Women on the front lines??
Replies
-
Dead set against it. Women have no business on the front lines. I'm not ant-feminist or anything, I just think men and women have equally important, but essentially polar opposite roles in life. Men are the breadwinners and defenders, women are the nurturers. That's just my personal belief, since the OP asked for it,
Speak for yourself, nurturer.
Edited: I read that, and it seemed a little rough. I'm just trying to say that we should stop trying to superficially label men and women based on archaic gender roles. Not every woman is a nurturer, and I'll be the first to stand up and say no to that role.0 -
I'm begining to believe you truly are trolling for attention, as I doubt you have ever worn a uniform are enjoy the opportunity to malign the institution at every turn.
That said, you have an interesting manner of taking my words out of context, and bending them to suit yourself. So far as "mission accomplishment" is concerned, please explain to me....supported by empirical data, how the manpower pool we have now is unable to accomplish the mission, and that there is an overwhelming NEED to access another source? The policy change is merely on paper, as women obviously are already exposed to both danger and combat. Giving it a different name is simply that, a different name. If this is solely about "more opportunities" for woman, that argument is a far cry from mission success. And I personally fail to see what Jackie Robinson has to with this. The miltary integrated at the same time, and happens to be far more integrated (on the whole) than society writ large. Additionally, women ARE allowed to serve.....so your premise of exclusion is non-valid.
how am i maligning anything? and i havent been in the military but that doesnt mean my opinion is any less valid. have you served in political office? if not then by your logic maybe you shouldnt talk about political matters. its laughable that military people think civiilians opinions dont matter since they havent served.
and who cares if we need any more soldiers now or not...thats no reason to deny women the opportunity. and thinking of national security...there may come a time in 10 or 20 years where we are at war with a much more powerful enemy(China?) and we will need all the personnel that we can get. so better to start getting them integrated sooner rather than later. its not just an ethical issue its a national security issue.
jackie robinson is an analogy. its amazing how you guys cant see it. there was a time racists said we didnt need or want blacks in the military. that it would hurt the missions. and now we have sexists saying the same thing about women.0 -
Apparently YOU know more than everyone, so I do believe you should run for office and dictate policy. Us knuckle-draggers simply can't keep up with your superior intellect.
And so far as you comment regarding the President, I happen to be an independent who personally believes that both political parties are equally worthless. Nice try though....generalize much??
you are the one who is being sexist.
i said it was a guess. and typically when people start commenting on politicians at the top making wrong decisions these days its directed at obama.0 -
it is 2013 right? i havent time warped back to the 50's right?0
-
i wish i wasnt tired ...this has been most amusing...if this thread is still going tomorrow ill jump back in.0
-
Men are the breadwinners and defenders, women are the nurturers.
And for those of us women who are breadwinners and not nurturing by nature?
Maybe we should stop lumping people into the categories we believe they should fit into, and instead let people define their own roles, for their own lives.0 -
I am so pleased that somebody actually got that.
It was the highlight of my night! Haha!0 -
I'm begining to believe you truly are trolling for attention, as I doubt you have ever worn a uniform are enjoy the opportunity to malign the institution at every turn.
That said, you have an interesting manner of taking my words out of context, and bending them to suit yourself. So far as "mission accomplishment" is concerned, please explain to me....supported by empirical data, how the manpower pool we have now is unable to accomplish the mission, and that there is an overwhelming NEED to access another source? The policy change is merely on paper, as women obviously are already exposed to both danger and combat. Giving it a different name is simply that, a different name. If this is solely about "more opportunities" for woman, that argument is a far cry from mission success. And I personally fail to see what Jackie Robinson has to with this. The miltary integrated at the same time, and happens to be far more integrated (on the whole) than society writ large. Additionally, women ARE allowed to serve.....so your premise of exclusion is non-valid.
how am i maligning anything? and i havent been in the military but that doesnt mean my opinion is any less valid. have you served in political office? if not then by your logic maybe you shouldnt talk about political matters. its laughable that military people think civiilians opinions dont matter since they havent served.
and who cares if we need any more soldiers now or not...thats no reason to deny women the opportunity. and thinking of national security...there may come a time in 10 or 20 years where we are at war with a much more powerful enemy(China?) and we will need all the personnel that we can get. so better to start getting them integrated sooner rather than later. its not just an ethical issue its a national security issue.
jackie robinson is an analogy. its amazing how you guys cant see it. there was a time racists said we didnt need or want blacks in the military. that it would hurt the missions. and now we have sexists saying the same thing about women.
Look, it's late and I'm done arguing with you. I should have known better, but there're time times when I give in (against my better judgement). My issue with you is that you have no CONTEXT or FRAME OF REFERENCE when it comes to the military or military service (and I do when it comes to civilian life). Everyone who signs up does so taking an oath to support the constitution, and obey orders.....whether we like them or not. The problem I have with this new policy, and which you clearly articulated, is that it's about "opportunity", which is an entire different matter than accomplishing the mission. That is far down the list when it comes to military service. It's not a 9-5 job....it's not about "getting ahead". Folks who join for that reason are either sadly disappointed, or don't last long. And yet philosphers like you seem to believe that grafting civilian society (with all it's good, as well as bad) wholly onto the military framework should inherently be the ultimate goal. Sorry to tell you but there's not the way it works. There are plenty of theses out there which discuss the subject, so if you want actually learn about it, I'd suggest you read up. I'd ask you to take my word for it, but you won't....so I won't bother.
At this point, I'm content to agree to disagree, but apparently you'll probably just continue arguing. I don't have time to spend hours going back and forth with you about subjects you honestly don't know as much about as you believe you do. Feel free to keep posting if that's your wish, but I'm done....0 -
But there are just certain things that we (women) are not and will not ever be able to be equal with men at on a regular basis.
I also think that worse things will happen to a woman if she were ever captured than would a man.
Give examples. Please.
As a woman I will never be able to slap someone with "my" wiener...0 -
Apparently YOU know more than everyone, so I do believe you should run for office and dictate policy. Us knuckle-draggers simply can't keep up with your superior intellect.
And so far as you comment regarding the President, I happen to be an independent who personally believes that both political parties are equally worthless. Nice try though....generalize much??
you are the one who is being sexist.
i said it was a guess. and typically when people start commenting on politicians at the top making wrong decisions these days its directed at obama.
Yup, I'm sexist.....that MUST be it. I firmly believe that women should be kicked out of the military. Isn't that EXACTLY what I said??? Oh, and while we're at it, I think we should re-segregate, because I have no African-American friends, and couldn't possibly see them serving along side me in the military. If you were so sad in your hyperbole you'd actually be amusing.....
And yes, you've master the art of generalization. You made a wild guess assumption that because I was in the military I was anti-Obama. Way to go, you're apparently no better than me afterall.....who'd have thunk it?0 -
I know. I gotta get my apron back from my husbandMen are the breadwinners and defenders, women are the nurturers.
And for those of us women who are breadwinners and not nurturing by nature?
Maybe we should stop lumping people into the categories we believe they should fit into, and instead let people define their own roles, for their own lives.0 -
or write my name in the snow, or get a really lifted truck as compensationBut there are just certain things that we (women) are not and will not ever be able to be equal with men at on a regular basis.
I also think that worse things will happen to a woman if she were ever captured than would a man.
Give examples. Please.
As a woman I will never be able to slap someone with "my" wiener...0 -
or write my name in the snow, or get a really lifted truck as compensationBut there are just certain things that we (women) are not and will not ever be able to be equal with men at on a regular basis.
I also think that worse things will happen to a woman if she were ever captured than would a man.
Give examples. Please.
As a woman I will never be able to slap someone with "my" wiener...
Whhhhhhaaaaaat?!?! I have a lifted 1985 Ford truck0 -
All or nothing...I have NO issues with equality BUT i believe it should be EQUAL. You have to take the good with the bad. Do I think the front line would be a good place for a woman? Probably not but you want to be military and fighting wars is part of it. If your military role normally requires front line action then you need to be out there doing it. Otherwise, DON"T join it's your call. If you can't handle it, stay home. No one will think any less of you for it.0
-
So I heard this morning on the radio that the US Military is now going to allow women on the front lines. I am all for the gender equality bit in business. For example, I do the same job as a guy but he gets paid considerably more isn't right. Equal pay for equal work is how I feel. But there are just certain things that we (women) are not and will not ever be able to be equal with men at on a regular basis. I also think that worse things will happen to a woman if she were ever captured than would a man. How do you feel about the new ruling?
I think:
a) If someone wants to sign up, fight and die for their country, then that's their business - male or female. As long as they are legally an adult and capable of making the decision for themselves, then why not?
b) Male soldiers are often captured tortured raped and killed - how is it any different?
In what way do you think that women soldiers will be somehow "lesser" than their male counter parts?0 -
I'm begining to believe you truly are trolling for attention, as I doubt you have ever worn a uniform are enjoy the opportunity to malign the institution at every turn.
That said, you have an interesting manner of taking my words out of context, and bending them to suit yourself. So far as "mission accomplishment" is concerned, please explain to me....supported by empirical data, how the manpower pool we have now is unable to accomplish the mission, and that there is an overwhelming NEED to access another source? The policy change is merely on paper, as women obviously are already exposed to both danger and combat. Giving it a different name is simply that, a different name. If this is solely about "more opportunities" for woman, that argument is a far cry from mission success. And I personally fail to see what Jackie Robinson has to with this. The miltary integrated at the same time, and happens to be far more integrated (on the whole) than society writ large. Additionally, women ARE allowed to serve.....so your premise of exclusion is non-valid.
how am i maligning anything? and i havent been in the military but that doesnt mean my opinion is any less valid. have you served in political office? if not then by your logic maybe you shouldnt talk about political matters. its laughable that military people think civiilians opinions dont matter since they havent served.
and who cares if we need any more soldiers now or not...thats no reason to deny women the opportunity. and thinking of national security...there may come a time in 10 or 20 years where we are at war with a much more powerful enemy(China?) and we will need all the personnel that we can get. so better to start getting them integrated sooner rather than later. its not just an ethical issue its a national security issue.
jackie robinson is an analogy. its amazing how you guys cant see it. there was a time racists said we didnt need or want blacks in the military. that it would hurt the missions. and now we have sexists saying the same thing about women.
Look, it's late and I'm done arguing with you. I should have known better, but there're time times when I give in (against my better judgement). My issue with you is that you have no CONTEXT or FRAME OF REFERENCE when it comes to the military or military service (and I do when it comes to civilian life). Everyone who signs up does so taking an oath to support the constitution, and obey orders.....whether we like them or not. The problem I have with this new policy, and which you clearly articulated, is that it's about "opportunity", which is an entire different matter than accomplishing the mission. That is far down the list when it comes to military service. It's not a 9-5 job....it's not about "getting ahead". Folks who join for that reason are either sadly disappointed, or don't last long. And yet philosphers like you seem to believe that grafting civilian society (with all it's good, as well as bad) wholly onto the military framework should inherently be the ultimate goal. Sorry to tell you but there's not the way it works. There are plenty of theses out there which discuss the subject, so if you want actually learn about it, I'd suggest you read up. I'd ask you to take my word for it, but you won't....so I won't bother.
At this point, I'm content to agree to disagree, but apparently you'll probably just continue arguing. I don't have time to spend hours going back and forth with you about subjects you honestly don't know as much about as you believe you do. Feel free to keep posting if that's your wish, but I'm done....
So you are saying that the US has all the resources it needs, there is no point expanding it's pool - in which case why bother recruiting any more?
The only difference is you would open the registration up to a wider group of people, thus meaning you have a greater selection to pick the finest from.
Yes it would disrupt at first, but people would have to get on with the job. This is literally no different an issue from previous race segregation. People said it would disrupt and they weren't needed, but it is not argument enough to say that we can 'do without' women. They should be afforded the same opportunities as anybody else.
As long as there aren't different rules for different sexes then there should be no need to worry about who can or can't do the job properly since all will have passed exactly the same training.
If there is a culture within the military that people act in a certain manner, then if women will be offended by that then it is clearly not the job for them, but the decision should not be made for them.
I think you would find within a relatively short period of time that the division would be forgotten by all but the most fervent of bigots, particularly once it was displayed that women aren't that different after all.
It would be an important time though - the women would be under heightened scrutiny and would have to operate at 110% just to 'fit in' for a time. Any mishap caused by a woman would be seized upon...
But come on people - haven't we seen starship troopers?! Who wouldn't want Dizzy watching out for them?!0 -
I'm a veteran. Here women serve in the front line, it seems to work still.
BTW if you believe men aren't raped in captivity you're just wrong.0 -
But come on people - haven't we seen starship troopers?! Who wouldn't want Dizzy watching out for them?!
Bewbs0 -
you said it better then i could hun. btw man or woman gay or straight and everything inbetween I am so much respect for all in the service! Just thank you and i cannot say that enough, thank you all that are in the serviceSo I heard this morning on the radio that the US Military is now going to allow women on the front lines. I am all for the gender equality bit in business. For example, I do the same job as a guy but he gets paid considerably more isn't right. Equal pay for equal work is how I feel. But there are just certain things that we (women) are not and will not ever be able to be equal with men at on a regular basis. I also think that worse things will happen to a woman if she were ever captured than would a man. How do you feel about the new ruling?
I think:
a) If someone wants to sign up, fight and die for their country, then that's their business - male or female. As long as they are legally an adult and capable of making the decision for themselves, then why not?
b) Male soldiers are often captured tortured raped and killed - how is it any different?
In what way do you think that women soldiers will be somehow "lesser" than their male counter parts?0 -
But come on people - haven't we seen starship troopers?! Who wouldn't want Dizzy watching out for them?!
<thinks about the shower scene.... and the 'Dizzy in the tent' scene.... and the shower scene again... then a remix of the two> ... >*<
I'm sorry.... what were we talking about again? Co-ed showers in the military?!
FTR, I'm for it IF:
1) Women must volunteer for frontline combat duty, cannot be forcibly-assigned to it
2) A universal standard must be set and passed, no separate standards
3) Set a trail window (a year or whatever makes sense) to re-evaluate based on pre-specified criteria. If all metrics met, then it's a permanent change.0 -
It's about time! I'm sure men and women both know the risks of enlisting in the armed forces. If they want to be on the front line, they shouldn't be held back just because they have a vagina.0
-
or write my name in the snow, or get a really lifted truck as compensation
[/quote]
I can write MY name in the snow but it's rather illegible. I keep tripping.0 -
This whole thread once again demonstrates to me how little our nation really knows about its military. Many great points have been made, both for and against, however the overarching theme I read is that our military and civilian sectors are completely out of touch.
Having served over 20 years and still serving and yes in a combat role I often see evidence our politicians are out of touch with the military but if this MFP microcosm of society is any representation of society as a whole we have a bigger gap in understanding then even I realized.
Can women serve in combat, yes.
Have they been serving in combat, yes.
Will this rule change anything, not really. It is a feel good move for politicians that has been coming for a long time. Not to say it is a horrible decision, but it is a lot of smoke and mirrors as well. The women in combat roles they are espousing only puts women (that volunteer and pass the requirements) in battalion level support roles. It still wont make a woman an infantry platoon commander or a tanker etc etc. The 5 (some say 7) combat specific specialities will still be all male. That fact has been pointed out here quite a few times but no one seems to take note.
That said, the wars of the past decade truly have no front lines and the sad shameful fact is that regardless of women or men in combat we DO NOT train all of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines for combat. So those that are not trained for combat (truck drivers, ammo techs, cooks etc etc etc) that find themselves in a convoy hit by an IED and then face first in an ambush do NOT have the training to adequately deal with it...see Jessica Lynch Iraq war. In those cases, they have to wait for people like me, to try and fight our way to them and then find them all after they have done the best they can with the limited training they do have. So a better argument would be, dont send anyone to a combat zone without adequate infantry training regardless of specialty.
My two cents0 -
I agree 100%!!!!!!0
-
My ex husband is a war vet and doesn't like this idea. I would hold his opinion above that of anyone else who hasn't been in combat.0
-
I thought the argument they had used for the UK army, and the same reason for not allowing homosexuals was that they did not want people in 'front line' situations to develop intimate relationships with fellow soldiers, as this could compromise their decision making with emotion.
I note that for some parts at least, the UK army DOES have different entry requirements for men and women, which does seem like sexism to me.
There is also the final issue which I do know put a lot of business off employing women (and more often in my experience, when it's another woman recruiting) - pregnancy. (And I should note that the people I hear moaning about it most are other women - generally moaning about how others can be rather cheeky with the way they work it - getting a new job and training when they are trying for a baby, taking maternity leave and not coming back etc.
Probably far less of an issue for the Army really I'd have thought as they can easily absorb the loss of staff.0 -
Yikes! Touchy subject. I think that it would be difficult for men to work with women on the front lines. An army guy friend of mine told me that when a woman steps into the equation, men naturally will try to defend or help her out. It's not that women are weak and can't do her job... but even "nowadays" good men try to protect women. The mission becomes "protect her, and do my job" rather than just "do my job." Sometimes, theres not room for both.
If someone put me on the front lines.... I'd be an emotional crazy wreck. But thats just me.
There is a flip side to this as well. Rape is a huge problem in our own military. They are fighting on the same team yet women are being raped in theater at an alarming rate. Putting them on the 'front lines' as it were, makes their chances much worse, as those assaults are reported less and covered up more often.
There are also many, many men in the military that harass women as they feel they shouldn't be there or can't watch their back as a man would.
Women have it pretty hard in the US military. If they want to make things harder for themselves then go for it. But women should be held to the same physical standards rather than having easier physical tests.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions