Women On The Battlefield

[PhuturePriest]

What. 

 

:|

 

 

I don't have time right now.  I have to go to class and learn about being a theologically sound disciple of Jesus.  

 

I'll have to crush the misogyny out of you later. 

 

Unless someone else wants to help.  

 

Ugh... It's not misogyny if you were taught it's science! :P

[Basilisa Marie]

Ugh... It's not misogyny if you were taught it's science! :P

 

THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS WRONG WITH THIS THREAD AND I AM SO OFFENDED BUT I HAVE NO TIME. 

 

Someone please deal with this lovely fetus. 

[GeorgiiMichael]

I don't care, but I would feel cranky if I was ever drafted...

 

Yeah, so would I.

 

FP, you can't win this one. And quite frankly, you're wrong. Philia and Eros are both incredibly strong forms of love, and to say that one is more powerful in a person's decision making during battle is ridiculous. Anyone would die for his/her friends as soon as he/she would die for a lover. 

 

And while yes, there are general physical differences between men and women in regards to capabilities, there are certainly women who could break your back, just as there are men who can't even lift the bar. These generalities should not limit those with different capabilities. Just because someone is a woman, that doesn't mean she should be dismissed from front line military service if she can kick as much butt as a dude. Similarly, a man shouldn't be dismissed from any military service just because they aren't as strong as a front line service person. 

 

Everyone has a right to serve if they meet certain physical requirements regardless of gender.

 

I just hope that this news comes with a crackdown on officers who protect rapists under their command.

[PhuturePriest]

You guys have been great! :smile3:

 

And as for the nine million explanations needed for this statement, I'm not disagreeing with any of you. I really have no formal stance on this. I was just curious what people thought about it is all, and I was secretly hoping for a Hasan vs. Winchester war which does not appear is going to happen. You have all made excellent points, and I am interested if you still have any thoughts on the subject.

Edited February 6, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[IcePrincessKRS]

Yeah, so would I.

 

FP, you can't win this one. And quite frankly, you're wrong. Philia and Eros are both incredibly strong forms of love, and to say that one is more powerful in a person's decision making during battle is ridiculous. Anyone would die for his/her friends as soon as he/she would die for a lover. 

 

And while yes, there are general physical differences between men and women in regards to capabilities, there are certainly women who could break your back, just as there are men who can't even lift the bar. These generalities should not limit those with different capabilities. Just because someone is a woman, that doesn't mean she should be dismissed from front line military service if she can kick as much butt as a dude. Similarly, a man shouldn't be dismissed from any military service just because they aren't as strong as a front line service person. 

 

Everyone has a right to serve if they meet certain physical requirements regardless of gender.

 

I just hope that this news comes with a crackdown on officers who protect rapists under their command.

 

That right there is the clincher. The fact of the matter is women ARE given a lower standard. It's FACT. Some people might not like hearing it, but it's true. The most that is expected out of a woman on her PT test is the minimum expected of a man. My opinions on this are pretty simple. I'm not gunning for it, but I'm not really opposed to it either. 1) Don't lower the standards in training just to push women through so we can say "Look! Women are graduating!" 2) If a woman is strong enough to haul my 200+ pound husband in full gear out of harm's way in a combat zone then she's earned her right to serve in a combat arms slot. I'll high five that woman.

Edited February 6, 2013 by IcePrincessKRS

[PhuturePriest]

That right there is the clincher. The fact of the matter is women ARE given a lower standard. It's FACT. Some people might not like hearing it, but it's true. The most that is expected out of a woman on her PT test is the minimum expected of a man. My opinions on this are pretty simple. I'm not gunning for it, but I'm not really opposed to it either. 1) Don't lower the standards in training just to push women through so we can say "Look! Women are graduating!" 2) If a woman is strong enough to haul my 200+ pound husband in full gear out of harm's way in a combat zone then she's earned her right to serve in a combat arms slot. I'll high five that woman.

 

I agree. If women are given equal training, I will have less of a problem with sending them onto the front lines. But if we knowingly send them in with inferior physical training just for the sake of saying there are lots of women graduating, I'm sorry to say we're practically throwing them away on the battlefield. I can't remember which ancient general said this, but he said "To throw untrained men into battle is to throw them away." Well, to throw less trained women into battle is to throw them away, too. I know a female Marine could knock my lights out any day. But I'm a civilian. What about a trained soldier? If the women are equal to the men, awesome sauce. But right now their training isn't as physically challenging, and we need to fix that if we're going to send them into battle.

[Slappo]

You mean to bloody tell me that a man is more willing to jump on a grenade for a woman, but not his BUDDY IN ARMS?  

What planet do you live on? 

 

Thanks for taking my post entirely out of context.

 

First point was against combat orders which could jepordize the mission and actually further endanger the troops.

Second point was a guy who quite possibly has a romantic interest in the girl is probably more likely to act irrational/disobey orders/jepordize the mission.

 

If I know my mission, and saving my buddy in arms life would jepordize that mission and quite probably cause further casualties, I'll probably stick with my orders. If it's my wife (or significant other, or crush, etc... nepotism rules may very well prevent spouses serving together in a combat zone) trapped in that foxhole, I'll probably go out rambo style shooting the place up.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Slappo

[PhuturePriest]

Thanks for taking my post entirely out of context.

 

First point was against combat orders which could jepordize the mission and actually further endanger the troops.

Second point was a guy who quite possibly has a romantic interest in the girl is probably more likely to act irrational/disobey orders/jepordize the mission.

 

If I know my mission, and saving my buddy in arms life would jepordize that mission and quite probably cause further casualties, I'll probably stick with my orders. If it's my wife (or significant other, or crush, etc... nepotism rules may very well prevent spouses serving together in a combat zone) trapped in that foxhole, I'll probably go out rambo style shooting the place up.

 

It's almost as if you're saying you feel more passionately about your wife/girlfriend than your guy friend! :o

Edited February 6, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[IcePrincessKRS]

What is your opinion on congress possibly lifting the ban on women being allowed to be sent into the front lines? I'm not taking a formal stance, but here are things to consider: When women are hurt, their reflexes and thinking abilities are impeded, whereas men generally think more clearly and their reflexes are not messed with. Also, men and women in the military are not given equal training. Biologically speaking, it is tougher for men (Because men are stronger, after all). But do we want women on the battlefield when we know they have inferior physical training?

 

I wouldn't call this misogynistic, but I do think that either you're misinformed or not expressing what you learned quite spot on. It's scientifically proven that men and women experience and react to pain and stress differently. But if you google that most studies aren't showing "column a: women's reactions, column b: men's reactions." They just say it's different, that women typically feel pain more intensely and men can handle pain for longer.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/men-women-pain.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=women-feel-pain-more-intensely

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0403-men_are_from_mars.htm

 

And then there's this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2264595/NOW-believe-Two-men-experience-simulated-labour-pain-TV-just-hours-lucky-dont-real.html#axzz2KAArlcxW

[PhuturePriest]

I wouldn't call this misogynistic, but I do think that either you're misinformed or not expressing what you learned quite spot on. It's scientifically proven that men and women experience and react to pain and stress differently. But if you google that most studies aren't showing "column a: women's reactions, column b: men's reactions." They just say it's different, that women typically feel pain more intensely and men can handle pain for longer.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/men-women-pain.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=women-feel-pain-more-intensely

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0403-men_are_from_mars.htm

 

And then there's this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2264595/NOW-believe-Two-men-experience-simulated-labour-pain-TV-just-hours-lucky-dont-real.html#axzz2KAArlcxW

 

Thank you. This helps quite a bit! And thank you for not calling me a misogynist. :hehe: But I know that this is an issue dear to many peoples' hearts, so I can see why they would take it so personally.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I hope you checked out that last link. :P

[PhuturePriest]

I hope you checked out that last link. :P

 

The last link is not accurate. First, they are experiencing pain just for the sake of pain. They have no motivation to keep going and they can get out whenever they want. You know more than I do that if you could have gotten out of the pains of labor, you would have in an instant. But you didn't have the opportunity to, and you underwent the pain out of love for your child. You had motivation. The only motivation these men had was pride. I'm not denying that women have more pain tolerance than men. But I am saying if women were put under this they would stop, too, because they have no motivation to keep going.

[IcePrincessKRS]

The last link is not accurate. First, they are experiencing pain just for the sake of pain. They have no motivation to keep going and they can get out whenever they want. You know more than I do that if you could have gotten out of the pains of labor, you would have in an instant. But you didn't have the opportunity to, and you underwent the pain out of love for your child. You had motivation. The only motivation these men had was pride. I'm not denying that women have more pain tolerance than men. But I am saying if women were put under this they would stop, too, because they have no motivation to keep going.

 

I don't really agree. You could use that logic for any pain study. I didn't have a choice. Getting a baby at the end wasn't motivation for me (the baby was the cause, for lack of a better term, not the motivation), if I could have stopped it at a moment's notice I would have. But I couldn't. I was, however, built with the necessary mechanisms to deal with it. And the way I dealt with it isn't exactly the same as any other woman (or person dealing with pain in general).

 

Anyway, the last link was meant more as a joke than anything else. :P

[PhuturePriest]

I don't really agree. You could use that logic for any pain study. I didn't have a choice. Getting a baby at the end wasn't motivation for me (the baby was the cause, for lack of a better term, not the motivation), if I could have stopped it at a moment's notice I would have. But I couldn't. I was, however, built with the necessary mechanisms to deal with it. And the way I dealt with it isn't exactly the same as any other woman (or person dealing with pain in general).

 

Anyway, the last link was meant more as a joke than anything else. :P

 

Well, women are built to undertake pain like that. But I am curious to see them strap women who have never had child birth up to that thing to see how long it takes for them to crack. Women do have better pain tolerance, so I wouldn't be surprised if they took it. I personally would use my superior strength to just smash the machine. :P

[Groo the Wanderer]

congrats kiddo!  you started a flamethread   :bananarap: