BanLift on Women in Combat

And there you go again. I never said that I am a "Protector of woman". I said "for natural (The basic knowledge in the army, human emotions, applying fighting capabilities, etc) and protective (Protecting base, army, allies, etc) means". I do not mind to be specific for that but you want to take a word and want to apply it as though it is a discrimination against women. In this whole debate, YOU yourself want to apply words that is usually would be common but something that I didn't even said AT ALL and want it to be a sex vs. sex debate. I can say the same thing towards you for you to be careful on what you say because you yourself making it look like you are all "Woman Power" or somewhere along the line even if you don't mean it. Bull that I am repeating myself over and over that I am not being sexist and that I am fine with women being able to do the same thing as men on this and clearing anything up and you want to throw out the patronizing part but when you want to throw up "WOMEN CAN DO THIS... but I am not hating on men", it pisses me off because it seems to me that it is ok for you to get away with it but with me, I get so many strike cards and this is like, what, the second debate thread on this whole site based on gender.

And I do not even know WHERE in the world you got this from. If this is to refer to something that I said, please point it out so I can fix up what you misinterpret because right now in my head, you are going "Oh look right here ladies! The almighty Summoner thinks that we are too emotional" and it makes me want to throw a brick and yell because I don't know why you are trying to be so ignorant on this. You can claim that you are not taking certain words so offensively all you want but I am trying to refrain myself from taking what you said that shows you as though you are feminist and slamming it right in front of your face.

And this is the very same reason why I said that this is not about some "Gender Superiority" junk but yet, so many of you (Yes, I am about to start bashing) want to make it look like it is a Male vs. Female. JRose points out why it is a valid reason that it will be ok for women to step out of the supporting roles in the army and to step into direct ground combat and that it is difficult to obtain higher ranks as support roles in the army than it can be in direct combat (Which I will admit I never thought it is difficult in support role) and with a little clarification on both of our part, then I can accept JRose's reason as to why there women can do direct ground combat (Or even fighting with the airplanes for that matter).

As for some baby making and all of that, I will let all of you debate on that since to me, that is end up making women looking like sex objects and for myself, I never had ANYthing in my post related to that. As I said before,

And I am doing research on my own to figure out why I feel this way and why I have questions on this.

 

(For the sake of continuing the debate.... because I can )

I don't know. To me, you Angel are applying women by the common traits (Which made Kitty for unknown reasons to go after me too) that is known. With Kitty, she is all woman power and just want to find something in my sentence to twist and support herself to make it look like I want this to be a gender game, ignoring the rest of what I have to say (Which, while going back through these posts, it truly does look like that to me).

So far, the only reason that is making me be ok of women be in direct combat is because of JRose and ONLY her. Maybe all of you need to read some Susan Glaspell's books or something. But anyway, go on ahead and continue if you like.

 

Luv you... no homo.

Uh, Not anymore. Why? Because now we are saying "Women are now expendable! Let's expend women! " No longer can we bring up the statement that "Men are more expendable" now that we in general are going to let women be in direct combat.

... Meh. I would feel the same way if I had a gf and I think that she would be better off doing somethign else (Still feeling the same way right now about another acquiantance who said on facebook that he joined the marines... which is 100% shocking to me). At least you are not putting it where it looked like you are trying to be stereotypical of how she should use her talents.

I had to save this for last. I find it dumb that all of us (Yes. I am including ALL of us, on site, not part of site and in reality) to make something sexist than what it appears to be (Yet people do and they want to include rape and any stereotype statements into the stereotyping equation to try to prove (to me) a useless point). In my perspective, I am thinking "I do not mind that we can let women in direct combat but is it needed, are we overlooking something, risking anything, let women stay with support roles, etc, etc". It shouldn't be seen as sexism when a person questions all of this for something good.

 

Respond however you want to respond.

@Kitty Oh my gosh. I need to make another thread that is purely on male and female. Now I need to debate to you while staying on topic somehow.

Oh really? Well you are either:

A. Still misunderstanding.
B. Want to make this a one-sided perspective and did not bother trying to understand but just want to pick one side.

And that is what I am seeing.

And I always read to make sure that I said what I said and if someone misunderstood (Like JRose thinking that I want to talk bad about her mom, which I do not know why), I'll explain it. But you yourself just feel like regardless of clarity, you just want to come straight at me since I am expressing my curiousity. You want to come after me about how my sentences are sexist, let's debate on you and show you why I am thinking you are being feminist:

Ok. First off, (For lol reasons), why raise an eyebrow? To turn me into stone and make me run? I said that I do not see it as some gender superiority and you had a BIG problem with it and everytime I bring up something similar to that, you have an attitude, which is why I said earlier that I need to "break things down" for you. Let us go on:

Oh my gawsh! *Slaps my knee* I am a woman hater! "HEY GUYS! This is not about no man vs. woman game!" "You are sexist!" Oh please stone me to death, especially when you went and try to say that I call you a hypocrite and start a-blazing.

You kept up on this. What the heck? Oh yea. Because I personally said in my very first post that I am protective over women (since I do care) and that male soldiers are usually the one who usually protect the country (And thus, to me, is the reason why they are seen as "protectors"). ONLY time I brought that up. But since then, you kept on trying to see if I will support you more and more as if I want to say that women are weak beings and that women cannot do anything unless there is a man on the field. To me, those two quotes right there made and with you "raising" your eyebrow and wanting to question my every statement that I do not see this as a gender supremecy make me believe that you are a feminist, even if it is unintentional or is not to be displayed in that way. And this last statement that you made is... oh wow:

First off, read the title. "Ban Lift on Women In Combat". I really do not care if someone else would like to apply men in this too but in reality of the whole main reason I made this thread, this is a debate thread PURELY about women in the army and what we think about the banlift. However, with you stating about some "Women vs. men", how in the world can you make me NOT believe that you were wanting to see this as a Male vs. Female thread and prove to me that you are not trying to be feminist? Since we are going to talk about women in the army, of course we are going to talk about a gender but to go on and think that this is a "Gender vs gender" plot? Oh come on. Think. Oh wait. There's this other quote you made:

Now to me, you are getting emotional and I kept on wondering what made you said that (The baby making machine I know from Angel but being emotional? Huh?). That and then you had a problem of me saying that I am ok of a woman being a general. Now there, I assume that I would at least have someone to agree with me and to at least support that but you are a complete different lil' creature. Now what is up with that? You go on and on about "Women do not need this from men and so women should be in the army *snap snap*" and when I bring up about being a female leader, you have a problem with that. And you CLEARLY STATED, IN POSTS, where YOU STATED about how you are UPSET and angry and then you brought up about how all you see (Which I never said anything about it but what Angel may have said) is how I kept on wondering and trying to figure out what in the world you are trying to say and why you want to keep on thinking that this is about discouraging women.

And then that definition on sexism. Oh my gosh. I laugh at this one. Now why should I be prejudice against women? Oh yea! If I say "Is it needed", am I'm a sexist? If I say "Are we overlooking something, what are the risks" that I am being sexist? OH WAIT! I know! Me asking "Should we let women stay in the supporting role" of the army shows that I am being sexist because I ask a question. Bogus move you made. Why? If that's the case, then EVERY single one of us, especially you, Req and Vox, EVERYONE have shown a little bit of sexist attitudes and we are all sexists no matter how hard we deny it or know that we are not about "Man/Woman Power". There are some things that I do not believe that men should not do so I guess I am a sexist toward my own gender too. AWESOME!

Oh yea! One more thing and this one here is off topic:

So... if me clearing something up for you because you blantantly question what I do makes me want to cover up myself, then I can truly say the same to you since every time I question what you say, you clear things up saying that you are not hating against men like that. I mean, seriously. This is a debate and if me clearing up what someone like you tend to misunderstand and I know what I clearly want to say, then you are the same, creating up posts to over up your own dirt. If quoting after what someone say in a debate to question what someone else said or disagree with what they say, then I myself have every right to hold you on this. Otherwise, I can keep on quoting on everything that you have to say in my posts, regardless if it is at the top, bottom, middle, eight h paragraph, wherever I made I quoted what someone says in a debate. Love ya but you want to debate on something, I will give you a debate and you better bring it on.

 

Butthurt? Oh please. At least whenever I question someone in a debate like JRose, they do not keep on trying to hammer down about something that I have to keep on repeating over and over 100 times, showing someone which they somehow and ignorantly want to say that they are making a stereotyping statement and I do think and logically along with my own standpoints.

My side was that I am not truly sure about women in direct combat (And I even said it in my first post) even though I find it ok for women rights (Linging towards me not sure if women should be in direct combat at first but with JRose, I do not mind now) and thus, I am questioning on what people say as I debate. What? I have to be one-sided in order to debate? That is why I kept on saying that I am not even about some gender this and gender don't know how to do this crap. Oh yea. I never said anything about women being less expendable... and how many threads are there that was based on genders? I believe that there are only two.

I clearly thought and believed that a woman can still attain a higher rank. I truly thought that one can and besides, there are men in the supporting roles in the army too but that it is more difficult to do that than on the battlefield, that part I honestly did not know. Now which rank is it for, for direct combat or for whatever part of the army that they need a leader for, I do not know but certainly I believe that one can acheive some kind of rank up the ladder.

Let's see, bringing up a question sounds like stereotyping. What else do you want me to say then if I cannot ask a question and you get offended by it then?

1. Will this effect the economy of the nation in anyway?

2. Will this either hurt or help the population of the economy or have no effect and will this help provide more security to both security and nation?

3. Will this make the military spend more money than needed? (And to me, I truly believe that they will bring money into account on all of this and even though I do not care about it, certainly someone else will. That and they will be making money a priority, wondering if they will have enough money for equipments for the soldiers and if not, they will have less equipment. Not to say that the army enver was on short of equipment but they will worry if it will be more often. Not only that, the army will in some way, will have an impact on the economy. Budget cuts are one example. If you want to go on and argue with me about me not supporting this and that it can be sexist, you should read this link and I already said earlier that I was doing research on this)?

How Military Cuts Could Impact the Economy | PRI's The World

4. Will this lower or raise up the risks of serious injury or the risks of the death rate (Both male and female) and will the psychological rate lower or go higher?

Not only that but in my second post, I have stated to JRose as to my stance and questions with 3 more other questions that made me wonder why or why not women should serve the military. Those questions there should be valid (Or whatever validity it should have for you) as to why someone may be having struggles on whether or not someone should accept the ban lift. One of them, which you want to go on and talk about some "Women are emotional" and there was nothing in my posts that said that and you need to think on these things:

Anticipation of loss vs. denial
Train-up and long hours away
Affairs
Mental and physical distance
Arguments
Time frame
Moral Values

These here can support anything with my question as to whether it will make the psychological rate higher. Now do not dare try to say that I am applying some "Women are emotional" because if you are, then I do not know what to say to you. I can tell that the support roles can have a hard time themselves with emotions when it comes to tending to soldiers but do we REALLY need to make the rate higher than what it should be? Also, if me thinking of the bigger picture and saying not to have women be in direct combat would show that I want to display some attitudes toward women, oh well. I am tired of arguing on this with you and you said earlier that you would leave it alone (Which I had hoped so that I can get out my other questions and doubts) but you kept on.

@JRose I am against the negative aspect of feminisim. That part I strongly hate. I am all good for women getting equal rights (And how many times I kept on repeating this?) and I am all out for women striving for equality. However, what I do not like about feminism is when:

A. Women feels that if they are not doing something like the man, then they are not worth amount to anything and then they down themselves. It's like, (For example Vox so don't go gnawing at my head) if Vox's ex gf decides to listen to Vox, not join the army and then, for some odd reason, feels that she did not amount to anything because she did not join the military, she'll start to down herself and I do not even see why. Glad I did not see any of that in this thread.

B. When a woman do have a chance to do something like a man, they get arrogant (And trust me. I have SEEN women act like this and since I have been around a lot of women, I can have a right to say why I feel this way) and they want to act as though they are just as good or stupidly, as better as the next man and then treat a good man like dirt (Wanting to anticipate that a man want to keep a woman on the backporch at all times, etc, Which eventually leads me to believe that men are not doing as much as what they are supposed to be doing). What makes you want to shove it all in a man's face? Either be quiet and be grateful or end up getting jumped on by men who you now went and made them not like you any more.

Those type of feminists, I do not like and whenever Kitty keeps on wanting to bring up about some "Your posts look sexist and you seem patronizing", I clear it up and yet she still want to bring it up (Which she should have left it alone in the first place. If I say that I am not for that and clarify that, you should not keep on bringing it up over and over again) and then back up false claims (You called me hypocrite, you said that women are emotional), I'll start to debate and that makes me feel as though she is expressing negative feminist traits and the same way she feels as though I am not showing why I am not being sexist toward women, the same way I feel as though she is being the negative feminist toward men and myself.

Now by getting back on topic from what I think about feminism and to try to tie it up into the topic, This here is not illogical and I do fear that there will be women who gain this banlift will act dumb with this. Once the ban is lifted, there should not be any problems with this (except mayb ethe 7 questions that I have stated) and there should be no one, man against woman and vice-versa, to try to hinder and harm this socially or in any other aspects after the ban is lifted. NOW do you believe that I am not for some "Gender Superiority" junk? If not, oh well.

 

I'm done debating on you about being a fool, you thinking that you are not saying stuff that make me seeing what I am seeing about you and all of that so I'm leaving it alone as well and it's hard to talk about it when someone wants to keep on wanting to continue about someone stereotyping (Which should be done with Angel. Not with me). I said something similar like what I am saying now "Three pages ago" but you didn't even bother to answer one of the 3 questions and kept on at it so it is bothersome.

Why in the world you are not sure that this will not have an effect on the economy? If it is because of donations, then that is understandable but since there are those looking in medical and technology development, then certainly the army will an impact on that. And who knows what government would do if they decide to lower payment to the soldiers. If they decide that they do not need any more weapons, they will try to apply cuts to the army and use that money somewhere else, which can have an impact on those working in the army. Plus, are the cuts necessary is another thing. They may do some cuts but let us be serious. With unemployment rate so high (Who knows what it is now), who really want to accept cuts?

As for the issues, I'm assuming that the issues can be in any part of the army. That and there can be social and health issues to be applied along with that as well. It may lead to a soldier having to leave the army because of one of the issues and then there will be another spot left open. The family may also be counting on the soldier for that income and if they leave, then they will have to find another way to get income.