|
On November 12 2009 19:05 StarBrift wrote: Of course they should be allowed as long as they can qualify for the same physical tests the males takes.
|
On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them.
Would you say that if you were a woman though?
|
Emotional damage? Eh, sounds like the same reason ppl say gays shouldn't be in the army. Men get just as emotionally attached to other men that are friends, which is why they say you shouldn't get that close to whoever you are fighting alongside with.
Sexual assault/harassment is irrelevant - it is up to the woman to decide whether or not it is worth it. Are we going to ban women from walking alone in the street at night and only permit men to do so simply because women are more likely to be sexually assaulted? Bah...
Don't let pregnant women fight..?
Military budget is in a crisis - I wouldn't doubt it. But we are also SEVERELY lacking "man"power (haha) and we are in desperate need of whoever we can get.
The men being physically stronger is completely irrelevant to me. It should rather be if you possess a certain amount of physical strength/endurance (etc.), say "X" amount, that you can be qualified for doing what you want. Maybe men on average will achieve X 300% of the time more than women, but the women who CAN achieve X should be able to join.
|
United States40776 Posts
On November 12 2009 19:15 Tenryu wrote: You can argue all you want but unless you have experience in the situation, i dont wanna hear it =\ Says the guy quoting wikianswers. As the saying goes, 'citation needed'.
|
Being in the French army (if I may say so, I'm a student in polytechnique for those who know what that means...), it seems to me that some, (well "some", a few I guess) women would be more capable in combat than many men. Physics does count, but some do have it, and moreover, I think they can earn the respect necessary to do their job properly, and have a psychological edge on a lot of men, and that is also very important in many tough situations. Of course there are drawbacks to being a woman in such situations, but I think some woman would be better at the job than a lot of men.
|
imo:
it's not a "man or woman" thing regarding physical health in the military: if you pass the *SAME* tests, then you should be able to get in.
however, psychologically (like the thing with men protecting women), imo that is where the problem lies.
|
On November 13 2009 06:16 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them. The same exact post you made could be used for pretty much every issue ever that women have since gained access to. ex Show nested quote +On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed to vote won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Politics/voting is for men, leave it to them. Calling someone a fool without any legit justification is rather foolish, don't you think?
Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to fight in general and will create a mess in the front line of fire.
|
On November 13 2009 06:19 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them. Would you say that if you were a woman though?
Oh, most definitely. And I'm pretty sure the majority of women wouldn't want be in direct combat in the first place.
Thanks heaven I'm a guy though, things are simpler!
|
On November 13 2009 18:35 iloveHieu wrote:
Oh, most definitely. And I'm pretty sure the majority of women wouldn't want be in direct combat in the first place.
Thanks heaven I'm a guy though, things are simpler!
"not built to fight", "common sense", "things being simpler being a man" and as if the majority of men would enjoy to be in direct combat?
rofl im sure you got alot of doubters convinced now
|
On November 13 2009 06:19 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them. Would you say that if you were a woman though?
Umm this is bullshit reasoning, there are all sorts of logical reasons why women shouldn't be allowed in the thread.
|
United States40776 Posts
On November 13 2009 18:31 iloveHieu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2009 06:16 micronesia wrote:On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them. The same exact post you made could be used for pretty much every issue ever that women have since gained access to. ex On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed to vote won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Politics/voting is for men, leave it to them. Calling someone a fool without any legit justification is rather foolish, don't you think? Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to fight in general and will create a mess in the front line of fire. People aren't built at all. Men were not purposefully designed by a creator for an aptitude at modern combat, if they were, they'd look like tanks. There is nothing natural about a modern firefight. Evolution has no purpose, no mind, it is simply a process. Men are just bundles of flesh, muscle, bones and sexual organs designed to sustain their DNA and pass it on to someone else. So are women. Don't give me bullshit about nature.
You have no science backing up your fundamentally sexist assumptions. As micronesia pointed out to your earlier sexist comment you can simply go.
Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to work in general and will create a mess in the workplace.
|
I think making it a general rule that women should not be allowed to serve as infantry soldiers is ridiculous. I think the only arguement that really holds up to scutiny against this would be that a well-trained woman will almost always be physically weaker than a well-trained man. It should be up to lower level officers if they can have women in their team or not. Having a larger recruitment base will make it easier to find the qualities you are looking for. Being a good infantry member is more than about how fast you can run and how much you can carry. You also need individuals that are able to make the right decisions fast under stress. You also need people who can handle situations dealing with civilians.
|
Lol ok, this really is a pointless debate. Mainly because very few people here have experience in the "US Army". And i can tell you right now, a good 95% if not higher of the soldiers currently in the US Army will agree that women do not belong in infantry.
Civil rights and all that shit has nothing to do with fighting wars. Soldiers sacrifice their freedom's and civil liberties so that citizens of the country will not have to. Im sure some people in the US Army has heard something similar to that.
|
There is just about no reason to not allow Womens in the military if they make the cut. No matter how many time you say they do not belong. Gays also did not belong, blacks did not belong... That argument is just retarded.
On November 13 2009 20:49 Tenryu wrote: Soldiers sacrifice their freedom's and civil liberties so that citizens of the country will not have to. Im sure some people in the US Army has heard something similar to that.
Lawl... When do you start fighting countries that actually attack you, or have the technology to attack you?
|
voted yes because women want 'equality' so much
|
On November 13 2009 19:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2009 18:31 iloveHieu wrote:On November 13 2009 06:16 micronesia wrote:On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them. The same exact post you made could be used for pretty much every issue ever that women have since gained access to. ex On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed to vote won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Politics/voting is for men, leave it to them. Calling someone a fool without any legit justification is rather foolish, don't you think? Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to fight in general and will create a mess in the front line of fire. People aren't built at all. Men were not purposefully designed by a creator for an aptitude at modern combat, if they were, they'd look like tanks. There is nothing natural about a modern firefight. Evolution has no purpose, no mind, it is simply a process. Men are just bundles of flesh, muscle, bones and sexual organs designed to sustain their DNA and pass it on to someone else. So are women. Don't give me bullshit about nature. You have no science backing up your fundamentally sexist assumptions. As micronesia pointed out to your earlier sexist comment you can simply go. Show nested quote +Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to work in general and will create a mess in the workplace.
It seems you like this little word replacement game lol. Well men are definitely a lot more capable. Nature isn't bullshit but whatever, argueing about this is pointless. It doesn't do any good and nothing will change.
I can't convince you and vice versa, you have your opinion and I have mine.
|
I think if women pass the same exams and meet all requirements, they should be allowed in the forces. The extra "health care" provisions shouldn't cost too much.
However from a more personal point of view, it'll be especially hard for men to see women being cut to pieces in an intense war. Insurgent fighting is very asymmetrical and comparably "easier" than more conventional wars. In more difficult battles the extra psychological burden wouldn't be helpful.
Just imagine the beach scene of saving private ryan, and instead of a guy lying on the beach crying for mama with his intestines hanging out, it's a woman lying of the beach crying for daddy with a breast shot off and lungs on her belly. Or when the ramp falls, a boat full of women get shredded into pieces in fifteen seconds. As a man, I would find this even more horrifying than the actual movie, which was already very bloody.
|
United States40776 Posts
On November 14 2009 02:12 iloveHieu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2009 19:42 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2009 18:31 iloveHieu wrote:On November 13 2009 06:16 micronesia wrote:On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them. The same exact post you made could be used for pretty much every issue ever that women have since gained access to. ex On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed to vote won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Politics/voting is for men, leave it to them. Calling someone a fool without any legit justification is rather foolish, don't you think? Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to fight in general and will create a mess in the front line of fire. People aren't built at all. Men were not purposefully designed by a creator for an aptitude at modern combat, if they were, they'd look like tanks. There is nothing natural about a modern firefight. Evolution has no purpose, no mind, it is simply a process. Men are just bundles of flesh, muscle, bones and sexual organs designed to sustain their DNA and pass it on to someone else. So are women. Don't give me bullshit about nature. You have no science backing up your fundamentally sexist assumptions. As micronesia pointed out to your earlier sexist comment you can simply go. Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to work in general and will create a mess in the workplace. Well men are definitely a lot more more capable. Than all women? Or just most? If you take the 100 most capable people for front line service, you'll probably get 100 men. But the 1st most capable woman is gonna be more capable than the 100,000th most capable man. It's a numbers game, as the size of the army increases the quality of soldiers you let in decreases. Eventually you're gonna get freakishly capable women being better than the averagely capable men you're trying to recruit.
|
United States24342 Posts
On November 14 2009 02:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2009 02:12 iloveHieu wrote:On November 13 2009 19:42 KwarK wrote:On November 13 2009 18:31 iloveHieu wrote:On November 13 2009 06:16 micronesia wrote:On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed it won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Front line of fire is for men, leave it to them. The same exact post you made could be used for pretty much every issue ever that women have since gained access to. ex On November 13 2009 01:28 iloveHieu wrote: I've seen so many threads on the internet about this topic jesus. Despite how many fools say women should be allowed to vote won't happen and there's many good reasons for it. Politics/voting is for men, leave it to them. Calling someone a fool without any legit justification is rather foolish, don't you think? Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to fight in general and will create a mess in the front line of fire. People aren't built at all. Men were not purposefully designed by a creator for an aptitude at modern combat, if they were, they'd look like tanks. There is nothing natural about a modern firefight. Evolution has no purpose, no mind, it is simply a process. Men are just bundles of flesh, muscle, bones and sexual organs designed to sustain their DNA and pass it on to someone else. So are women. Don't give me bullshit about nature. You have no science backing up your fundamentally sexist assumptions. As micronesia pointed out to your earlier sexist comment you can simply go. Not on this matter, I was more hoping people would use common sense. Women aren't built to work in general and will create a mess in the workplace. Well men are definitely a lot more more capable. Than all women? Or just most? If you take the 100 most capable people for front line service, you'll probably get 100 men. But the 1st most capable woman is gonna be more capable than the 100,000th most capable man. It's a numbers game, as the size of the army increases the quality of soldiers you let in decreases. Eventually you're gonna get freakishly capable women being better than the averagely capable men you're trying to recruit. I'm wondering if maybe he meant that statement generally rather than specifically for combat.
|
On November 13 2009 19:42 KwarK wrote:
People aren't built at all. Men were not purposefully designed by a creator for an aptitude at modern combat, if they were, they'd look like tanks. There is nothing natural about a modern firefight. Evolution has no purpose, no mind, it is simply a process. Men are just bundles of flesh, muscle, bones and sexual organs designed to sustain their DNA and pass it on to someone else. So are women.
Humans have genetic tendencies. Male genetics lend themselves to the battlefield much more than women do. It's stupid to completely disregard genetic tendencies. I'm not saying that you should disallow women from serving just because of this, but, like I said, it's stupid to say that there aren't any genetic tendencies in humans when it's obvious that there are.
Emotional damage? Eh, sounds like the same reason ppl say gays shouldn't be in the army. Men get just as emotionally attached to other men that are friends, which is why they say you shouldn't get that close to whoever you are fighting alongside with.
This is just straight up not true. Humans are animals, and like the vast majority of animals, we have a genetic instinct to fight for and protect the opposite sex because not only is the emotional attachment to them stronger than your average emotional attachment to a fellow male (especially if a relationship starts between two soldiers, another situation you'd definitely want to avoid), but we have a genetic desire to protect females because they're more valuable to the continuance of the human race.
|
|
|
|