BanLift on Women in Combat

I sorta agree with you. And I'm sure that most women aren't complaining about it either.

Just to scratch the surface without getting to much into it, I don't think women should be in combat. It's just a bad idea.

 

Except that's what it sounds like. *raises eyebrow*

Personally, I would never, ever join the military in any capacity. There are some amazing benefits (travel, education, retirement, etc), but I know I wouldn't enjoy most of the other aspects.

That said, I see absolutely no reason why a woman who wants to join, and wants to fight, not be sidelined because of her gender, should be denied the right. I'm not going to get into a rant about how women don't need to be sheltered and protected by men, and that certainly not all men are natural protectors, though it's true, and instead say this: With how the military has been viewed in recent years (by many people at home and abroad who have disliked the US's actions in the middle east, and for other reasons), the military should happily take ANYONE who wants to fight and can meet whatever health, safety, etc. requirements there may be. If they have positions that need filled, why not fill them with willing, qualified women, rather than pass them over in favor of possibly less qualified men? Or if it came down to there really not being enough people to fill positions because of only choosing men, does it really make sense to reinstitute a draft and take unwilling men when there are women waiting for the opportunity?

How on earth could you be a general and make decisions affecting the lives of people in combat positions if you've never been allowed to take part in combat? This makes no sense to me.

I don't watch or read up on the news much, so I wasn't aware of this until I saw this thread, but I approve of the move.

 

Okay!

If it was up to me, I wouldn't deny a woman if she wanted to fight on the battlefield but if you ask me. I don't think its a good idea to allow a women to fight. In all honesty, having the opposite sexes on the same battlefield is definitely going to have some kind of intimate relationships going on which is just another distraction for both sexes. No telling where that can lead.

I don't know the exemptions of Selective Service/Draft or whatever. But if it would extend to women, what about all the single mothers.

Lastly, this sounds sexes and I don't care if it is. But women are just more important outside the battlefield. If we were to have a draft and women are on the battlefield. And it happens to be the worst death toll in American history. Our population would be devastated without these women. Not that women are just for 'making babies' . It's just men are more expendable than women in times of war.

 

But then again. Your not denying that it won't happen. So what? Rape in the military happens now. The possibility just becomes that much more likely whether your a gay or a female enlisting. Gays in the military, I just left that tidbit out to stay on topic but if you would like to go there. I would apply the same answer with them.

Anymore? That's thinking in the 'now' not the 'later'. You can't make a decision thinking. 'Oh we don't have draft anymore' and then it happens and our country is not prepared for it.

As for the fathers, exactly! But then again what is the ration of single mothers to single fathers?

You don't know me! XD. But I'll be your friend anyway even though it might not be mutual.

When the men came back home. They started making babies hence the 'Baby Boom' so I don't entirely get your point. Because times have changed, in the last couple of decades after the World Wars. Marriage doesn't hold up like it used to.

Your answers. 1.Bringing up already known information. 2. Poorly thought out long term plan. 3. A History Lecture. Why did you reply again? If it was to waste my time. Then, unlike me, YOU SUCCEED!

I would but this discussion isn't about LGBT.

When it has to do with our nation's security, I would like to be a little informed on who we are sending where and how many . I bet in September 10th 2001, a terrorist attack was furthest from their minds but it happened the next day. So we can doubt all we want, but I rather be prepared then to doubt.

Okay. Men can impregnate more women within nine months more times than a woman can get pregnant in that same time frame. Thanks for the valid point. If this is true, then less men are needed. So those men are off to war.

Oh really! And leave what for our own defense and remove our women for what reason?

 

This is absolutely ridiculous. For one, it gives no regard to people having, I dunno, professionalism, or loyalty to whatever families they may have at home, and two, well, office romances occur often enough in any profession. Should women and men never work together?

Who is to say that any of these women who were out on the battlefield and died would have even wanted to have children, whether or not the population was decimated? Unless of course we'd just forcibly impregnate any women left over to get the population back up.

Honestly, you don't need to break it down for me. I don't say I think you hate women, since as I don't know you, I have no idea how misogynistic you may or may not be, intentionally or unintentionally. However, your statements, in this thread, in the Household thread, and other places, are incredibly sexist and belittling, no matter how you try to spin them.

Actually yes, I do think it is unfair that men have to register for the draft and women don't. Though if all men have the attitude you do towards women, no doubt that will never change. As I have said, I personally have no interest in the military and I would be praying like hell that the draft never came up, but if I were required to, I would sign up for it, and I do wonder a little why there hasn't been more of a push about this. Don't jump on my case and call me a hypocrite without knowing what I think about a stance. It makes you an ineffectual debater. And the personal attacking quality of your posts at times makes me think you might need a refresher of the debating guidlines as set out by EbAl.

And as a comment to the single mother/father argument that's been going on, from what I understand, having a brother-in-law relatively high up in the military and a sister who was former military, and having known others, the military isn't keen on sending anyone overseas who is the sole parent of their young children. I'm sure some people want to go anyway, and have other family/friends who can step in for them, but if there is one father or one mother who is alone, with no support, caring for kids, I doubt the military would force the kids into a foster home while the parent is deployed.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. You don't want to give women rights because you think we'll whine about them once we got them?

Depends on why this call was made. If the only reason the female soldier was backup is because of her gender, then how could you say this isn't discrimination?

I'm not sure what else I can say in this thread without getting angry. I suppose to finish it up, women with the correct training and the desire to do so can manage to do just about anything that might be required when serving in the military, and a sexist, centuries old belief like "they might be too emotional to handle it" or "women should be safe at home to make babies" is no reason for men to stop them from doing as they desire. And women do not need the condescending, patronizing "protection" of the likes I'm seeing in this thread.

 

I'm curious! Let's flip the script and you all can go on the defensive. Why should women be accepted in the infantry?

By all means, kudos for those people. Realistically, these people are deployed and don't know if they are returning so the temptation of them cheating is not all that ridiculous. What happens overseas stays overseas.

A friendly work environment doesn't compare to the life and death situations of an infantryman.

At least, they would have their whole lives to think about it. Why have a mind if your not allowed to change it. But okay.

 

And what would that something else be, exactly? Because by denying the women the opportunity to serve in combat, you are denying them rights.

You can keep typing it until your fingers go numb, but how else other than belittling and sexist is anyone supposed to take your statements? I'm not some feminist nazi, as I expect you think I am, always out to spit on men and take everything offensively. But your comments are patronizing, whether you intend them to be or not. And if you don't even realize how patronizing your views are, assuming your views are the same as those you express, that's even worse. But I refuse to keep arguing about this, because you do nothing to make me feel you mean any different, and just make me more upset over it.

@Angel: Seriously, what kind of war would it be to kill so many people that this is even remotely a concern, given our current population? Not to mention that no one is assuming that every woman in the country will rush out to potentially be killed on the front lines, just because now we can. Even if the female soldiers who hypothetically died hadn't enlisted AND were heterosexual AND decided to birth kids, how many people would they actually be adding to the gene pool anyway? Two each? The majority of people in our society aren't popping out ten kids like they used to. And what about women who are sterile for whatever reason? They won't be needed for childbearing, so are they free to serve in combat?

With this whole argument, are you really trying to suggest that soldiers would shirk their duties in order to have sex? That they're just going to get down and fuck in the middle of a minefield? Because that sounds like grasping for straws to find an excuse to be against women in this situation. And regardless, if someone really wants to have sex, they'll have sex. What's the difference between a male soldier having sex with a female soldier, as opposed to a female civilian of whatever country they're stationed in? You can't tell me that doesn't happen.

I'm assuming you mean go on the offensive. And why shouldn't they? Any person who can do the job competently should be able to. I've yet to see an example of how women aren't competent enough to serve on the front lines, so I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to. Men on average may have an advantage in size and strength, but if the job still gets done, I don't see why it should make a difference to anyone whether or not the person who did the job has a vagina.

 

It is not a constitutional right to be able to serve in the military as an infantry so women aren't denied any 'rights'. Equal opportunity is another thing.

Yes, wouldn't everyone?|Of course that's not what I'm saying. Intimacy doesn't belong on the battlefield. I'll have to give an example. Single-Sex Schools have a better proficiency rate than Coed Schools. An all male/female sport team will be more aggressive, fast paced, and be more prone to give it their all compared to an Coed Sports Team. So by how much would a Coed Infantry be hindered? Taking in the account a more stressful environment filled with anxiety, difficult decisions, and 'in the heat of the moment' emotions that comes with the introduction of the opposite sex.

No. Defensive. You weren't defending a statement. You were attacking it.

Still, you didn't really give an explanation; Why? Your just promoting equality and equality isn't a right, especially in regards to the military. If it isn't a right given to you by our constitution then I don't see anything wrong us continuing to keep the ban, especially since its been apart of our world's social order since way back when. So do you have a reason why they should because I have yet to see one? Whether your capable of doing something in a peculiar field doesn't give you the right to be apart of that field.

 

Req, Give me a real good reason why women should be allowed in the infantry; to promote equality isn't a real reason. I'm not talking about race or how it was before now, only women on the battlefield. You seem to dodge the bullet and spout on about what I'm saying. But you truly haven't said anything on the matter. I do appreciate your sly comments but that's not enough to make your point if you have one; I haven't read it. I don't want some opinion from you if I wanted that I'll go to church. Give me something real and I'll consider it but so far you've given me nothing but opinions. So if you really want to make a point, Here's your chance!

What? Then we can constitute just about anything as 'rights' which is absolutely ridiculous.

But we aren't talking about slavery are we? We're talking about Women in the infantry. I don't see the need to bring up slavery unless you have no real argument against this, which you don't. But since you insist. According to our Constitution all men are entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If we had went by that Logic, we wouldn't have slavery, would we. Case and Point. I appreciate your efforts!

It doesn't matter to me who it is.

Okay! Keyword functions less. That is what I'm arguing and we finally agree on something. Now let's apply this to the battlefield and you'll see why. It will affect the efficiency of our soldiers. I could care less who is at fault. If men are at fault then so be it that does not change the fact that team efficiency will be hampered. You practically said so yourself.

It happens so what? A team having sex as oppose to civilians are not comparable. A team's cooperation and synchronization is what leads to success or failure. Whatever relationship you have on the field with your men/women in arms affects your performance and ability to cooperate. So yes, there is a difference between civilians and soldiers. How can women truly have "Brotherhood" and "Camaraderie" with men if their so called brothers 'sexually assaulted' her. I'm sure; it does apply to women but so much could happen out their with men and women that it's foolish to think otherwise.

Race has nothing to do with this discussion. You just lump them in there to try to make your statement plausible but it's not about them. It's about women. If I were to say 'YES' to keeping Blacks, Females, Asians, and Latinos from serving in the military. Then what point have you have you made about women? None! Whether you believe sending people to fight a 'war on terror' is beneficial to our country is surely opinionated. Who is it benefiting? There will always be terror and terrorist. I don't see how people killing people is beneficial to anyone? It might make you feel secure but we aren't given some prestige award for sending people to die or to kill. But I applaud the use of the race card.

Well until I see an amendment on this. I don't see your point on giving me a history lecture.

Well aren't you a perky character. Some things just shouldn't be acceptable to change and if our foundation were to ever come to that point then that is truly stupid.