21 Apr 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziI agree with you that women are capable of performing the same tasks as male soldiers, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea to treat them the same as men if they meet the standards. Judging from the article, women in combat areas don't only run the normal risks, but also the risk of being raped/sexually assaulted/.. by their fellow soldiers. Is it wise to send soldiers who are more likely to be harmed out in the name of equality ?
just so i humor you and ignore your chauvinistic comments, all soldiers should be tested by the same standard, if the females do better than the males, why not allow them in. and you of course forget instances where physical prowess is less important. not to mention instances where it is thought that women would do even better than men, like supersonic flight.
Of course, if these extra risk can be sufficiently reduced, maybe by placing women in all female units (or at least units with enough women so they can take care of one another), then I can't find any good reasons why they couldn't serve in combat zones.
21 Apr 09
Originally posted by Bartsand whose fault is that women face sexual assault from men?
I agree with you that women are capable of performing the same tasks as male soldiers, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea to treat them the same as men if they meet the standards. Judging from the article, women in combat areas don't only run the normal risks, but also the risk of being raped/sexually assaulted/.. by their fellow soldiers. Is i ...[text shortened]... f one another), then I can't find any good reasons why they couldn't serve in combat zones.
let's be clear: rape is NEVER the victim's fault. a NO should be sufficient to stop rape, even if the victim is a playmate, even if the victim was walking around in a provokin outfit or even naked. if NO doesn't stop the rape, the rapist is an animal and deserves the full blame.
instead of taking care of the animals that rape, punish them, educate them, you are trying to remove temptation out of their way? that is never a good way to solve a problem.
"maybe by placing women in all female units"
and further the segregation? emphasize that women are not real soldiers and they are simply silly little girls playing war when they should be home playing house? and make these platoons carry out special tasks such as kitchen duty? cleaning the tanks? this idea furthers the notion that women soldiers are a distraction for male soldiers. as if the soldier is a special kind of male, that can't keep his dik in his pants. what will those soldiers do when they come back home? rape their female coworkers? demand their work environment be free of women so that they don't get distracted?
21 Apr 09
2 edits
Originally posted by RSMA1234Well what would you do if you were in a fox hole and you looked up and saw a group of hot looking women in string bikinis with guns coming your way?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8005198.stm
Begs the question as in whats the point of female soldiers....personaly I think they are more of a distraction and not really suited (in general) to a War enviroment...do you agree ?
No doubt, the military has already considered such a plan.
21 Apr 09
Originally posted by RSMA1234how about you put your money where your mouth is and prove it with a scientific study. and prove that education isn't a much more important aspect of a human being formation. and prove that women, humans in general are not sentient intelligent beings that can overcome certain shortcomings through sheer willpower.
.....
Lets be realistic, men and women are different, they think differently, act differently and are physical different
In general war is war and its a male area, women are just not suited to this
"women are just not suited to this"
why? women are not patriotic enough? women are not capable of violence? women are not capable of withstanding hardships?
this sentence alone is a sign of bigotry. you said women. instead of saying "some women". "some women are just not suited to this" is true just as "some men are just not suited to this". this is a dangerous road you started walking on, a road that has "blacks are not intelligent enough for management positions" and "gays are not real men" and other signs alongside it.
21 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziBack off a second, where did I say these rapes were the women's fault ? Where did I say I want to "take care of" the rapists ? And why is removing temptation/opportunity not a good way to prevent crimes ? Take a look at the front door lock on your house, you're doing the exact same thing.
and whose fault is that women face sexual assault from men?
let's be clear: rape is NEVER the victim's fault. a NO should be sufficient to stop rape, even if the victim is a playmate, even if the victim was walking around in a provokin outfit or even naked. if NO doesn't stop the rape, the rapist is an animal and deserves the full blame.
instead of t orkers? demand their work environment be free of women so that they don't get distracted?
Now I do get what you are saying. I myself would never accept my own proposed solution if we were talking about civilian life, however, we aren't. Were talking about armies in combat zones, lots of young man under lots of stress who haven't had sex in months. Can you guarantee the safety of the women serving with them, even if every sexual assault is reported and prosecuted, as it should be ? Here's one of the quotes from the article again, in case you missed it "I was less scared of the mortar rounds that came in every day than I was of the men who shared my food". Is that worth it in the name of equality ?
And let's end the post in the same vein as I started it, by pointing out you should stop your grotesque straw manning. Nowhere have I said what the task of these all female units should be, so where do you get the idiotic idea I think they should have any other role then regular units.
21 Apr 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziDonlt try and twist my words
how about you put your money where your mouth is and prove it with a scientific study. and prove that education isn't a much more important aspect of a human being formation. and prove that women, humans in general are not sentient intelligent beings that can overcome certain shortcomings through sheer willpower.
"women are just not suited to this"
why ...[text shortened]... for management positions" and "gays are not real men" and other signs alongside it.
You know that men and women are different, so lets get realistic shall we...women are not as strong as men simple........its not got anything to do with eductaion or colour or intelligence
21 Apr 09
Originally posted by Zahlanziyes you are saying that mothers shouldn't have jobs.
yes you are saying that mothers shouldn't have jobs. you haven't said anything about fathers going to war. is it wrong for them to leave the kids and go away?
females can do anything the men do, except they cannot pee standing up very easily.
for that matter, nobody is saying women should leave the children with a friend and go to war, but that is t ...[text shortened]... and the husband cannot be the "housewife". nothing says that both parents cannot have jobs.
oh really? when did I say that?
if you are a single parents you shouldn't be away from your child
agreed.
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by generalissimoYou didn't like my little Bill Hicks comment (although he originally used it in "gays in the military"😉?
[b]Anybody dumb enough to want to be a soldier
Yeah, Holland should have stayed under nazi control. You wouldn't want any dumb soldiers liberating you.[/b]
Me thinks you should read "catch 22" and grow up.
And maybe go to Nijmegen in the East of the Netherlands and ask what they think about the liberation.
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by RSMA1234There's plenty of evidence and informed speculation to suggest that there would be distinctly less wars for males to fight if more women were incorporated into 'male' decision making processes. Many men are just not suited to the task of avoiding war.
In general war is war and its a male area, women are just not suited to this
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by RSMA1234but your words do not need twisting. it is stereotypical thinking and therefore is wrong.
Donlt try and twist my words
You know that men and women are different, so lets get realistic shall we...women are not as strong as men simple........its not got anything to do with eductaion or colour or intelligence
some women are not as strong as some men. period. not all women are weak. and not all women are strong. and it doesn't even take strength to carry a rifle and shoot someone at 100 meters away. it takes simply skill and determination. willpower to do what they think its right.
you must understand that stereotypical thinking is harmful even if it is positive. "all blacks have huge schlongs" "all jews are successful bankers"
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by Bartsyou implied it. i know it was unintentional. but you implied it. by removing temptation from the soldiers you are basically saying "i am too lazy to adress the real issue, so i am gonna deny a group of people the right to equal treatment and the right to defend their country just so the fragile animals wouldn't be tempted"
Back off a second, where did I say these rapes were the women's fault ? Where did I say I want to "take care of" the rapists ? And why is removing temptation/opportunity not a good way to prevent crimes ? Take a look at the front door lock on your house, you're doing the exact same thing.
Now I do get what you are saying. I myself would never accept my own ...[text shortened]... o you get the idiotic idea I think they should have any other role then regular units.
like i said that is no way tot treat a problem. "Treat" shouldn't even be used here because you are not treating the problem you are postponing it.
will you remove temptation forever? what happens when those soldiers get home? place them in a male environment so that they are not tempted to rape or sexual harass their fellow workers?
"Were talking about armies in combat zones, lots of young man under lots of stress who haven't had sex in months."
there you go again. you talk as if it is not their fault they give in to their animalistic urges. that they will inevitably give in. that if they don't rape their fellow soldiers they will rape the iraqi girls, or their male fellow soldiers or if enough time had passed, a sheep. get it through your noggin. they are responsible for anything they do. they should be educated, psychically evaluated, educated. and if that fails, severely punished. can you protect anyone everywhere all the time?
the lock on mah door doesn't compare. by placing a lock on my door i am not denying the thief the right to be in mah home. by placing a lock on my door i am not moving away from the neighbourhood. and i am not preventing anything, i am making harder for the burglar to enter. your lock argument compares with the knives the women were carrying. to which i say kudos
"I was less scared of the mortar rounds that came in every day than I was of the men who shared my food"
what does that have to do with relocating the women? by your argument anyone in brooklyn or iraq or whatever unsafe place should simply be relocated because it is easier. if you would have read the article more thoroughly you would have seen what the woman thought about being transferred. like she was the reason there were problems. that she was the problem. problem was removed. i bet she felt great.
"only females platoons"
it doesn't matter that they will probably all be rookies and get themselves killed. it doesn't matter that you would have to give them female officers as well. it doesn't matter that they will have to share latrines and showers with males anyway unless you want them to set up camp 10 miles from any male platoon. it doesn't matter that it is gender segregation. it doesn't matter that diversity should be encouraged. it doesn't matter that if several women will get killed, the replacements will have to be brought from where? your idea is great!
22 Apr 09
Originally posted by generalissimo[b]yes you are saying that mothers shouldn't have jobs.
[b]yes you are saying that mothers shouldn't have jobs.
oh really? when did I say that?
if you are a single parents you shouldn't be away from your child
agreed.[/b]
oh really? when did I say that?[/b]
you implied it.
"well, if they're mothers they shouldn't be there. "
this is what you said. now if you think that this sentence is equivalent to "well, if they're fathers they shouldn't be there." then the discussion is over, i fully agree with you and you should in the future communicate more to avoid being grilled. yes, if you are a parent you shouldn't go to war. your responsibility to your child is more important than your responsibility to your country even if your are the most republican republican out there.
now, if you don't agree those two sentences are equivalent, then we have a problem. why would you say that? mothers shouldn't be there but fathers should? does that imply that mothers shouldn't stay away from their children but fathers could? and for how long of periods? does going to work from 9 to 5 is acceptable? should mothers get part-time jobs so they could better take care of the kids? how about no jobs so they won't be tired when they get home? you see how one little sentence can spark a counter argument, not to mention i have no intention of playing nice and sugar coat it?
the words that are coming out of your pie-hole are ammo. be careful what ammo you give me and your fellow debaters.