Women as Infantry..

[b said:
Quote[/b] (ByblosHex @ Sep. 27 2004,10:00)]Dark Virtue it isnt a myth its true. If it were false then women would be taking this into court, but they dont because they like it how it is. If they really wanted to grab an m-16 and blow away the enemy they would be fighting for it in court.

Dark Virtue, if women are allowed they will be drafted by the law.

Its not an assumption its true. Our soldiers kill for good not murder and still there are way less women willing to kill then men, we ARE NOT THE SAME! First look at violent games like unreal, sure girls play but arent 80% or more players male? How is this so?
WHy wont they fight for the country, because they dont want to and they shouldnt have to, CCGR said she would fight if they came to her house but she would rather leave it to the men.

Men are built for fighting, women are built for everything else...  Look in prison how many women are there for murder compared to men? Look at hte military how many women are there compared to men? Its not a myth its how it is and how its going to stay.
Click to expand...
Byblos, read the article. It states the arguement much better than we are doing, and we're already debunking yours.

You shouldn't have a belief like this and not understand the opposite point of view.
 
well if what you and this article say is such a great idea then why is my argument what is true? If women being infantry is such a good idea then why Does the USA army not allow it? YOu may agree with eachother but I agree with the ARMY.
 
The Army IS allowing it, small bits at a time. At one time women weren't allowed ANY part of the military, now they make up 17% or so.

Have you at least read the article by now? It's written by military personnel who are on the inside and actually understand the situation. It was written by Captain Adam N. Wojack, U.S. Army, so maybe you'll listen to him.

Is it a good idea to allow women equal rights? You've already said yes, but not that along ago, they had NO rights. Same with racial issues, not too long ago blacks had no rights. Change takes time Byblos, nothing changes overnight.
 
NOt all changes are for the better.

NOw we have gays trying to get married in our churches, its taking time and its wrong.
 
Lets stay on topic.. Just because the Army is by and large against the introduction of women into its forces doesn't mean that they're right. You said so yourself, tradition does not denote feasability, nor does it denote truth. Not all changes are for the better, but you have not given adequate reasons as to why this one isn't. You say that women aren't built to fight, and while this is generally true, not it is not ultimately so. To believe that it is is shallow and narrow minded, my friend. You say that women will be forced to fight during a draft situation. Yes, they would, but in all likeliness the men will be favored over the women, for obvious reasons. And entrance exams for women will be difficult, allowing only those who are truely up to the task of defending their country to be admited.
 
THey are right though.... NOt because thats what they are doing but because its right.

Now you accuse me of being shallow minded because I have stated that womena are not as good combatants as men... Its true, no crap there are exceptions...

You act like they let you fail the exams? YOu only way you could fail is if you were blind, disabled, really fat or completely idiotic.
 
"THey are right though.... NOt because thats what they are doing but because its right."

Who defines what is right and what is wrong? God? Where did God say it wasn't right for women to be in the military?
 
You can tell thats how he made it because like ive said a billion times, we are physically engineered for battle and they are not.... If that isnt evidence then whatever.
 
Once again, your argument doesn't hold water.

Being designed physically different doesn't have anything to do with the moral aspects of being allowed entry to the military.
 
Sure, but that is the exception, not the rule.

It is uncommon but known for women to be more capable physically, but Most women are capable of passing the test that doesnt mean they are capaiible of pulling the trigger at a human being.
 
This author sums it up nicely...

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The reality is that there is absolutely no intelligent, logical, sensible reason for women not to be in combat roles with the technological style of warfare that abounds today.

There are political, patriarchal, religious, and misogynistically stupid reasons to preclude women but they all belong in The Museum of Natural Idiocy next to chastity belts, urban legends, homophobia, promise creepers, senile senators, proselytizing preachers, and military machismo. The antiquated concepts that fill the closed minds of the "brotherhood of the sword", - the military establishment - with its tailhook mentality and its martenetistic attitude - have created a brain-lock that has polluted everything from the Congress to the media. "
Click to expand...

LINK

Canada has spent millions of dollars to advertise to persuade women to sign up for combat - in the infantry, armor, artillery and engineering trades.

I'm sorry Byblos, but it looks like you're on the losing end here.  It seems that women will be put in more roles in America's Army and that includes combat.  It won't happen overnight, but it is going to happen.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ByblosHex @ Sep. 23 2004,1:50)]Only respond if you understand what I am saying completely, if anything I say sounds absurd you are most likely misinterpreting my English....

DO you agree with this Factual Rule of the USA Army.
Women cannot serve as Infanty or front-line soldiers, as they are more prone to worse things then death. NOw some people can say thats sexist, but I belive its protecting them from what they may not understand until it is too late. I belive women have every right to serve in our military, but they can be as just as helpful as a pilot or medic. Now it is true that women are on average more accurate shooters, however they die more easily and arnt physcially constructed for combat as a man. I know a woman could be as succesful a soldier as a man, but in my opinion the risk isnt worth it. The enemy will do much worse to our women then our men and would most likely avoid killing them for these reasons. Some of you may call me sexist for thinking women should be protected, but they do not know the danger until it is too late. So, tell me what you think of these ARMY rules? and how would you feel if they were removed and women were fighting on the front line!?
Click to expand...
As a US veteran and Having many of my Female family member serve in the Army. I tend to think woman should not be on the front line, or in front line combat. Two reasons I have for this. I served for 6 year in the US Cavalry A male dominate combat arms unit. I spent the last 7 years a triage sergeant picking up eyes.

In the 1980’s the US military conduct a series of long exercises to evaluate woman for combat. These tests came up to prove that woman could not endure the stress of combat life. Extreme conditions, feminine hygiene, physical prowess. Other factor contributed to their finding.

NOW this is not all women!! I know a lot of women I would gladly be in combat with rather than some men I know. But if you give me 100 random men, and 100 random woman. The men will be better soldiers. Bottom line.

One factor a lot of folks by pass “MISS”” is that a man will desert his post to protect a woman. I’ve seen it happen time and time again. I myself feel in to the trap once or twice. You are sitting in a foxhole got your sectors of fire. And Ain’t it something you sift them beyond what you should to protect Tammy tentpeg, leaving your self and who else ever vulnerable.

Yes woman can to awesome things and some are a tough as nails( few and far between) But in the American Army, no. They have support roles. Direct combat, no, not be cause of rape and whatever. Because it will mess with a young soldier mind, and old salty dog too for that matter.

If this offends some folks , I am sorry, but that’s the way it is.
 
Now see? THAT was a cohesive, coherant point.

Thank you Montrez, not only for your post, but for your service as well.

I have a question for you though. Don't you think that if a woman could pass the physical tests required for combat duty that she should be allowed to participate? I understand that there are potential problems on the battlefield, but if we never try, then we will never get past these problems. There were potential problems when we first started desegrating units weren't there? But we got passed them. I think the same stumbling block is in front of us now. I think the majority of us men hold on to some form of chivalry when it comes to women, but if they prove themselves capable, then I say let them have their opportunity to serve their country as they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top