Women in the War

Well, I just had a VERY heated discussion with this feminist, psycho, crazy *** in my art class about whether or not women should be in the war (actual combat; GI, etc). What do yall think? Why or why not?
«1

Comments

  • sightunseensightunseen Posts: 2,130
    First question is, what was her opinion on the matter?

    I think women should be able to serve in combat. After all, it's all about equal rights, right? I've found that feminists, like everyone else that has an agenda, always want to take the cake and eat it too. I'll have more respect for them if they protested for the right to be drafted in addition to their normal protests for equal wages, women's rights, etc.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    I wouldn't have liked a woman in my ranger unit. Women already get too many special perks as it is we don't need them f'ing up combat units as well. Now if they had the exact same standards then maybe.
  • HaysHays Costa del Sol, SpainPosts: 2,338 ✭✭✭
    phobicsquirrel:
    I wouldn't have liked a woman in my ranger unit. Women already get too many special perks as it is we don't need them f'ing up combat units as well. Now if they had the exact same standards then maybe.
    But they wouldn't have the same standards, and that's why I am personally against it. I know there are women that can perform at the same level, or higher, than many men, but these are the exception, not the rule. It has been medically documented that, as a whole, man's physiology is far more suited to the rigorous demands of combat than women's. Therefore, if we allow women into combat, I'm sure we'll have a few that can perform at or above expectation, but the majority will be attempting something they have no business doing in the name of "equality".
    ¨The cure for anything is salt water: sweat, tears, or the sea¨ - Isak Dinesen

    ¨Only two people walk around in this world beardless - boys and women - and I am neither one.¨
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Hays:
    phobicsquirrel:
    I wouldn't have liked a woman in my ranger unit. Women already get too many special perks as it is we don't need them f'ing up combat units as well. Now if they had the exact same standards then maybe.
    But they wouldn't have the same standards, and that's why I am personally against it. I know there are women that can perform at the same level, or higher, than many men, but these are the exception, not the rule. It has been medically documented that, as a whole, man's physiology is far more suited to the rigorous demands of combat than women's. Therefore, if we allow women into combat, I'm sure we'll have a few that can perform at or above expectation, but the majority will be attempting something they have no business doing in the name of "equality".
    Pretty much my feelings as well; war isn't politically correct - it's about finding the most capable people to kill or subdue the other side. Standards are high because the demands of war are high; anyone who can't measure up is going to wind up getting themselves or others killd. Politics has no business on the battlefield.
  • cabinetmakercabinetmaker Posts: 2,561
    Then there's the inevitable problem of fraternazation that will occur, causing fighting men and women to make poor judgements during combat when the other is under fire. That, I think, is one of the main concerns of the military leaders. I think it's a valid point, too.
  • I met my wife in Iraq,lol, so I'll stay out of this one.
  • Alex WilliamsAlex Williams Posts: 1,515
    Hays:
    phobicsquirrel:
    I wouldn't have liked a woman in my ranger unit. Women already get too many special perks as it is we don't need them f'ing up combat units as well. Now if they had the exact same standards then maybe.
    But they wouldn't have the same standards, and that's why I am personally against it. I know there are women that can perform at the same level, or higher, than many men, but these are the exception, not the rule. It has been medically documented that, as a whole, man's physiology is far more suited to the rigorous demands of combat than women's. Therefore, if we allow women into combat, I'm sure we'll have a few that can perform at or above expectation, but the majority will be attempting something they have no business doing in the name of "equality".
    her opinion on the matter was that women werent more emotional than men and could take care of themselves and just kept on and on! to give you an idea of her, she bitched me out for opening the door for her..."what you dont think i can handle opening a door?! you are such a sexist pig! blah blah blah." and hays, you just stated my EXACT view and arguement. do i believe in equality among men and women? yes. do i think it would do much more harm than good to allow them to fight? you betcha. it is the human nature of men to protect women. that is how it always has been and always will be! if there is a firefight, many male soldiers would have that girl's safety in the back of their mind which would distract them from the objective.
  • Garen BGaren B Posts: 977
    Alex Williams:
    Hays:
    phobicsquirrel:
    I wouldn't have liked a woman in my ranger unit. Women already get too many special perks as it is we don't need them f'ing up combat units as well. Now if they had the exact same standards then maybe.
    But they wouldn't have the same standards, and that's why I am personally against it. I know there are women that can perform at the same level, or higher, than many men, but these are the exception, not the rule. It has been medically documented that, as a whole, man's physiology is far more suited to the rigorous demands of combat than women's. Therefore, if we allow women into combat, I'm sure we'll have a few that can perform at or above expectation, but the majority will be attempting something they have no business doing in the name of "equality".
    her opinion on the matter was that women werent more emotional than men and could take care of themselves and just kept on and on! to give you an idea of her, she bitched me out for opening the door for her..."what you dont think i can handle opening a door?! you are such a sexist pig! blah blah blah." and hays, you just stated my EXACT view and arguement. do i believe in equality among men and women? yes. do i think it would do much more harm than good to allow them to fight? you betcha. it is the human nature of men to protect women. that is how it always has been and always will be! if there is a firefight, many male soldiers would have that girl's safety in the back of their mind which would distract them from the objective.
    Jeez man, try and be nice to someone and they bite your head off. I don't think she's going to listen to anything that you're going to say Alex, she's contradicting her statement about women not being more emotional than men and is just bringing her emotion based opinion to the table instead of facts.
  • denniskingdennisking Posts: 3,703 ✭✭✭
    should they be allowed to serve, Yes. should they be allowed to be in combat, aren't they already?
    as far as the really nice girl you know, trip her next time she's walking by. tell her it's a game you and your male friends play and you didn't wan't to be unfair
  • Alex WilliamsAlex Williams Posts: 1,515
    dennisking:
    should they be allowed to serve, Yes. should they be allowed to be in combat, aren't they already?
    as far as the really nice girl you know, trip her next time she's walking by. tell her it's a game you and your male friends play and you didn't wan't to be unfair
    hahahaha i love it! great idea.
  • clearlysuspectclearlysuspect Jacksonville, FloridaPosts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
    We used to talk about this all the time back when I was in the military. My thoughts are that the physical standards should be the same for everyone in each branch of the military, man or woman. Standards may vary from branch to branch: Marines need to be in better physical condition than most Navy and Air Force. If you're gonna be on the front line, you better be able to take the person fighting next to you and throw them over your shoulder and run. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be fighting. If you're in the Navy, you better at least be able to drag the guy working next to you out of a flooding or on fire compartment. If you can't do that, you shouldn't be on a boat. I worked with some women who could. I worked with a lot more than couldn't and frankly it scared me.
  • jihiggsjihiggs Posts: 468
    I believe there should be no discrimination simply because they are women, but they should be able to pass the same qualifications, I have heard that men have to do a number of pull ups, but women only have to hang. not sure what the thought there is, but if they cant do what a man could do, then they arent qualified to do the job, if a woman can do it then great. maybe sara connor would be the only woman in combat, and thats fine with me lol. (reference the scene in terminator 2, she did many pull ups)
  • clearlysuspectclearlysuspect Jacksonville, FloridaPosts: 2,124 ✭✭✭✭
    jihiggs:
    I believe there should be no discrimination simply because they are women, but they should be able to pass the same qualifications, I have heard that men have to do a number of pull ups, but women only have to hang. not sure what the thought there is, but if they cant do what a man could do, then they arent qualified to do the job, if a woman can do it then great. maybe sara connor would be the only woman in combat, and thats fine with me lol. (reference the scene in terminator 2, she did many pull ups)
    Interesting you should bring this point up. Did you know it's nearly impossible for a man to do the haning thing the women do? They have to keep their knees perpendicular to their body while hanging for 90 seconds. I've seen so many Marines say they can do this and fail trying. Most can't even make it past a minute. So...... this is kind of a bad analogy. edit: I've got 3 former marines sitting behind me who confirm this. I was wrong about the knees thing. Basically, they have to hang in the up position for 90 seconds.
  • jpclotfelterjpclotfelter Posts: 294
    War is the ugliest side of humanity. I don't think women should be in combat, not because I don't think they can handle it but because women are too precious. I would never want my wife to have to be exposed to the most horrific and darkest moments of human history.

    When our nation calls real men go to war so that the women don't have to.
  • Alex WilliamsAlex Williams Posts: 1,515
    jpclotfelter:
    War is the ugliest side of humanity. I don't think women should be in combat, not because I don't think they can handle it but because women are too precious. I would never want my wife to have to be exposed to the most horrific and darkest moments of human history.

    When our nation calls real men go to war so that the women don't have to.
    That is a very apt statement. And very very true.
  • fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,024 ✭✭
    jpclotfelter:
    War is the ugliest side of humanity. I don't think women should be in combat, not because I don't think they can handle it but because women are too precious. I would never want my wife to have to be exposed to the most horrific and darkest moments of human history.

    When our nation calls real men go to war so that the women don't have to.
    Good response even if some women don't get it.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    fla-gypsy:
    jpclotfelter:
    War is the ugliest side of humanity. I don't think women should be in combat, not because I don't think they can handle it but because women are too precious. I would never want my wife to have to be exposed to the most horrific and darkest moments of human history.

    When our nation calls real men go to war so that the women don't have to.
    Good response even if some women don't get it.
    Though throughout history for most nations, women stayed at home while men went to war, but many times they were left unprotected and suffered worse than someone who went off to war to die on the battlefield.
  • jpclotfelterjpclotfelter Posts: 294
    phobicsquirrel:
    fla-gypsy:
    jpclotfelter:
    War is the ugliest side of humanity. I don't think women should be in combat, not because I don't think they can handle it but because women are too precious. I would never want my wife to have to be exposed to the most horrific and darkest moments of human history.

    When our nation calls real men go to war so that the women don't have to.
    Good response even if some women don't get it.
    Though throughout history for most nations, women stayed at home while men went to war, but many times they were left unprotected and suffered worse than someone who went off to war to die on the battlefield.
    So what is your solution Squirrel? Would you rather have your mother, sister, daughter, whomever on the front line to be captured by our enemies? There is no fate worse than being a female captured on the battlefield.

    Real men protect their women from such a fate; regardless of the political fallout. Real men will never compromise principal for political expediency. Some people will argue that women should have equal rights. I happen to think that women should have more than equal rights, they shouldn't have to endure the horrors of war.
  • TatuajeVITatuajeVI Posts: 2,378
    While this is a bit of a gross exaggeration, but I would say that anyone who argues women should be allowed in combat has never been in combat before. Fitness was discussed already, and of course the natural tendency for Men to be over-protective of women greatly complicates the already-complicated mess that a combat environment is. But one of the main reasons: they are simply not needed. There are enough men that volunteer and as we know, men simply destroy, main, kill, and burn quite well. :)
  • j0z3rj0z3r Posts: 9,403
    jpclotfelter:
    I happen to think that women should have more than equal rights, they shouldn't have to endure the horrors of war.
    I want to state first of all that I'm not taking a side on this. I do want to point out, however, that you're saying contradictory things, if women should have equal rights then that should include the right to go to war and be on the front lines. Again, that's not an endorsement from me one way or the other, I'll keep my opinion on the matter to myself. Equal rights includes everything, not just what we pick and choose.
  • mrpillowmrpillow Posts: 464
    He said women should have MORE than equal rights, implying that going to war is not a right but a burden that women should have the privelage of being protected from.
  • jpclotfelterjpclotfelter Posts: 294
    j0z3r:
    jpclotfelter:
    I happen to think that women should have more than equal rights, they shouldn't have to endure the horrors of war.
    I want to state first of all that I'm not taking a side on this. I do want to point out, however, that you're saying contradictory things, if women should have equal rights then that should include the right to go to war and be on the front lines. Again, that's not an endorsement from me one way or the other, I'll keep my opinion on the matter to myself. Equal rights includes everything, not just what we pick and choose.
    Serving a combat role in war is no right. It is a burden and a responsiblity that only men should bare.

    If a woman chooses to serve her country in a time of need, I applaud her for doing so. There are plenty of non-combat roles that women are more than capable of performing.
  • TatuajeVI:
    While this is a bit of a gross exaggeration, but I would say that anyone who argues women should be allowed in combat has never been in combat before.
    I have served in combat, and that WOULD be a gross exaggeration. Do I believe women should serve in combat arms MOS's? No, but that is a different argument.
  • j0z3rj0z3r Posts: 9,403
    mrpillow, I'm capable of reading, thank you. I know what he meant and don't need it spelled out for me.

    jpclotfelter: My point was this, either women are equal or they're not, there is no "more equal". You can argue the difference between rights and responsibilities until you're blue in the face, but equal rights means equal responsibilities. But you've got your view, I've got mine...as I said in the first post I made, I only wanted to point out something that I saw, I did so and that's that.
  • Alex WilliamsAlex Williams Posts: 1,515
    Hey guys. Didn't mean to open pandora's box here. Sorry if I did but thanks to all y'all for voicing your opinions I appreciate it!
  • jpclotfelterjpclotfelter Posts: 294
    j0z3r:
    mrpillow, I'm capable of reading, thank you. I know what he meant and don't need it spelled out for me.

    jpclotfelter: My point was this, either women are equal or they're not, there is no "more equal". You can argue the difference between rights and responsibilities until you're blue in the face, but equal rights means equal responsibilities. But you've got your view, I've got mine...as I said in the first post I made, I only wanted to point out something that I saw, I did so and that's that.
    Perhaps my semi-comic use of "More Equal" wasn't properly understood. What I meant is that women are more precious and more valuable than any man ever will be. Women need to be cherished and protected. There is no "right" to go into combat. There is a right to freedom of speech, a right to bare arms, a right to not testify against oneself at trial...it is all clearly spelled out in our Bill of Rights. Again, combat is a burden and responsibility that ONLY men should bare. If it were a right then women would register for the selective services.
  • jpclotfelterjpclotfelter Posts: 294
    Allow me to also add this.

    If women have a responsibility to aid in the war effort like some say they do, I would think that their responsibility would be to participate where there efforts would produce the most benefit to the cause.
  • TatuajeVITatuajeVI Posts: 2,378
    leemarshall337:
    TatuajeVI:
    While this is a bit of a gross exaggeration, but I would say that anyone who argues women should be allowed in combat has never been in combat before.
    I have served in combat, and that WOULD be a gross exaggeration. Do I believe women should serve in combat arms MOS's? No, but that is a different argument.
    I served in Iraq and there were a few women in MP units who actively patrolled in combat environments, but VERY few. I don't disagree they should be allowed to serve in the military in a country like Iraq, but I do feel they should be kept in relatively safer environments. I guess I should have specifically stated "not in combat MOSs."
  • Good thread going here. We as Americans value the life of women more so than most other cultures, and now there is a faceless enemy that we are fighting that knows this and are willing to exploit it at any cost. I see a lot of back and forth going on about women being able to "keep up" physically, which is a good argument for "conventional roles on the front line. Reach back in history a bit and look at the Office of Strategic Services and the roles of women in WWII. They were vital in the role of a lot of covert operations, many died, and their sacrifices directly impacted many unseen victories and still do to this very day. Not one of wants to think of our wives, daughters, etc., as "casulties of war". The enemy we fight today and will continue fight tomorrow forces us to use every measure necessary to secure our freedoms, even that of the lives of those we hold dearest.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,806 ✭✭✭
    Interesting topic. I will agree that so long as all standards are equal, they can serve as they want. But the woman better be able to carry my wounded a$$ out of battle, like I would physically be able to do for her.

    I think the women being more precious thing, or to be protected is the only sexist statement in this post and a true "feninist" would hate that statement because its about equality, not being better. I refuse to say that a man is better than a woman, but I equally refuse to concede that a woman is inherently more valuble or precious than a man.
Sign In or Register to comment.