just spoken volumnes.

Here ya’re sittin’ at a computer,,
and ya want ME to do something for YOU,,
which should be second nature for ya at this point.
LOOK UP the term…learn it…profit from the effort.

I guess I’ve also discovered one of two things about YOU.
Either you aren’t any too “bright”,,
or..ya’re just a troll.

I’ll reitterate my reply to YOUR ORIGINAL “point” re an all-male army:
What makes ya believe that a duel-gender armed force couldn’t be even better?

It is YOU who has proffered the point….
it is YOU should should explain it.
I’ve challenged it.
I’ve even challenged ALL of the other positions against a duel-gender armed force,,,
by saying those postions are: few (NONE?) have an inkling of merit.

Let me rephrase it,
If an all male army is sufficient and no more improvement is needed in foreseeable future, then why bother putting another basket of snakes on your head?

 
Flag Post

Let’s put that phrase in context.

The more snakes you hold in your basket, the more it weighs, true, but the more dangerous it is to bite those ahead and before you.

But i’m surprised you’d use a woman’s idiom.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Let’s put that phrase in context.

The more snakes you hold in your basket, the more it weighs, true, but the more dangerous it is to bite those ahead and before you.

But i’m surprised you’d use a woman’s idiom.

But if your current all male army’s full potentail is not needed for foreseeable future, why add more weight?
I mean if no more soldiers are needed to die and be maimed for their country, why recruit more?
Is there really an idiom “snake basket on your head”?
Cuz I just made it up.

 
Flag Post

its kinda strange that they dont cut womens hair.(i saw a photo of a women with a rifle whos hair came all the way down to her belt area)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:

its kinda strange that they dont cut womens hair.(i saw a photo of a women with a rifle whos hair came all the way down to her belt area)

I think ya have the REAL Army women# confused w/ this image in yer haid. Or, maybe this propaganda bullshit.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Hokage4354:

Well I was on another site and someone posed a very problematic question. Should women be allowed to fight on the frontlines in infantry? This is a question I want to ask you guys and girls since it is new and has a good argument for both sides.

Pros: women treated as equals, more soldiers to fight, women could move in the ranks easier
Cons: periods, sexual harassment, physical limitations of women

just because they are humans, doesnt mean that they are capable of the same as men are.

we are not physically or mentally the same.

political correctness and blindness should be removed from decision making.

also: we dont need large numbers. we already deploy only a small fraction of soldiers and they are more than capable enough to take out greatrer ratios of soldiers.

though, all competent people SHOULD have the some rights though(voting and such) , no matter their gender or race

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:

though, all competent people SHOULD have the some rights though(voting and such) , no matter their gender or race

Shouldn’t all competent people have the same rights regardless of the issue at hand?

 
Flag Post

oh and a bit ot, but:

employment equity is the exact opposite of equality.
they force companies to hire based on race and gender and disabilities in stead of treating everyone equally and giving everyone an equal chance to get the job

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Let me rephrase it,
If an all male army is sufficient and no more improvement is needed in foreseeable future, then why bother putting another basket of snakes on your head?

Then, allow ME to rephrase my simple point that it matters NOT if an automobile is running well. IF the doors are locked to keep women out and ONLY men have the keys to the doors & the ignition….THAT IS WHERE THE WRONG comes into the equation.

A denial of ONLY ONE woman the same rights as men have….is what is wrong.
This applies to the right to even just TRY to be accepted & be judged on equal merit,,,as well as actually serve.
A willing & desirous woman filling a billet means that some man who is less qualified isn’t filling it.
Meaning that there is indeed an improvement to the military.

I have mentioned two GOOD reasons why women should be afforded such EQUAL RIGHTS.
Yet YOU didn’t respond to them.
Ya just did the typical jake-o thing and repeated yer shallowly biased position.
Women have just as much right to serve their country as do men.
Women have just as much right to deserve the extended benefits of being a veteran.

Originally posted by Galdos:

oh and a bit ot, but:

employment equity is the exact opposite of equality.
they force companies to hire based on race and gender and disabilities in stead of treating everyone equally and giving everyone an equal chance to get the job

YOU are thinking about Affirmative Action

In that exercise, while such an endeavor certainly is going to be VERY difficult to approach true “equality”,,,,the very fact that “equality” is at the very heart of it would beg the question about the employment aspect of it being the exact opposite of equality.

It would appear someone has been listening to some very “biased” opinions on the matter.
Could it have been about how companies were required to hire a “token nigger” many years ago when AA was initiated?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by flickenmaste:

If women wanna do it then they should be allowed too.

its not about if they want to do it
but rather if they are capable of doing it

war is not a game. people die, its serious. PC shouldnt get involved in such(or any other) matters

 
Flag Post

Right, so, why not let those that are capable do it?

 
Flag Post

They completely can.

It is just an archaic idea that women cannot (and should not) bleed two times for their countries. (On the battlefield, and with their “women things”.
(ie 50 BC- 300 BC)

Plus, technically, a strong country is a country with more women than men. (Military speaking)
One man + 100 women = 100 possible children.
One woman, and 100 man = 1 child.

 
Flag Post
Then, allow ME to rephrase my simple point that it matters NOT if an automobile is running well. IF the doors are locked to keep women out and ONLY men have the keys to the doors & the ignition….THAT IS WHERE THE WRONG comes into the equation.

A denial of ONLY ONE woman the same rights as men have….is what is wrong.
This applies to the right to even just TRY to be accepted & be judged on equal merit,,,as well as actually serve.
A willing & desirous woman filling a billet means that some man who is less qualified isn’t filling it.
Meaning that there is indeed an improvement to the military.

I have mentioned two GOOD reasons why women should be afforded such EQUAL RIGHTS.
Yet YOU didn’t respond to them.
Ya just did the typical jake-o thing and repeated yer shallowly biased position.
Women have just as much right to serve their country as do men.
Women have just as much right to deserve the extended benefits of being a veteran.

But Women ARE weak physically, if it was up to me, I would not let them join the army or navy.
Airforce is another thing.

 
Flag Post

Weaker, maybe, but not weak.

Nowadays, with a gun, even a 5 y.o kid can kill Rambo, so…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Dacister:

Weaker, maybe, but not weak.

Nowadays, with a gun, even a 5 y.o kid can kill Rambo, so…

Its not only guns, its 40 miles a day walk, its sleepless nights and sometimes its starvation and hand to hand fights.

 
Flag Post

Your point?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

Your point?

they are pysically weak

 
Flag Post

I repeat:
Your point?

EDIT: I know a few guys who are physically weak and I know a few gals who are pretty damn strong.
Also, the examples you mentioned don’t deal with physical strength, but with training, endurance, physical condition and technique.
So really:
Your point?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

I repeat:
Your point?

EDIT: I know a few guys who are physically weak and I know a few gals who are pretty damn strong.
Also, the examples you mentioned don’t deal with physical strength, but with training, endurance, physical condition and technique.
So really:
Your point?

Tou are right tjese things concern training but you can’t just take a person and train him to be tough one has to be heavy built for this.
Your own post says it all you say that you know a few guys who are weak and few girls who are strong.
i.e is majority of men are stronger than women.
Hence more suitable for the demanding job of army.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Dacister:

Weaker, maybe, but not weak.

Nowadays, with a gun, even a 5 y.o kid can kill Rambo, so…

its not just about being able to lift a gun.

it requires great mental strenght to not break
it requires tremendous endurance to last

overall – MOST men are better physically and stronger mentally than MOST women