House republicans want to put women in their place

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
Back to the kitchen with ye:

Republicans in the US Congress are trying to pass legislation which would keep female soldiers out of combat.


The measure is being considered now by the House Armed Services Committee.

Advocates of the proposal want to stop women from working as drivers, medics and logistics specialists in teams which provide back-up to combat units.

They say the women get too close to the fighting. But the US army is opposed to the plan at a time when they are having problems with recruitment.

Senior officers have said if it passes into law, they will have to pull out 22,000 female soldiers from their current jobs and replace them with men.

No front line Women who serve in the US army are barred by law from fighting on the front line.

But in Iraq, the US is fighting an insurgency - which means there is no front line.


About 9,000 women are serving in Iraq and 35 have been killed.

Combat can happen anywhere at any time, and women have frequently been caught up in it.

Republican lawmakers in the Congress now want to pass a measure which would keep women out of units called Forward Support Companies.

The army is deeply opposed to the measure.

Underlying the army's opposition are the problems it is having recruiting new troops.

For the last three months, the army has failed to meet its recruiting targets. At the moment it looks set to miss its annual target by 15%. Further limiting the roles women can fill in the military will make its task even harder.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4560847.stm

Ya know, with the lack of soldiers, the missed recruiting targets, and the forcing soldiers to stay longer than originally told, this is not only sexist but just flat out stupid.
 
I think that ANYONE who signs up for the Army expects equal treatment...even women...if I was over there and I heard about this I'd be pissed...why can't women do these jobs? sorry to sound crude but it's not like losing a few female lives is going to ruin the country...I mean there are plenty of women left here in the states away from the fight to have babies...and it's not like we really NEED a more people in this country...so why not let a few willing women die?
 
Yes because we want to put all our women on the fronlines for all wars. We should allow them to be killed just like our boys. Since we no longer have conventional front line bunkers we should allow them to be every where even if it means in the line of fire. This is horrid keeping our baby makers out of the line of danger. We should also make all 18-25 old women sign up for selected service :roll:
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Wow, and I thought the social security reform plan was idiotic[/QUOTE]

They should just kill SS now and get it over with.

[quote name='spoo']Yes because we want to put all our women on the fronlines for all wars. We should allow them to be killed just like our boys. Since we no longer have conventional front line bunkers we should allow them to be every where even if it means in the line of fire. This is horrid keeping our baby makers out of the line of danger. We should also make all 18-25 old women sign up for selected service :roll:[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. Haven't you ever heard of equal rights? That shit's not selective, you have to take the bad with the good.
 
[quote name='spoo']Yes because we want to put all our women on the fronlines for all wars. We should allow them to be killed just like our boys. Since we no longer have conventional front line bunkers we should allow them to be every where even if it means in the line of fire. This is horrid keeping our baby makers out of the line of danger. We should also make all 18-25 old women sign up for selected service :roll:[/QUOTE]

I know you're being sarcastic, but with the exception of putting ALL women on the front line or make them sign up (as we don't do that with men), you basically described what life would be like if women had equal rights. Funny, isn't it?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']It takes two to tango, aren't men babymakers too?[/QUOTE]

Well, to be fair, I live in a town of thousands (no idea how many, 5-30 thousand), and I could impregnate the entire town, without having to take a 9 month break between each one.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, to be fair, I live in a town of thousands (no idea how many, 5-30 thousand), and I could impregnate the entire town, without having to take a 9 month break between each one.[/QUOTE]

And the next generation would all be related, in fact they would all technically be immediate family members.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I know you're being sarcastic, but with the exception of putting ALL women on the front line or make them sign up (as we don't do that with men), you basically described what life would be like if women had equal rights. Funny, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

I thought they automatically signed a male up when you get your driver's license. At least I think they do in Iowa...
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']And the next generation would all be related, in fact they would all technically be immediate family members.[/QUOTE]

It works for alabama


I thought they automatically signed a male up when you get your driver's license. At least I think they do in Iowa...
Click to expand...

No, you just can't get most government jobs or get college aid, at least in MA. There's a few other things, but you can get a drivers license, work at a bank, store etc., go to college (just no government aid), etc. It was funny, when I first got the notice when I turned 18 it told me I was required to sign up, then gave me a list of the few things I couldn't do if I didn't, and the larger list of the things I could still do. Didn't seem like much of a requirement. I was 20 before I actually signed up, no one ever bothered me or anything after the first time (well, I was sent some advertisements from the military I think, not really sure if they were reminders or advertisements as anything from the military I toss without even opening). I really didn't want to sign up on principle, but I figured I'd have to when college came around and I did.

Though I don't understand what it would have to do with a drivers license, isn't every place 14-16 and a half? Don't you have to be 18 for selective service?
 
I was sent a card in the mail when I turned 18 to sign up for the SS. It had nothing to do with my DL. That was 7 years ago so things could have changed.
 
[quote name='spoo']I was sent a card in the mail when I turned 18 to sign up for the SS. [/QUOTE]

Judging by your comments above I'm not surprised.

Zee vomen, who supply zee soldiers for zee Fatherland, shall be kept away from war at all costs. They shall not be allowed abortions (this vould mean less meat for the grinder). Any other option should be ridiculed with ridiculous parody. Any other option is strictly verboten!
 
[quote name='camoor']Judging by your comments above I'm not surprised.

Zee vomen, who supply zee soldiers for zee Fatherland, shall be kept away from war at all costs. They shall not be allowed abortions (this vould mean less meat for the grinder). Any other option should be ridiculed with ridiculous parody. Any other option is strictly verboten![/QUOTE]

Lol, I thought of lebensborn when I saw his post, but I figured It would be best to leave the whole nazi thing out, guess you had a different idea :D .

Though, for someone reason I can't help but think someone like chunk is gonna come out of left field and make ridiculous, strongly held arguments and fill up this topic.

edit: LOL! I just got the first line, didn't understand it at first until I saw the SS thing again.
 
[quote name='camoor']Judging by your comments above I'm not surprised.

Zee vomen, who supply zee soldiers for zee Fatherland, shall be kept away from war at all costs. They shall not be allowed abortions (this vould mean less meat for the grinder). Any other option should be ridiculed with ridiculous parody. Any other option is strictly verboten![/QUOTE]

The "Lets compare everybody that I agree with to Hitler'" approach is very offensive. I am not a PC person or agree with being PC but what don’t you understand about comparing a pseudo woman rights topic to Hitler's genocide is BS.

I believe in woman rights but I don’t believe in putting woman in the line of fire. It is not because I don’t think they can do the job actually they could probably do a better job then men but because it is not the best for our country. To build a strong civilization our civilization needs babies. If we start allowing this now it will never change. What if we get into another big WW and we send out as many men as women in the line of fire who will be back home having babies? It would put a big dent in our birth rate. This is not a simple issue as women rights issue. It is much larger. I could write a four-page essay about this but I am not up for to it tonight.

1st person on Ignore list for being a bigot.

Selected Service not Hitler's SS.
 
Um.... well for one women aren't allowed on the front line, but since this isn't conventional war they are fighting. A large scale WW2 type war, under current laws, would be only men on the front line. This is a step backwards, removing women from any possible combat role. Your argument, while a little crazy to me, does, I guess, make some sense under special circumstances, but a large scale war would not be fought under the conditions in Iraq, the type of combat that they want to ban women from entering.

Unless this topic moves that way, I'm not really going to get into what would happen in a big war with actual front lines, though I wouldn't mind seeing a huge dent in our population. But, in this case, your point is not relevant as, again, this is a step back from what is already allowed.

Though I'm struggling to figure out how you could label camoor a bigot.

Though, if you know the way hitler dealt with women, his beliefs about them, and the way nazis viewed them, the connection was rather amusing, and there was a parallel between what you said and he said (and it had nothing to do with genocide). Though I think he may have been a little more serious than I would have been.
 
I do get the SS thing but some things are better left unsaid.

I'm not sure wars will ever go back to being frontline wars. That is why this measure is important. I have not researched this and the only information I have is this article. It doesn't sound like a step back to me but more as a protecting women in this war and others. Is that such a bad thing? I may be macho but I rather be in the line of fire instead of my GF, sister or Mother. If any of them choose to go into the military I am against them being in the line of fire.
 
I’ll say the same thing about women on the frontlines that I said during the whole “gays in the military” debate of the 90s -- if you wish to sign your name on that dotted line and put your ass in harm’s way for your country, by all means go ahead! Personally, I’d much rather have a voluntary military force made up of eager, able-bodied individuals than have the masses conscripted into service unwillingly. For some, the allure of military service is undeniable, and I don’t see it as anyone’s place to deny any fit and qualified citizen his or her place among the forces.
 
the whole selective service thing really bothers me. The whole idea is a bad idea. If someoen believes in the war enough they are going to go fight it, NEVER will a war really mean anything if it's not fought by those men and women who believe in the cause.
Women can and should fight if they are willing to.
No man should have to fight if they aren't willing to.
Women know the risks just the same as a man does...does being a women give her any fewer rights to make her own choices when she knows the risks involved?

Maybe if we sent all the people who think war is a good idea over to fight and left all the people who don't believe in war here to reproduce we'd end up with peace in a couple hundred years.
 
The Republicans backed off. They scrapped their amendment and simply put into law the policy that the Pentagon has had in place for a while now.
 
Gamer's Girlfriend said:
the whole selective service thing really bothers me. The whole idea is a bad idea. If someoen believes in the war enough they are going to go fight it, NEVER will a war really mean anything if it's not fought by those men and women who believe in the cause.
Women can and should fight if they are willing to.
No man should have to fight if they aren't willing to.
Women know the risks just the same as a man does...does being a women give her any fewer rights to make her own choices when she knows the risks involved?

Maybe if we sent all the people who think war is a good idea over to fight and left all the people who don't believe in war here to reproduce we'd end up with peace in a couple hundred years.
Click to expand...
Nobody who doesn't believe in war should ever have to fight? Does that mean that if I don't believe in taxes, I don't have to pay them? Because that would be wonderful! I already don't believe in voting, so I don't have to do that!

Whatever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
 
[quote name='fanskad']Nobody who doesn't believe in war should ever have to fight? Does that mean that if I don't believe in taxes, I don't have to pay them? Because that would be wonderful! I already don't believe in voting, so I don't have to do that!

Whatever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."[/QUOTE]

Taxes don't put your life endanger...and if you have a moral or religious objection to taxes and don't use any of the benefits that taxes pay for, no you don't have to pay them. Quakers, Amish, some sects of menonites, etc.

If you believe in supporting the government with your life, by all means go right ahead...but anyone who doesn't believe that strongly shouldn't have to fight.
 
We're raised to treasure and protect women. Putting women in the front lines is not only dangerous for the life givers of our country, but dangerous for the men who try to be heroes to save them.

The double standards HAVE to be dropped for equality. If the women want to be equal, they have to be treated as men...and unfortunatly, that rarely happens.

Say what you want, I feel that every person deserves a chance to die for their country....but putting women in situations that if you put a man in it you would possibly have less deaths...I would put a man. No thought required.

Get the women out of the front lines, stop trying to please everyone, and put the soldiers you feel need to be there. Men belong in the front lines, maybe some women do...but its easier to just put all men in the front lines.
 
Not only that, but often in the front lines it comes down to hand to hand combat. Men are naturally physically stronger and faster. If you have a chance to take out a soldier to put another soldier in its place then so be it.

Equal rights are not special rights, if a woman is in the front lines and you can replace her with a better soldier...then with equal rights, you do so. Equal rights doesnt mean you put a woman in there to keep good with the polititans....equal rights is, you take the woman whos half the size of the man and replace her. Simple.

Also, war is won by eliminating destractions....this isnt 90210...if a woman soldier is having sex with another male soldier and the other male soldiers get horny and rape her (Happens all the time) - that is Destraction. That is something that could get a whole squad killed as the squad pussy gets shot down in the streets.

I hate to get mean, and fucked up sounding....but war is fucked up and mean.

Let stop the bullshit and get the fucking women out of the war. They destract the men soldiers, and since women account for less than 5%. Lets get rid of them. You want your other 95% of your military to be destraction-free, cleaner, and safer unit.

Equal rights is putting women in male prisons. Think about what that would do. Putting them in a world of frightened, scared and alone men...you're doing the same thing.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Absolutely. Haven't you ever heard of equal rights? That shit's not selective, you have to take the bad with the good.[/QUOTE]

Give me a break. I'll tell you what...I'll believe in this liberal concept of equal rights when women dont have tits, are born with the same amount of dencity of fast and slow twitch muscle fibers, can bench and run as fast as a man in the olympics, and look like something no man (You know the other 95% of your military) would want to fuck.

Here's equal rights for you, a woman has a place in the front lines. But if I want a better soldier...I'll pick a man before a woman anyday.

I love women, I'm not a sexist...I'm a purest. We're not equals, we have special gifts. If we were ment to be equal, we wouldnt be so damn different.

Until women are all born with dicks and look just like me...then I'll believe that we have special talents that set us apart. Having been in the military, let me tell you...women make much better strategists and commanders than grunts.

Put the women in submarines as well, they do better on them than men. Put them in Fighter jets....but dont put them in a tank or the front lines. It just doesnt work.

We needed the women to make shells for us in WWII (Rosie the Riveter)....they helped us win. We may not of done it without them....What was wrong with that? Why do they need to be a destraction and getting murdered in cold blood in front of a pack of good ol' boys who love their mothers more than anything?
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']Not only that, but often in the front lines it comes down to hand to hand combat. Men are naturally physically stronger and faster. If you have a chance to take out a soldier to put another soldier in its place then so be it.

Equal rights are not special rights, if a woman is in the front lines and you can replace her with a better soldier...then with equal rights, you do so. Equal rights doesnt mean you put a woman in there to keep good with the polititans....equal rights is, you take the woman whos half the size of the man and replace her. Simple.

Also, war is won by eliminating destractions....this isnt 90210...if a woman soldier is having sex with another male soldier and the other male soldiers get horny and rape her (Happens all the time) - that is Destraction. That is something that could get a whole squad killed as the squad pussy gets shot down in the streets.

I hate to get mean, and fucked up sounding....but war is fucked up and mean.

Let stop the bullshit and get the fucking women out of the war. They destract the men soldiers, and since women account for less than 5%. Lets get rid of them. You want your other 95% of your military to be destraction-free, cleaner, and safer unit.

Equal rights is putting women in male prisons. Think about what that would do. Putting them in a world of frightened, scared and alone men...you're doing the same thing.[/QUOTE]



You make a few good points here. there is certain logic that needs to be followed when giving equal rights...of course women need a separate sleeping facility. As far as the gang rape thing, those men should be in jail rather than fighting a war...they have no disipline whatsoever if they can't keep thier hands and penis off a women that is unwilling. And there are no excuses for that behavior. The women should also behave in a manor suitable fore the situation, no sex with anyone for any reason, ever. If they can't comply with that then they need to be sent home immidiately.

What if by taking out women you're replacing them with unwilling men who don't know the job as well? That is a very distinct possibility with the lower recruitment rates. I'd think it's better for the overall moral of the entire army to see women with strong beliefs fighting right next to them than having a male that was forced to be there fighting with them. The women is going to try 100x as hard as that guy is. And the women that are over there were trained the same as the men so they should have equal footing and be able to take care of themselves in combat situations.

I forgot anything else I was going to say...oh well...grahmcrackers?
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']Give me a break. I'll tell you what...I'll believe in this liberal concept of equal rights when women dont have tits, are born with the same amount of dencity of fast and slow twitch muscle fibers, can bench and run as fast as a man in the olympics, and look like something no man (You know the other 95% of your military) would want to fuck.

Here's equal rights for you, a woman has a place in the front lines. But if I want a better soldier...I'll pick a man before a woman anyday.

I love women, I'm not a sexist...I'm a purest. We're not equals, we have special gifts. If we were ment to be equal, we wouldnt be so damn different.

Until women are all born with dicks and look just like me...then I'll believe that we have special talents that set us apart. Having been in the military, let me tell you...women make much better strategists and commanders than grunts.

Put the women in submarines as well, they do better on them than men. Put them in Fighter jets....but dont put them in a tank or the front lines. It just doesnt work.

We needed the women to make shells for us in WWII (Rosie the Riveter)....they helped us win. We may not of done it without them....What was wrong with that? Why do they need to be a destraction and getting murdered in cold blood in front of a pack of good ol' boys who love their mothers more than anything?[/QUOTE]

Disparate ablities do not preclude equal rights. I agree with best person for the job, but you make the leap from some men are better to all women are worthless.

Also keeping women out of the military just because they may be distracting ... can you even conceive of a woman as anything other than a sexual object?
 
Gamer's Girlfriend]when giving equal rights...of course women need a separate sleeping facility.[/QUOTE] Thats not equal. And a waste of taxpayers money. If I can buy 3 more bombs to kill people with said:
But the easiest way to fix this problem is to take out the cause. I'm not saying its right, but War is very, very hard on the mind. And if I can stop my men from having a mental breakdown and raping some women in my squad by (once again) taking out the cause. I will.

Gamer's Girlfriend]And there are no excuses for that behavior. The women should also behave in a manor suitable fore the situation said:
I completely agree....but once again. I can alleviate this by just not having them here.

Gamer's Girlfriend]What if by taking out women you're replacing them with unwilling men who don't know the job as well? That is a very distinct possibility with the lower recruitment rates.[/QUOTE] But that is in the rhelm of possiblity and War is the rhelm of reality. I assume you would have to take the bad with the good and cross that bridge when you got there. But we've been there before and we became the greatest military power in the world being that way. Changing a working thing so some women can join the party is rediculous. [QUOTE=Gamer's Girlfriend]I'd think it's better for the overall moral of the entire army to see women with strong beliefs fighting right next to them than having a male that was forced to be there fighting with them.[/QUOTE] Moral is a very big contributor to winning a war. And nothing is better than knowing that your mother said:
The women is going to try 100x as hard as that guy is. And the women that are over there were trained the same as the men so they should have equal footing and be able to take care of themselves in combat situations.
Click to expand...

And White guys try 100x harder than black guys in the NBA. But that doesnt mean I need to replace shaq because the token white guy needs a turn. I want to win, and if I could have an all black basketball team. I would.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Disparate ablities do not preclude equal rights. I agree with best person for the job, but you make the leap from some men are better to all women are worthless.

Also keeping women out of the military just because they may be distracting ... can you even conceive of a woman as anything other than a sexual object?[/QUOTE]


Read my post before you comment on it. I never said women have no place in the military. Just that they have no place in a Tank or in the front lines. Women have been in the military for 70 years. My grandmother was in the military.

This discussion isnt about if they should be in the Military. Just if they should be sitting in the front lines. And I say they have no place in the front lines, none whatsoever.

As far as seeing women as only sexual objects....remember...this is the front lines of WAR. Men are making peace and getting ready to die. The brains mentality has issues with you telling it that "its ok if I die"....

Some peoples minds snap...and do stupid shit. I'd rather not have to deal with a man trying to fullfill one of the most basic needs of man with his squad mate. Sex is more than just a media driven word. Man has recreated for internal basic needs as well as mental needs to fill the need of "passing things on" and "living enternal".

In a very spiritual and mental rhelm that the front lines often can be....yes... I would like to keep the distractions and the possible sexual desires of my men to a minimum.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']Read my post before you comment on it. I never said women have no place in the military. Just that they have no place in a Tank or in the front lines. Women have been in the military for 70 years. My grandmother was in the military.

This discussion isnt about if they should be in the Military. Just if they should be sitting in the front lines. And I say they have no place in the front lines, none whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

And all I'm saying is they should have equal opportunity to be placed there if able.

Also punishing women because some worthless fucks might feel like raping them is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
 
by your above posts you have proven yourself to be 100% sexist in believing that women cannot do the job men do.

Women have a mind of their own, they know the risk...they aren't stupid sex toys that can't reason and fend for themselves.

Men need to learn to respect a womans ability to think for herself.
No you might not WANT your wife, mom, or sister fighting with a chance at being killed...but who are you to say they can't? Do you not RESPECT them enough to let them make thier OWN desision? And what gives you the impression that women want thier men who they love to be on the front lines being killed?

And if you want purist...do some research and you'll find that WOMEN did all of the fighting, hunting, etc in the early days of civiliztion.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']And all I'm saying is they should have equal opportunity to be placed there if able.

Also punishing women because some worthless fucks might feel like raping them is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.[/QUOTE]

You're not seeing the big picture, your latching on to stupid shit to stay afloat in this arguement.

War is not civilization. Lets get that one right out in the open right away. Things like rape and murder are not such a weird thing without civilization.

Anyways, rape isnt the only reason...but its one that as a commander, I would like to steer clear from. Rape is one of the long list of hundreds of reasons.

Men are designed for death, women are designed for life. If women were physically better at murdering hundreds of people for some idea of freedom, then it would be the men bitching about why they cant be at the front lines right now.

This is natural progression...and the lines in the sand are already made. Its general politics and librals, who know nothing about real war who try to blur the lines.
 
Well, if you think white guys try 100x harder than black guys in the nba then you either don't pay any attention to the nba, or are just favoring your own race.

Though, if I wanted to join the army I could, and I could fight on the front line, but I know a lot of women who could beat the shit out of me and they couldn't fight on the front line (or at all if this was passed).

If you have a woman with equal or superior strength, endurance and agility, with the male soldiers, why does it matter?

And besides, there was gay sex going on in WW2 between otherwise straight soldiers (at least in the u.k. army), didn't exactly harm them.
 
All I'm saying is when you place the right people for the job, and you dont worry about sugar coating and the liberal spending for no reason...

You end up with an all singular sex as a front line.

You see, you guys are completely missing my point. I never said women couldnt do what men can do, or that women arent as good as men....

Its just that War is VERY mind altering...and a same sex front line is the best option.

You see, I will never know what its like for a woman to be on the front line, but men bond in the same way women bond with each other...and that kind of bond is what keeps them alive.

You can put all women on the front line for all I care, but when you mix them...you need seperate quarters, and its not mentally healthy for either sex. I want my men and women at their peak, and having them intermingle isnt a healthy enviroment for War.

That is the same reason for same sex schools, Monks and Priests...I believe a woman can be a priest....but distractions ARE distractions....and multi-sex Front line is an issue we can live without in the mist of battle.

Women ARE as good as men, and can do the same things. But men have a few less hangups which make them a greater need.

They dont get pregnant, they dont get their period and attract guard dogs, they're 33% stonger and faster on average...and studies show that while women have better vision on average (PERFECT FOR FIGHTER PILOTS!!!) men have (on average! only) better hand eye coordination for shooting. (I'll post proof in a second)

I'm really not sexist...really...I just believe the right man (or woman!) for the job. And it's much easier to not deal with extra bullshit in the fog of war.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, if you think white guys try 100x harder than black guys in the nba then you either don't pay any attention to the nba, or are just favoring your own race.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I was speaking in the rhelm of averages...basically saying that on average...black guys are more athletic (on average) than white guys. Thats mainly based on slavery times and how the weaker slaves were killed or sold for favor of stronger slaves and how they were bred with a strong slave man to a stonger larger slave woman.

This isnt a racist comment, just history. And now black athletes DOMINATE the sports industry. I'm not saying White guys try 100x harder (I did kinda word that wrong and I'm very sorry about that), but white guys (on average again!) hit a physical wall that black athletes easily move past.

If more black people lived in Canada, they'd DOMINATE hockey too probably.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']All I'm saying is when you place the right people for the job, and you dont worry about sugar coating and the liberal spending for no reason...

You end up with an all singular sex as a front line.

You see, you guys are completely missing my point. I never said women couldnt do what men can do, or that women arent as good as men....

Its just that War is VERY mind altering...and a same sex front line is the best option.

You see, I will never know what its like for a woman to be on the front line, but men bond in the same way women bond with each other...and that kind of bond is what keeps them alive.

You can put all women on the front line for all I care, but when you mix them...you need seperate quarters, and its not mentally healthy for either sex. I want my men and women at their peak, and having them intermingle isnt a healthy enviroment for War.

That is the same reason for same sex schools, Monks and Priests...I believe a woman can be a priest....but distractions ARE distractions....and multi-sex Front line is an issue we can live without in the mist of battle.

Women ARE as good as men, and can do the same things. But men have a few less hangups which make them a greater need.

They dont get pregnant, they dont get their period and attract guard dogs, they're 33% stonger and faster on average...and studies show that while women have better vision on average (PERFECT FOR FIGHTER PILOTS!!!) men have (on average! only) better hand eye coordination for shooting. (I'll post proof in a second)

I'm really not sexist...really...I just believe the right man (or woman!) for the job. And it's much easier to not deal with extra bullshit in the fog of war.[/QUOTE]

It's all in the wording. Previously your wording suggested that women should never be in the front line for any reason, even if they wanted to. Now what you are saying is that men and women both can be on the front lines just in separate squads...and that is acceptable.

I guess I just like to argue with people who try to say the just because I can get pregnant, I can't decide what's best for me or make my own choices about putting myself in danger.
 
Gamer's Girlfriend]by your above posts you have proven yourself to be 100% sexist in believing that women cannot do the job men do.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry you feel that way said:
Women have a mind of their own, they know the risk...they aren't stupid sex toys that can't reason and fend for themselves.

Men need to learn to respect a womans ability to think for herself.
No you might not WANT your wife, mom, or sister fighting with a chance at being killed...but who are you to say they can't? Do you not RESPECT them enough to let them make thier OWN desision? And what gives you the impression that women want thier men who they love to be on the front lines being killed?
Click to expand...

Women have been able to think for themselves and join the military for at least 70+ years. It's just much easier to do it with all one sex, pref. men for reasons above.

Gamer's Girlfriend]And if you want purist...do some research and you'll find that WOMEN did all of the fighting said:
They did all the hunting, but they didnt do all the fighting. It was the men who killed all the Neanderthals in Europe when we traveled from africa.
Click to expand...
 
Until women are all born with dicks and look just like me...then I'll believe that we have special talents that set us apart. Having been in the military, let me tell you...women make much better strategists and commanders than grunts.
Click to expand...

So having a dick makes you automatically a better soldier?


and studies show that while women have better vision on average (PERFECT FOR FIGHTER PILOTS!!!) men have (on average! only) better hand eye coordination for shooting. (I'll post proof in a second)
Click to expand...

On average, on average, on average, so ban all women yada yada. So a woman that could kick my ass, outrun me, and outfight me, should be kept off the front lines, and me put there instead. Because statistically guys are stronger. Even though you can put your hand around my scrawny wrist and my wife can beat me armwrestling. Because "statistically", people with dicks are stronger. Therefore, that = all women off the frontlines. Cause it's not statistically possible that a woman could be a better soldier than a man. Logical sense, right?

And the argument about men being able to better reproduce than woman, so women should be protected from the frontlines. Do we have some shortage of population in the United States that I'm not aware of? OMG Protect our breeding stock, there are so few of us!

Somehow I hear a certain Monty Python skit about witches weighing the same as a duck going through my head.
 
Gamer's Girlfriend]It's all in the wording. Previously your wording suggested that women should never be in the front line for any reason said:
Oh, you support segregation?

Women are inheritantly(sp?) physically inferior. This is fact. Quite frankly, I don't think MOST women could last on the front lines of a battle field. If they voluntarily decide they are fit, then I see no problem with, but I would never want to see a woman drafted or placed on the front line without her permission.
Click to expand...
 
Noone is ready to die for anything. That's complete bullshit. We live too well in the US to ever be ready to lay down our lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top